@roamer_1 My religious obligations are mine, not the business of the entire Country. We are told that separation exists, that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion (no official religion) nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is the 'separation of church and state' the Liberals hammer us with. Now I am being told to support a Liberal program because, well, WWJD?
My friend, this is no theocracy, even though most of our laws are based on Judeo/Christian ethos. In my family, when we can get the meddlers of government out of the way, we take care of our own. My wife and I have had as many as four grandchildren living under our roof at the same time, and have provided for their needs with never a dime from the government, in fact paying our taxes the whole time. That obligation, however, is one of family. It is how things are done, in both the Chippewa culture my wife was raised in, and in the Southern influenced English/Irish/Scots culture I was raised in dating back to the colonial era (1600s). That, in both sides of the family, is just how things are done. Those moral obligations are not binding on anyone else, that is very much a personal matter.
The compact between the States that formed the Constitution, however, is the law by which we have all agreed to live. In that law, there are no moral obligations (despite the apparent codification of some) only legal ones. The government is not The Almighty, though His Law is the main basis of our government, not just at the Federal level, but at the State level (if you don't like the rules in one state, you can move, trust me), and even local law governs the day to day actions of most folks.
However, that law, whether we would judge it to be moral or not, is not a question of morality so much as legality, of ethics, not morals, and without an eternal soul, Government, as an entity is not morally bound whatsoever aside from the individual moral influences of the governed, raised in unity on the law, whether those morals are heartfelt or just a cheap emotional mechanism to make people feel guilty to screw them once again.
The mechanisms are in place to take care of those who CANNOT care for themselves, from the Social Security tax, which many would argue is unconstitutional in and of itself, which is going to be in serious fiscal trouble because the Congress looted those funds to buy votes. Yet Americans paid into it, having been promised a return or survivor benefits for their family, and even disability payments should they become injured. It is already a mess. Yet those looted funds often went to programs for 'the poor', and an entire industry of Social Workers and counselors was created and supported, employing a multitude of officers, "for the poor".
Look here
http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years at the 'war on poverty' and see what we got. In 50 years it has cost more than all the (military) wars this country has been in.
As spending on the poor (not counting Social Security and medicare) went up, poverty
stabilized, it didn't go down.
What? Why? Because the incentives to improve one's lot native to being poor were taken out of the picture by government largess, purchased with money extracted from the wages of those who worked, at the threat of prosecution or imprisonment.
Government "charity" has been a dismal failure overall.
More food for thought:
From this site,
http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm an account of Col. David Crockett's encounter with A farmer in his home district.(There is even more at the site. I had seen this story elsewhere as well.
The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.
...Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. "Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: "I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way. "The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. "So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: 'Don't be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.' He replied: "'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.' "I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .' "' Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.' "This was a sockdolager .... I begged him to tell me what was the matter. "'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. ... But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.' "'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.' "'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?' "'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.' "'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?'
There is more at the site.
http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htmSo I will ask, by what Constitutional Authority does the House of Representatives (or the Congress,
in toto) vote to contribute from the public monies to the benefit of a few?
That which is taken from the general public and redistributed to a few, no matter the cause, as charity is not. The members of Congress may (and commonly are in a better fiscal position to) contribute of their own money and call that charity. The rest of us have no say in the matter, so charity it isn't. Wrap that in anything you want, it won't cover the smell.
In fact, it robs the people of the means by which they might have exercised their free will to engage in charitable acts, and of any choice to do so in that particular matter, unless they dig even deeper in their pockets for more money. However the funds collected by government are increasingly being used to provide the ordinary means of life to the multitude, be that three meals a day in school, day care (after school programs), housing, food, even phones.
Again, by what Constitutional Authority?
Does anyone think it wise to add yet another program, to eliminate the personal fiscal reasons for living cleanly, and staying healthy, as if that will reduce cost? It did not work with being 'poor'.
