What is wrong with providing for the welfare of others that can't provide for themselves?

I am firmly committed to providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Nonetheless, it is still welfare. Therefore, when a truly needy person is involved, I support welfare.

 

If we are going to get Biblical, I would add that the Bible also says, to paraphrase, that if you don't work you don't eat. I would interpret that to mean that if you are capable of providing for your family, you should do so or suffer the consequences.

 

My point remains to be that we are going a bit afield in just who is and is not able to provide for themselves and their families. Also, I believe a lot of this overdone concern of politicians has more to do with garnering more votes than it does with compassion.

If it is a program for those that are able to provide for themselves, I would agree with you.

 

But it is not. It is for kids who did not chooose to be put in the position they are.

 

Won't get a disagreement from me on those taking care of themselves, but when you put kids in the mix.

 

Remember why did the early church get deacons in Acts? To take care of the widows and mothers who couldn't take care of themselves. Biblically, there is NO DOUBT that we need to take care of kids in situations that they are not being taken care of.

 

And, we should also make the "parents" of those children live up to their responsibilities or take their children from them and make sure they can produce no further offspring.

 

The children are victims. The "parents" are not. There is an enormous difference between being a biological father and mother and being a true daddy and mommy. There are far too many biological parents and not enough daddys and mommys.

If it is a program for those that are able to provide for themselves, I would agree with you.

 

But it is not. It is for kids who did not chooose to be put in the position they are.

 

Won't get a disagreement from me on those taking care of themselves, but when you put kids in the mix.

 

Remember why did the early church get deacons in Acts? To take care of the widows and mothers who couldn't take care of themselves. Biblically, there is NO DOUBT that we need to take care of kids in situations that they are not being taken care of.

 

The deacons in Acts were assembled because the Hebrew and Greek women were fighting over bread.

 

I'm not disagreeing that we are called to care for the poor, sick, needy, and vulnerable, but deacon is a different story.

I am firmly committed to providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Nonetheless, it is still welfare. Therefore, when a truly needy person is involved, I support welfare.

 

If we are going to get Biblical, I would add that the Bible also says, to paraphrase, that if you don't work you don't eat. I would interpret that to mean that if you are capable of providing for your family, you should do so or suffer the consequences.

 

My point remains to be that we are going a bit afield in just who is and is not able to provide for themselves and their families. Also, I believe a lot of this overdone concern of politicians has more to do with garnering more votes than it does with compassion.

 

And it also says that the Apostles appointed deacons to serve for the widows. Do you think that means to watch them not eat?

 

I would not disagree with your last statement but that does not mean that a concern for children who are not being covered is not well place despite the motivation for that concern.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-26-kids-health_N.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Friday of wasting time by passing legislation to expand children's health coverage, knowing that he would veto it again. At the same time, he criticized Congress for failing to approve spending bills to keep the government running.

 

In general, supporters said it would extend coverage to children of families making up to 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of four.

 

At that level, congressional officials said, it would cover about 4 million children who now go without, raising the total for the program overall to 10 million kids. The $35 billion cost over five years would be covered by an increase in the tobacco tax of 61 cents a pack.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/NEWS0103/710250376/1077/COL02

 

Davis said he supports SCHIP but was against increasing the funding and expanding the program. His vote earlier this month helped sustain President Bush's veto of the bill.

 

"I am a strong supporter of health care for poor children," Davis said Monday during an interview at Northern Kentucky GOP campaign headquarters in Florence. "I co-sponsored legislation and voted for the reauthorization of the existing program.

 

"The real question is getting beyond the sound bites and the politics of fear in looking at how the program is funded."

 

SCHIP subsidizes health insurance coverage for about 6 million children nationally, including 51,775 in Kentucky, at a cost of about $5 billion a year.

 

The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children to the program nationally, mostly from low-income families, at an added cost of $7 billion annually. The legislation would have raised the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack to pay for the increase.

 

Davis, Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning and others said at least part of their concern was driven by their opposition to the tax increase. Because this is a state with a high number of smokers, "the bill would require Kentuckians to pay out $602 million more in increased taxes than children in our state would receive in health-care benefits," Davis wrote in his column.

 

Something doesn't click here. It says the subsidy for SCHIP is $5B per year. Davis says that KY taxpayers will have to pay an ADDITIONAL $602M per year in taxes than the benefits received. So that means, KY taxpayers are paying more than $602M , correct?

 

If so, how is a state the size of KY paying such a large share of SCHIP? I'd guess we're not and either I'm interpreting the numbers incorrectly or the numbers are being misstated.

Two points. One, why don't they put a $1.00 tax on toys and video games to pay for SCHIP?

 

Two, has anyone noticed how whenever the govt gets into the funding business, that no one can afford that service anymore. How much more does it cost for medical services now than in the 60's. College tuition keeps going up at rates that are 3 to 4 times the inflation rate. Why? Because the providers of these services know the government will pay.

Something doesn't click here. It says the subsidy for SCHIP is $5B per year. Davis says that KY taxpayers will have to pay an ADDITIONAL $602M per year in taxes than the benefits received. So that means, KY taxpayers are paying more than $602M , correct?

 

If so, how is a state the size of KY paying such a large share of SCHIP? I'd guess we're not and either I'm interpreting the numbers incorrectly or the numbers are being misstated.

 

Does it have to do with something about the taxes on cigarettes and this being a high smoking/tobacco industry state?

Does it have to do with something about the taxes on cigarettes and this being a high smoking/tobacco industry state?

 

Yes it does. Therefore, I would expect one of our congressmen to vote not to allow our citizens to pay an additional 600m in taxes based on their habbits. This is an idiotic method of paying for this healthcare.

Yes it does. Therefore, I would expect one of our congressmen to vote not to allow our citizens to pay an additional 600m in taxes based on their habbits. This is an idiotic method of paying for this healthcare.

 

I don't think so. To tax the things that cause the health issues, to me, is a smart way to handle the problem from a different facets.

I don't think so. To tax the things that cause the health issues, to me, is a smart way to handle the problem from a different facets.

 

Really? You live in a county that has as high of a smoking rate as any place in the nation. It is also poor overall. Lets assume that a parent smokes a pack a day, conservatively for many. your talking about another $365 a year down the drain, for many of these people, what amounts to their take home pay for a week.

Really? You live in a county that has as high of a smoking rate as any place in the nation. It is also poor overall. Lets assume that a parent smokes a pack a day, conservatively for many. your talking about another $365 a year down the drain, for many of these people, what amounts to their take home pay for a week.

 

It's pretty hard to feel sorry for someone who chooses to put their health at risk by smoking a pack or more a day. If you're that darn poor, why are you wasting any money on something that can have such a serious impact on your health?

It's pretty hard to feel sorry for someone who chooses to put their health at risk by smoking a pack or more a day. If you're that darn poor, why are you wasting any money on something that can have such a serious impact on your health?

 

Thats neither here nor there H. The fact is that they smoke, and they are going to smoke. That paycheck a year that the government is getting ready to relieve these people of could be use for something that their kids need. I am by no means a liberal, but you are doing nothing more than relieving the poor of disposable income.

Really? You live in a county that has as high of a smoking rate as any place in the nation. It is also poor overall. Lets assume that a parent smokes a pack a day, conservatively for many. your talking about another $365 a year down the drain, for many of these people, what amounts to their take home pay for a week.

 

Economically, it gets to a point that price runs demand down. There would be a point that financially, a person would either a)not start smoking; b)stop smoking.