Quote:
Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p="
Part of the problem, it seems to me, in relation to what you just said, is that sometimes we don't really know where we stand with these guys. I mean, with the feds versus the states versus the locals, and who owns what - that kind of thing.
|
Very true. The sheep are
ignorant (and I mean that in a literal sense). They have no freakin' clue about state and local government jurisdiction. Hell...most people don't even go to the polls if there's not a national election!
Quote:
|
I think you raise an excellent point about "coming to depend on the federal government", and the follow-up suggestion which is (I'm paraphrasing just so you can bounce back if I'm missing your point) that this eventually leads to an "expectation" and even a "desire" for the federal government to somehow magically "take care of things" (whatever "things" anyone may think they're supposed to be taking care of at any given moment)
|
Good. You're catching on.
Quote:
|
I mean, Katrina might be an example in this space, yes? Part of the whole deal was the confusion over jurisdiction and so on - and I think that's true "more generally", when it comes to this issue over "who owns what" and what level of the government the responsibility belongs
|
The problem wasn't even confusion. The very
second the levees broke, the media crucified Bush. But what did Mayor Chocolate City do? He didn't even evacuate his city in time!! What did Blanco do? She failed to rally the state's national guard in a reasonable timeframe. She was too busy getting her butt to safety! No....as soon as the city flooded, a million hands immediately reached out to the Feds (palms up, of course). They completely bypassed state and local government, and immediately laid 100% of the blame and cost on the Feds. That's NOT right.
Quote:
|
So from that viewpoint, I'd certainly favor a "minimal" or "small" government, so then I could be "reasonably expected" not to expect anything from the government - and so fine - we both know what to expect and everyone's happy
|
Welcome to Federalism. The Sheep need to quit crying to the Feds, every time they don't like something. The Feds are there for international issues, and nationwide issues, that the states can not do themselves. Basically...the States' governments ALWAYS come FIRST.
Quote:
|
But so the problem with that, is that now we have the "social justice" types, who'll raise issues like Edwards and Hillary are doing, that it's somehow a "moral responsibility" of government to provide universal access to quality healthcare for all Americans - and you know, they tell these heart-wrenching stories like about this guy who couldn't get his cleft palate fixed until he was 50, so basically he couldn't talk for 50 years just 'cause he didn't have any insurance
|
Funny how the Socialists hate "morality" in law, but then they pander to the voters with these "moral responsibility" things. The Federal Government should NOT be responsible for us. LOCAL government, yes. States' government...it depends.
Quote:
|
And to that I say - well, I'm sorry and I feel for the guy, I really do - but what does that have to do with politics? How does that represent an overwhelming social need in which the government needs to get involved? That sounds like a personal issue to me, not one that engages "We the People".
|
Bingo.