- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
First, to start out, I'll freely admit I am more of a Statist than a Federalist. I greatly support Federalism but call for at least what was originally proposed, a small Federal government overseeing the states.
What I don't get, is with the anti-communist movement that started around the 50s, and of which continued to linger for a long time, the public seemingly jumped on nationalized social programs in the 60s.
And here we are today, with the government thoroughly prepping to try and nationalize health care. WTH?
And while these things are far from the only issues at play, we are rapidly moving away from what the U.S. was supposed to be, and completely ignoring the framework on which this country held ideal. The Constitution called for a fine balance between Statism and Federalism, to appease the multitude of supporters on both sides during the time it was drafted.
Granted, nothing is an easy fix, and nothing is easy to change. Corporate programs can sometimes cause many issues when they are more focused on profits. I get that.
We aren't a pure free market society to the extent the term describes, as the country originally followed the laissez-faire philosophy, which was mostly free-market but implied minimal government intervention.
If only we followed that philosophy more, we'd know it covers alternatives to social programs like welfare.
And it greatly opposes such bullshit like government bailouts.
The things we are trying to fix, shouldn't be simply a year or two of debates with fixes implemented immediately. They need to be more thought out, more concrete. If anything, and I'd cautiously support this, the government should establish certain mandates for the public sector. Ensure insurance corporations follow the mandates, establish the mandates in such a way as to protect the citizens. That is what our government is supposed to do.
What I don't get, is with the anti-communist movement that started around the 50s, and of which continued to linger for a long time, the public seemingly jumped on nationalized social programs in the 60s.
And here we are today, with the government thoroughly prepping to try and nationalize health care. WTH?
And while these things are far from the only issues at play, we are rapidly moving away from what the U.S. was supposed to be, and completely ignoring the framework on which this country held ideal. The Constitution called for a fine balance between Statism and Federalism, to appease the multitude of supporters on both sides during the time it was drafted.
Granted, nothing is an easy fix, and nothing is easy to change. Corporate programs can sometimes cause many issues when they are more focused on profits. I get that.
We aren't a pure free market society to the extent the term describes, as the country originally followed the laissez-faire philosophy, which was mostly free-market but implied minimal government intervention.
If only we followed that philosophy more, we'd know it covers alternatives to social programs like welfare.
And it greatly opposes such bullshit like government bailouts.
The things we are trying to fix, shouldn't be simply a year or two of debates with fixes implemented immediately. They need to be more thought out, more concrete. If anything, and I'd cautiously support this, the government should establish certain mandates for the public sector. Ensure insurance corporations follow the mandates, establish the mandates in such a way as to protect the citizens. That is what our government is supposed to do.