Shouldn't the government be more like the Founders planned, ie NOT try to finance every group or cause or...?

[nomadic5]

I have no problem with FEMA moving into large scale disasters that overwhelm a state's resources to deal with the immediate emergency. That certainly does not apply to train wrecks or tornadoes or local flooding etc. for which all states should develop resources to deal with their own localized issues.

But FEMA's job should be to clear highways/roads, get immediate food and water to victims until they can relocate, perhaps help evacuate from disaster/danger zones until local and state authorities can be mobilized and take over rescue and recovery.

On Thursday the small town of Perryton TX was devastated by a tornado. Gov. Abbott immediately mobilized emergency services to help restore power and immediate relief, but the people of Perryton and all the surrounding communities also came together to deal with the injuries and destruction, offer or find shelter for those needing it, and are handling it. That's the way it is supposed to work.

Constitutionally the federal government is authorized to do specific tasks and those generally are what practically cannot be done by the states, local communities, private initiative. It was never intended to be the prerogative of the federal government to demand how states, communities or citizens must do anything other than participate in the census and pay whatever reasonable/necessary taxes and fees are imposed.

homeowners are required to have insurance. I can't say I know much about such things.. haven't owned a home in years. But at least in the case of the home not being paid off, you have to have insurance.

Yes, the feds could fix roads and things like that, but so can the state gummit

I don't think the founding FAthers wanted tons and tons of the taxpayers' money just being thrown around ... drunken sailor-like... the gummit is way too big, read: tyrannical, controlling, dangerous to America's principles

 

[progressive hunter]

DC is addicted to spending $$

which

is because it helps them get re-elected (if they do enough for their district)

I never understood how a person could feel better after having someone else do something for them they should be doing themselves??

I understand of a person is crippled and has issues and need help but a perfectly healthy man should be able to provide for themselves..

 

[nomadic5]

I never understood how a person could feel better after having someone else do something for them they should be doing themselves??

I understand of a person is crippled and has issues and need help but a perfectly healthy man should be able to provide for themselves..

well, I've known people who were mentally disabled... I mean i tried to talk to this homeless guy years ago and he made NO sense whatsoever... talked about some (canonized) saint's blood being ... somewhere.. .can't recall..

yeh... you already get the picture. These kind of people cannot take care of themselves properly..

There should be some kind of basic housing available.. affordable housing that people on SSI (like this guy) can afford. I'd prefer the private sector do it bc I prefer the private sector o/ gummit any damn day... I hate the corruption i see in gummit... (not that the private sector is never corrupt)...

Anyhow...

 

[rightwinger]

Our founders wanted a country ……..Of the People, By the People and FOR the people

 

[progressive hunter]

well, I've known people who were mentally disabled... I mean i tried to talk to this homeless guy years ago and he made NO sense whatsoever... talked about some (canonized) saint's blood being ... somewhere.. .can't recall..

yeh... you already get the picture. These kind of people cannot take care of themselves properly..

There should be some kind of basic housing available.. affordable housing that people on SSI (like this guy) can afford. I'd prefer the private sector do it bc I prefer the private sector o/ gummit any damn day... I hate the corruption i see in gummit... (not that the private sector is never corrupt)...

Anyhow...

the confusion whether it be intentional or not is people thinking the feds should handle the problems like you describe and many more when the constitution doesnt allow them too,,

there is nothing stopping the states from running any welfare system they want,,
and they could be ran more efficiently by the states than the feds with less costs,,

 

[rightwinger]

the confusion whether it be intentional or not is people thinking the feds should handle the problems like you describe and many more when the constitution doesnt allow them too,,

there is nothing stopping the states from running any welfare system they want,,
and they could be ran more efficiently by the states than the feds with less costs,,

Most welfare is run at the STATE level

 

[nomadic5]

the confusion whether it be intentional or not is people thinking the feds should handle the problems like you describe and many more when the constitution doesnt allow them too,,

there is nothing stopping the states from running any welfare system they want,,
and they could be ran more efficiently by the states than the feds with less costs,,

exactly

I say boot the fed gummit out of 95% of everything...

 

[whitehall]

The only thing the Founding Fathers planned for the federal government was "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Any expansion of those concepts is our own damn fault for not paying attention.

 

[Foxfyre]

homeowners are required to have insurance. I can't say I know much about such things.. haven't owned a home in years. But at least in the case of the home not being paid off, you have to have insurance.

Yes, the feds could fix roads and things like that, but so can the state gummit

I don't think the founding FAthers wanted tons and tons of the taxpayers' money just being thrown around ... drunken sailor-like... the gummit is way too big, read: tyrannical, controlling, dangerous to America's principles

You have to have insurance only if you have a mortgage. But anybody with a brain would buy H.O. insurance after the mortgage is paid off. They would also buy earthquake insurance and flood insurance that isn't covered by H.O. policies if they live in earthquake country or on a flood plain. The government should not use the money of the responsible to bail out the irresponsible who do not buy insurance any more than it should pay the medical bills of those who choose not to get health insurance.

In other words I should not be able to gamble and expect you to restore my money if I lose.

The Founders encouraged and promoted charity and neighbors helping neighbors. But they did not want the federal government to be in the charity or bail out business because of the high probability that people would come to depend on it and not take responsibility for themselves and others. Also it increased a high probability that once they had means to do so, lawmakers would be tempted to use charity, bail outs, other government benefits to bribe votes and perhaps obedience from the people.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yeah, they wrote it down in 1776 when there were 13 colonies and a population of around 2 million people.

Things were different then then they are now.

Asshole.

I sure hope you took this time to do some research and found that all you knew wasnt true??

 

[nomadic5]

the confusion whether it be intentional or not is people thinking the feds should handle the problems like you describe and many more when the constitution doesnt allow them too,,

there is nothing stopping the states from running any welfare system they want,,
and they could be ran more efficiently by the states than the feds with less costs,,

I would prefer private enterprise were involved with helping the downtrodden. But I don't see that happening..

 

[nomadic5]

Also it increased a high probability that once they had means to do so, lawmakers would be tempted to use charity, bail outs, other government benefits to bribe votes and perhaps obedience from the people.

but that never happened, did it?



Those Founders... they were so paranoid, weren't they?

 

[Mr Natural]

I would prefer private enterprise were involved with helping the downtrodden. But I don't see that happening..

Not unless there’s some sort of profit involved.

 

[nomadic5]

The only thing the Founding Fathers planned for the federal government was "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Any expansion of those concepts is our own damn fault for not paying attention.

promote the general welfare

can mean just about anything... sigh

 

[Foxfyre]

but that never happened, did it?



Those Founders... they were so paranoid, weren't they?

It actually started with Theodore Roosevelt. He did many good things as President and is rated as one of the best by many, but in fact he is the one who began the process of turning constitutional intent on its head. He presumed to demand that the government could do anything the Constitution did not explicitly forbid rather than the Founders' view that the government could do only what the Constitution explicitly allows it to do.

That started a tiny snowball rolling down hill but it was scarcely noticeable and neither subsequent Presidents or the American people paid it much attention as power was shifted, however gradually, from the people to the government/President. But it was a slippery slope that was real.

Then FDR gave it a huge push by adding government entitlement to it, and it has been gaining bulk and momentum faster and faster ever since until now it is entirely out of control.

 

[nomadic5]

It actually started with Theodore Roosevelt. He did many good things as President and is rated as one of the best by many, but in fact he is the one who began the process of turning constitutional intent on its head. He presumed to demand that the government could do anything the Constitution did not explicitly forbid rather than the Founders' view that the government could do only what the Constitution explicitly allows it to do.

That started a tiny snowball rolling down hill but it was scarcely noticeable and neither subsequent Presidents or the American people paid it much attention as power was shifted, however gradually, from the people to the government/President. But it was a slippery slope that was real.

Then FDR gave it a huge push by adding government entitlement to it, and it has been gaining bulk and momentum faster and faster ever since until now it is entirely out of control.

those damn Roosevelts!

And now bidim is finishing us off...

It seems like only the little people see this, though.. or maybe the elites see it but don't care. They have their cushy little life... massive money and etc...

 

[rightwinger]

He presumed to demand that the government could do anything the Constitution did not explicitly forbid rather than the Founders' view that the government could do only what the Constitution explicitly allows it to do.

The government should help those who need help

 

[Foxfyre]

The government should help those who need help

The federal government should help only in the most extreme emergencies when state and local governments cannot provide it, and then it should be temporary help until local and state authorities can take over. And it should be provided without politics, prejudice, partisan influence.

The federal government is not authorized to provide help/charity otherwise because it would then have the power to help this group but not that one, give preference to one group and not another. Partisan politics/self interests would be able to corrupt the entire process and be used to influence or control the people in a way the Constitution intended it not have the power to do.

 

[rightwinger]

The federal government should help only in the most extreme emergencies when state and local governments cannot provide it, and then it should be temporary help until local and state authorities can take over. And it should be provided without politics, prejudice, partisan influence.

The federal government is not authorized to provide help/charity otherwise because it would then have the power to help this group but not that one, give preference to one group and not another. Partisan politics/self interests would be able to corrupt the entire process and be used to influence or control the people in a way the Constitution intended it not have the power to do.

Some functions are best performed at the state and local level others at the federal level

Let them decide which is most efficient

 

[Foxfyre]

Some functions are best performed at the state and local level others at the federal level

Let them decide which is most efficient

That gives far more power to government than what the Founders intended the Constitution to allow. The Founders intended that the central government be limited to very restricted powers/authority and that the people would otherwise govern themselves as they chose.