I'll buy the shut it down till there's more $$ view when I see all those in favor of this waving off the first responders plucking their families from the roofs of flooded or burning homes, and waiting for the "private sector" to rescue them.
I'll buy the shut it down till there's more $$ view when I see all those in favor of this waving off the first responders plucking their families from the roofs of flooded or burning homes, and waiting for the "private sector" to rescue them.
I don't think Rand Paul is dumb. I think he's really smart. He's a physician, isn't he? You have to be really smart to make it through medical school, after all.
What he's really bad at is coming up with a plausible story to get us to believe why he doesn't want to fund FEMA. He claims it's because he's a anti-government and because government is inherently incapable and too flawed to solve big problems. His line is that private industry, churches and charities are much better at doing these jobs.
If we think really hard it's easy to see that even he doesn't buy that load of crap. We all know that there's another self-serving reason he doesn't think the government should help those in need. Think entitlement. Think deigned by God. Think privilege. Think more deserving. Think survival of the fittest. These are the real reasons.
His method and many libertarians method of having a smaller government may have worked 200 years ago when the population of the US was a little over 300,000. Many of if not most of their libertarian views will not work with the US population of over 300 million.
I guess we should just let them die unless it happens to be me.
I think the theory with this and other decentralization policy is that without federal assistance the states and private enterprise would come to the rescue. Our federal taxes would be less and it would avoid cumbersome and inefficient big government and allow the agencies closest to the problems to have better solutions.Originally Posted by freein05
Not that I agree, but that is how I understood Ron Paul's approach when he was a possible candidate. It does have some interesting possibilities, but I doubt that they would work out.
That is my basic understanding as well, Rogar. I do think it makes sense to put a lot of different responsibilities in the hands of the states and provide federal assistance as a back up in extreme cases, like the recent storm. Where the logistics get really tricky is in the fact that all states are not created equal. The federal government can be helpful when it comes to providing some equity to our states that lack resources, geographically or demographically, as well as providing services that are in all our interests such as national defense. Rand Paul's statement about not paying for anything until we have the cash does make a point that I hope gets noticed, but there are times when a balanced budget should not be the highest priority.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
But that's the problem isn't it. All states are not equal. Far from it. We have fairly poor states and pretty wealthy states, and unless we want to give up our 'United' moniker, and just be 'The Various States of North America', there are many things that need to be standard, across all the states. That 's the beauty of the US. That's what makes us desirable to us and to the world. This is a very big country with loads of regional flavor and dialects, but everyone knows that if you drive from California to Vermont, you will have the same standards in food safety and labeling, auto safety standards, education standards, etc..
If you buy your car insurance in California but have an accident in Vermont, you're covered. The police will protect you in both places and the hospitals will treat you in either place, even if you don't have coverage! And the hospital capability care (because of course there are differences from hospital to hospital, even in the same city) will be equal.
Really, which standards/programs/policies would you transfer from the feds to the states? Right now? Let's pick one that many people talk about. Education. Sure, it's easy to say let each state make their own standards. No skin off your nose, you live in a state that actually believes the world is round and revolves around the sun. Who cares if Mississippi is anti-science and teaches that the world is only 5 thousand years old? Well, what if your daughter marries someone from Mississippi and they move there. Your grand kids will be raised and taught there. Suddenly Mississippi's standards are very important, even though you don't live there. And that also decreases your pool of competent work force for your progressive modern business. And all the progressive modern businesses in the country, bringing the country down with it. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
So what other things would you transfer to the states? I'm curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_PaulDespite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand"
I'm sure you realize that virtually everything you listed began with the individual states and were usurped by the federal government, so the word "transfer" might be a bit misleading.
I'm reminded that there was a time when the educational system in this country was on par with anywhere else in the world. Of course, that was before it was nationalized. The path to uniformity usually leads to the lowest common denominator.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Rule #1: all Big Government is evil
Rule #2: it's only Big Government if *I* don't need it or want it right now
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote