[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Police is a local matter, so is fire controle. Not federal. It's why katrina was such a mess, the state and local governments constitutionally denied the fed access for three days.

Still, it is a service the government gives us. I think there is a lot of finger-pointing that could go on for Katrina, but that isn't the topic here.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

There is no constitutional right to child health insurance and never was, wether a company wishes to provide it is up to that company. Now if you want to suggest companies that make certain agreements about takeing care of children on polices they signed, then you have a point, but that's about breech of contract. Not wether it's actually a right to have health insurance, because it's not.

So you don't think government programs should help those who are sick and can't afford to pay for their medical coverage?

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Point of fact, insurance is one of the main problems in the whole health care thing, get rid of all insurance and prices will come down.

That we can agree on. That's what the rest of the First World does.
They also limit litigation.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Interstate highway system actually is constitutional, as it's part of the distrubution sytem between states and the fed is in charge of that.

Social security should go, certainly. It's a massive drain on the system. If you want to keep it, then push retirement back 10 years...make sure retirement always stays 2 years from the average life exspectancy. That way we don't get people retireing and then liveing on social security for 30 years.

So work until death. Sounds like a real blast.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

That has nothing to do with being mean, it's being practical, average life exspectancy back when Social Security first started was 67. Social security as it is now, is bank rupt, in part because congress used the money for other stuff, wich congress does, steals from funds. This will be true of healthcare funds as well, it's what congress does.

So since a store gets shoplifted the answer is to blow up the store. Nope.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

So, based on your reply about Jefferson and slaves, you understand the connection between government power and how much freedom you really have? Yet you still argue in favor of haveing government controle everything? or nearly everything, that's a dangerous road you advocate. No where in history has any government that had absolute controle, ever done well by it's people.

I never said the government should control everything or nearly everything.

I would never advocate for government having complete control. No one would.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

America is about being responsible for yourself and those around you as individuals, not as a government. That's why it's of the people, by the people and for the people. The federal goverment is simply the refferee/go between for local and state arguements.

America is about a lot of things. I don't remember "be responsible for yourself" in any of the founding fathers' declarations, but it may be in there.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

It's the very reason Jefferson wrote a letter about "the seperation of church and state." One of the state's had a minority relgion that was overun by the majority, they asked President Jefferson to intervene, he did not and told them that he couldn't because the federal government had no authority to authorize what a state could or could not do relgiously.

I am a big advocate of state rights, and it is one of the best plans put into play. If you don't like the laws of the state you are in, then you can move to another state. Though nowadays that is a little harder than it might have been 200+ years ago.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Look, I understand that you like some of these government programs, but you got to ween the kids sooner or later or they never grow up. People will never advance if they are constantly held in check by programs. Why work when everything is provided, why strive to achieve when government will only take what you earn and "spread the wealth around"?

The "kids" meaning the elderly and veterans? Inefficiency in a good program does not mean destroy the program, it means it should be closely examined and streamlined. If able-bodied people are getting money they don't deserve, how hard is it to cut them off?

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

The concept of this country was founded on the idea that you be allowed the freedom to climb the mountain on your own. However, you are responsible for yourself when you climb. Sometimes you get to the top, a major achievement, sometimes you fall off and get hurt, or even die...that happens when you do things on your own. The only thing government is supposed to do...is protect your right to actually climb said mountain. That's called Liberty...no one said it was easy.

I think you climb the mountain and if you get lost or injured our taxes should help you find your way home and get better. If not, what are we paying taxes for in the first place?