The Primary Function of Gov't

[The T]

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961 John F. Kennedy





"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990 George H.W. Bush
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954 Dwight Eisenhower


In short, taking care of one's elderly, it sick, it's disabled, it's vets, are the measure of an advanced society as well as a compassionate one. This is simple concept is something that many people have understood and still do, no matter the political connection. The elderely are often those who great shoulders who we stand upon that built the nation we debate over. To abandon them, is to steal the heritage that we were given and cast aside a promise to those who will come after us. I submit we are better than this as a nation and as a people, and to simply dismiss things because of financial reasons is to not seek the answers that will make it stronger. It's my hope that our nation learns soon that financial matters are but one part of making a great nation and not all the parts that make it what it is and we can start by realizing that its a good thing to seek the counsel of those that came before us and take care of them.

Great post Navy! Here are some more words of wisdom from President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter he wrote to his brother: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

And more words of wisdom from President Thomas Jefferson:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those would not."

And lets not forget

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds we will have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for another...till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

"But...but...this is 2011...these times have no bearing on what they said back then..."

/Sarcasm...

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

However hard hearted it might seem, the Founders never intended for government to dispense charity however great the need might be, for government to provide charity gives government the right to take away property from the people and transfer that property to whomever it deemed worthy to receive it. The Founders rightly knew that would quickly erode all rights and freedom of the people who would then have given government the power to determine what their rights would or would not be.

A moral society indeed takes care of those who cannot care for themselves. But a moral society does so by the people, not the federal government.

The government is WHOM???

 

[Bfgrn]

Great post Navy! Here are some more words of wisdom from President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter he wrote to his brother: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

And more words of wisdom from President Thomas Jefferson:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those would not."

And lets not forget

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds we will have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for another...till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

"But...but...this is 2011...these times have no bearing on what they said back then..."

/Sarcasm...

Misquoting Jefferson

 

[bripat9643]

The government is WHOM???

The government is not the people.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And more words of wisdom from President Thomas Jefferson:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those would not."

And lets not forget

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds we will have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for another...till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

"But...but...this is 2011...these times have no bearing on what they said back then..."

/Sarcasm...

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.


Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

 

[Divine Wind]

Rather than a concept of a central government that would dictate to the people what their rights and privileges would be, the Founders instead for the feeral government to secure, protect, and defend what God given rights and privileges the people were deemed to already have. Then the people would govern themselves rather than be governed by a central government.

The Founders wanted a central government strong enough to secure the rights of the people but not strong enough that it could take them away.

Agreed and, as you posted previously, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are clear on these powers.

For the last hundred years or so, politicians have been gradually, increment by increment, wresting the power to govern away from the people and shifting it more into an ever more intrusive, invasive, dictatorial, and authoritarian government.

And if we don't turn that around very soon, we will lose the United States of America that the Founders gave us and will become something quite different from that.

Also agreed.....and those seeking to wrest that power to govern away from "We, the People" aren't always Left Wing Loonies either. It wasn't the LWLs who pushed the Patriot Act and favored spending time debating whether or not "In God We Trust" should be our national motto when they should be focused on cutting expenses and balancing the budget.

Is it a function of the Federal government to promote religion or pass laws violating the Constitution? Not in my opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rather than a concept of a central government that would dictate to the people what their rights and privileges would be, the Founders instead for the feeral government to secure, protect, and defend what God given rights and privileges the people were deemed to already have. Then the people would govern themselves rather than be governed by a central government.

The Founders wanted a central government strong enough to secure the rights of the people but not strong enough that it could take them away.

Agreed and, as you posted previously, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are clear on these powers.

For the last hundred years or so, politicians have been gradually, increment by increment, wresting the power to govern away from the people and shifting it more into an ever more intrusive, invasive, dictatorial, and authoritarian government.

And if we don't turn that around very soon, we will lose the United States of America that the Founders gave us and will become something quite different from that.

Also agreed.....and those seeking to wrest that power to govern away from "We, the People" aren't always Left Wing Loonies either. It wasn't the LWLs who pushed the Patriot Act and favored spending time debating whether or not "In God We Trust" should be our national motto when they should be focused on cutting expenses and balancing the budget.

Is it a function of the Federal government to promote religion or pass laws violating the Constitution? Not in my opinion.

I disagree that it is anybody but LWLs who want to dismantle the existing Constitution and replace it with far more leftist concepts. The Constitution already supports all American conservative concepts. And it was just about EVERYBODY who agreed to the Patriot Act following the first successful major attack by a foreign power on American soil since Pearl Harbor. There was broad partisan support in the House and only one dissenting vote in the Senate for that legislation deemed essential to give the government the necessary authority to provide the common defense and secure our rights. Had the Patriot Act not been passed, it is a near certainty that there would have been more attacks of the scale of 9/11in the decade following. Certainly our enemy did not intend one strike and then they would leave us alone.

Even the LWLs have to admit that as the Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or a super majority of Democrats have not voted to rescind or defund the Patriot Act though they could do so at any time.

However, whether rightwing or leftwing, I do agree that it is the Loonies who want the Federal government to dictate social policy, law, and process that is not even mentioned, much less intended to be allowable in our Constitution.

 

[Divine Wind]

I disagree that it is anybody but LWLs who want to dismantle the existing Constitution and replace it with far more leftist concepts. The Constitution already supports all American conservative concepts. And it was just about EVERYBODY who agreed to the Patriot Act following the first successful major attack by a foreign power on American soil since Pearl Harbor. There was broad partisan support in the House and only one dissenting vote in the Senate for that legislation deemed essential to give the government the necessary authority to provide the common defense and secure our rights.

"Broad partisan support" loses its meaning when we consider the lack of spinal fortitude among our Congressional representatives. The Democrats are notorious for lacking the spine to stand up for "right" when the GOP wraps themselves in the flag and declares anyone who opposes them to be unpatriotic.

You and I will have to disagree on the necessity of violating the Constitution to expedite our defenses against terrorism. Suffice it to say I completely agree with the Benjamin Franklin quote regarding Security and Liberty.

When we chip away at the Constitution I am often reminded of the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller. If we don't stand up against every person who chips away at the Constitution, regardless of reason or party affiliation, soon there won't be any Constitution to defend.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot on one hand mandate that the federal government provide for the common defense and on the other hand refuse them the means to do that. That would be like sending cops out to deal with the mob but they are not allowed to protect anybody or arrest anybody or ask any questions. For that matter its like trying to enforce a perfectly reasonable and just immigration system but deny the ability to identify the illegals to those charged with the responsibility to do that.

Perhaps in this high tech age in which information is transferred at lightning speed, you are wiling for the terrorist to simply come here and operate at will with total protection of the law. People like me, however, do not want to give license to the terrorist to kill, maim, or destroy us and there be no way to identify or catch them. Just ability given to law enforcement must of course be mitigated with due diligence to NOT abuse or violate the rights and privacy of the citizen in the process of protecting the citizen. But I am not willing to risk my children, grandchildren, or any other people just to keep the government from flagging and reading an innocent e-mail now and then.

Had the Patriot Act been in effect, Timothy McVeigh would likely have been caught and stopped long before he murdered all those people in Oklahoma City. He was already leaving a deep, wide electronic trail before that fateful day. Whose rights would have really been violated to catch and stop him? The people he murdered certainly had their rights violated.

 

[Divine Wind]

You cannot on one hand mandate that the federal government provide for the common defense and on the other hand refuse them the means to do that.

Of course not. Who is suggesting that?

Perhaps in this high tech age in which information is transferred at lightning speed, you are wiling for the terrorist to simply come here and operate at will with total protection of the law.

Strawman argument. I suggested no such thing.

Had the Patriot Act been in effect, Timothy McVeigh would likely have been caught and stopped long before he murdered all those people in Oklahoma City.

Maybe. Further, if we totally ditch the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, I bet we will have a lot less crime, terrorism and more safety for "children, grandchildren, or any other people". Of course, we wouldn't be the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, but so what? We'd be safer from the terrorists, right?

Since you missed the point in my previous post, let me reiterate:

Here's another one that many Americans these days don't seem to appreciate:

"Freedom has a taste, and for those who have fought for it, the taste is so sweet the protected will never know."

Hiding behind bars and locked doors may be safe, but it certainly is not free. Violating the Constitution to allow government forces to violate our rights so that we may have the illusion of greater safety is not my idea of freedom nor what I believe being an American is all about.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot on one hand mandate that the federal government provide for the common defense and on the other hand refuse them the means to do that.

Of course not. Who is suggesting that?

Perhaps in this high tech age in which information is transferred at lightning speed, you are wiling for the terrorist to simply come here and operate at will with total protection of the law.

Strawman argument. I suggested no such thing.

Had the Patriot Act been in effect, Timothy McVeigh would likely have been caught and stopped long before he murdered all those people in Oklahoma City.

Maybe. Further, if we totally ditch the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, I bet we will have a lot less crime, terrorism and more safety for "children, grandchildren, or any other people". Of course, we wouldn't be the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, but so what? We'd be safer from the terrorists, right?

Since you missed the point in my previous post, let me reiterate:

Here's another one that many Americans these days don't seem to appreciate:

"Freedom has a taste, and for those who have fought for it, the taste is so sweet the protected will never know."

Hiding behind bars and locked doors may be safe, but it certainly is not free. Violating the Constitution to allow government forces to violate our rights so that we may have the illusion of greater safety is not my idea of freedom nor what I believe being an American is all about.

Now who is building a straw man? We need give up no freedom or rights whatsoever in order to have a Patriot Act. The government has ALWAYS had the ability to intercept communications in time of war or other national emergency. But up until modern times we had only snail mail and the early primitive telephone and couriers to intercept and there was time to get a search warrant/authority to tap telephone lines do searches. The government has ALWAYS had ability to check mail leaving the country and going elsewhere most especially during wartime.

But now we have throw away cell phones that are purchased at convenience stores and lightning fast e-mail and such that which allows for no time to get a warrant in order to intercept suspect communications. So we are not to allow those charged to protect and defend us the ability to make the necessary interception of communications in order to do that?

Sometimes common sense really needs to be our guide.

Do you consider any illustration such as Oklahoma City to be a straw man when we discuss whether the role of government includes the Patriot Act in order to provide for the common defense? The more onerous parts of the Patriot Act, immediately necessary in the aftermath of 9/11, have been removed from the Patriot Act. What is left I believe most common sense lawmakers on both sides of the aisle believe is necessary in order for the government to perform its Constitutional responsibility.

 

[Divine Wind]

We need give up no freedom or rights whatsoever in order to have a Patriot Act. The government has ALWAYS had the ability to intercept communications in time of war or other national emergency.

Disagreed that we gave up no rights under the original (and to some extent, current) Patriot Act: US Constitution vs. The Patriot Act

Government hasn't "ALWAYS had the ability to intercept communications in time of war". If the supposition is that government gains its power from the will of the people, then "We, the People" gave it the right to violate the Constitution in "time of war or other national emergency". Government doesn't have rights, WE, the citizens of America do.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't want to fuss with you DW. I've laid out what I believe the Patriot Act is all agout and I am pretty sure I am on reasonably solid footing for the precedents that form the rationale for it.

You obviously disagree and that's your prerogative. I apparently see providing for the common defense in a somewhat different light than you do. Any more is too/is not argument will just continue in the same circle.

So let's agree to disagree.

 

[Divine Wind]

You obviously disagree and that's your prerogative. I apparently see providing for the common defense in a somewhat different light than you do.

Yes. I believe our government should provide for the common defense without violating the Constitution even if some Nervous Nellies are willing to shred the Bill of Rights for the illusion of security it might provide.

 

[Navy1960]

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

However hard hearted it might seem, the Founders never intended for government to dispense charity however great the need might be, for government to provide charity gives government the right to take away property from the people and transfer that property to whomever it deemed worthy to receive it. The Founders rightly knew that would quickly erode all rights and freedom of the people who would then have given government the power to determine what their rights would or would not be.

A moral society indeed takes care of those who cannot care for themselves. But a moral society does so by the people, not the federal government.

I might point out that the people are the ones who are supposed to make up the Federal Govt. and are it's rightful owners. To advocate that Seniors, Vets., the disabled are better off at the hands of chairty ( i.e. churches, private giving ) is to not understand how these groups lived prior to the advent of Social Security , Medicare, Veterans Benefits, and disability. In fact the Federal Govt, is not this nameless, faceless beast that is there to stand in the way of people. It is you and I who by the power of our vote, who decide what kind of Govt. we wish. If by apathy and the sheer lack of participation in that Govt. it becomes not what we wish it to be then there is I submit one way to change it and that is to vote. As to charitable giving, like us, the Founding fathers were made up of all sort of men of all sorts of beliefs, and the constitution is a result frankly of all those those beliefs which many were compromised to craft it. They did indeed create a Supreme Court which according to the constituion has ruled on the subject of Social Security many times, and in so doing, made it no less constitutional than anything else. I submit that if anyone so chooses to change these programs then by all means seek redress through the courts, or vote for those candidates that will do so. I will stand by my original statment however and that is, that many Americans past and present, Presidents, Generals, on down have not only enjoyed the benefits I have described, but they earned it, and the nation in which we debate would not exist would it not be for them. So to debate on the merits of whether or not the Federal Govt. or the people are better at is a non starter because they are one in the same. The Federal Govt. I might remind you, that the very constitution that formed our Govt. starts out with these words , "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union".

While I respect each and everyone of my fellow citizens opinions, to dismiss our elderly, our Vets. and our disabled or simply say, send them to others for handouts, because it's my money, is to take from the nation you live in and and not respect where you come from. Here's something to consider, these people you wish to send for handouts, are often times people that sacrificed in the jungles of Vietnam, or had the distinct pleasure of flying Alpha Strikes downtown, or could have been a man that was injured in combat, or a woman that worked in factory building that favorite classic car. I will remind everyone here, look around you, computers, roads, cars, jets, these things are the result of the sacrifice of generations that came before you, and are what we enjoy from their sacrifice. If we choose not to respect them when they need it most, then we as a nation will in the end fade away.

"[This law] assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half century ago.. . . [The Social Security Amendments of 1983 are] a monument to the spirit of compassion and commitment that unites us as a people."-- Ronald W. Reagan, April 20, 1983

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't want to fuss with you DW. I've laid out what I believe the Patriot Act is all agout and I am pretty sure I am on reasonably solid footing for the precedents that form the rationale for it.

You obviously disagree and that's your prerogative. I apparently see providing for the common defense in a somewhat different light than you do. Any more is too/is not argument will just continue in the same circle.

So let's agree to disagree.

I will also agree to disagree with you on the patriot act. I feel we gave up a lot of liberty in the name of security with the patriot act. I will admit at the time I wasn't as against it as I am now but the more I looked into it the less I liked the powers it gave the govt which it previously didn't have.

Its tough because a lot of the patriot act was good too and necessary but there are some parts that give the govt too much authority to ignore individual liberties of citizens.

 

[numan]

Government hasn't "ALWAYS had the ability to intercept communications in time of war". If the supposition is that government gains its power from the will of the people, then "We, the People" gave it the right to violate the Constitution in "time of war or other national emergency". Government doesn't have rights, WE, the citizens of America do.

The American people have been systematically driven insane. They no longer have the mental or moral power to save themselves.

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”

What have already destroyed America are its archaic Constitution, militarism, and the influence of money in government.

Táng bì dang che
The mantis raises its arms to stop the chariot

.

 

[Rozman]

I just want a president who gives the same speech everyday....

Oh wait... we have that now....

 

[numan]

'

América tiene menos años que Rusia. Yo siempre...he sostenido que era un pueblo primitivo camouflado por los últimos inventos....

América no ha sufrido aún; es ilusorio pensar que pueda poseer las virtudes del mando.
---Ortega y Gasset, La Rebelión de las Masas

America is younger than Russia. I have always...maintained that it is a primitive people, camoflaged by the latest inventions....

America has not yet suffered. It is an illusion to think that it can possess the virtues of command."

.

 

[The T]

I just want a president who gives the same speech everyday....

Oh wait... we have that now....

Obama...the SOSDD POTUS! (Doesn't get any better than that, does it)?