I don't disagree?

Jesus told the rich young man that had followed all the commandments that in order to get into Heaven he still had to sell all his property and give the profits to the poor. Jesus also provided free medical treatments and food and wine to the needy.

Go back to the original question, of whether or not the government can be a vessel by which God supplies needs or not.  You had, in a prior thread, spoke that people should die, if that is what it be.  What you wrote, I would be very hard pressed, to find even remotely in keeping with what Jesus would of taught or believed, or in keeping with much of anything of the Bible.  Even in a world where there is falling short, there is no basis for the deaths you advocated, come to pass.  And it may be right that you stuck a question at the end of your reply, because I am pressed to find out if you DO agree or disagree.  It seems like you are more inclined to disagree.

I never said that people who don't or can't work should die, I said this: In a world without these programs, if you don't support yourself you die off, simple as that. Now that's motivation to work, work hard, and try your best. That same motivation is simply gone otherwise.

What I meant by that was that if you have programs to prop people up so that they don't have to try, then it weighs our society as a whole down due to several factors such as exploitation. That would be tantamount to taking advantage and stealing from people's tax dollars, which I'm sure Jesus would disagree with. Charity should be chosen by the person on an individual basis, not the government. That's why my parents go to a baptist church instead of a methodist; because they have the freedom to choose what they give and when they give in terms of the offering.

edit: And I am going to assume that we know that the poor and needy of 30AD are completely different from the poor and needy of 2012AD.

Of course many times bosses exploit their workers for the bottom line without any real intention of giving their workers the chance to advance very far for all the work they have them put out.  So, in many cases, bosses are exploiting their workers for their profit margins and Jesus wouldn't have approved of that.  Many jobs are no more than wage slavery and the whole Biblical tradition is founded upon moving away from slavery.

But the Christian mandate is for the church, not for a governing body. The state does not and most will never be a expression of the will of the people, otherwise, we wouldn't be a republic.

I am reminded of the following comment said: "It isn't a Democracy, it is a Republic" when reading the above.  I have to ask this though: If a Republic doesn't reflect the will of the people, then is it nothing more than a dictatorship, with a ruling class on top that doesn't do what the people want?  Why would the people turn to it, and there being semblance of governance, if the government wouldn't reflect the wishes of the people?

We're differing on semantics. I think it is the job of elected officials in my republic to represent me in Congress and act on my behalf so that the best outcome may be reached for society. They are to do what is best for whom they represent, and sometimes what people want isn't feasible. Due to that, they can't always be that expression of will.

Errr, saying something "Is a republic, not a democracy" is the same as denying that an apple is a fruit because it grew on a tree.

Republics are a form of government.
Democracy is a method in selecting a government.

Both can be true.

The definition of a Republic is simply "A State in which the head of government is not a Monarch". The definition today often includes Democracy as a necessary component of a Republic (although, some republics don't have elections, and are Oligarchal Republics - like China).

So yes, the US is a Republic government which is Democraticly elected - just like an apple grows on a tree AND is a fruit.