It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you really want a Constitutional Government?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I realize my views on this issue are far from popular, as is evident by the myriad of opposing opinions here. And that's fine.

It just seems unrealistic to cut social programs and expect charities to pick up the slack in any meaningful way. As it is the vast majority of these organizations are stretched much too thin in the areas of volunteers and money. Food banks are constantly short of donations and homeless shelters are overflowing.

I just don't think a scaled back Constitutional government is a solution to the problems that it's citizens are facing.




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


I'm not saying we should cut off those people and let them fend for themselves. What I want if for the power to be taken away from the federal government and put into the hands of the states and local municipalities.

Let the state and local government handle social welfare programs dedicated to helping the problems of THEIR communities instead of using the one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter programs designed by people far away in Washington. Each community has different issues and problems and it is best to allow them to come up with their own unique solutions. When communities are allowed to try different approaches to issues, some may fail and some may succeed and the nation as a whole will be able to see which programs are most effective and communities will be able to design the best programs to suit their local needs.

I want the power to meddle in everyday affairs taken away from the federal government and to have them stick what the federal government was designed for; taking care of issues to big for the states and municipalities to handle, such as national defense and international affairs.

Let the states and local municipalities deal with the issues affecting the people in their local communities.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Well, handing the reins to the states is something to consider. But what happens then?

Going by the rhetoric in this thread, there are people who feel that there should be absolutely no social programs at all -- be it at the Federal or State level. There is definitely a "let every man fend for himself" mentality that is impossible to ignore.

On the federal level there is at least some semblance of a safety net. On the state level there is no guarantee that adequate assistance will be available to those in need. It's a terrifying prospect to imagine.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


It's not a pissing contest. I'm outlining one flaw in all of those programs you list. What I do (and what you've done...huge applause, BTW) was voluntary. Those programs you list are not. They are at best a Robin Hood program, at worst, robbery. I have exactly three people I'm obligated to help: my wife, my son and myself. Yet I have zero choice but to have money taken from my family and given to someone else, who may or may not be doing the same thing. Our tax dollars do go to people that actually need assistance but want to be productive, but a good chunk of it goes to people that have no intention of being productive members of society. How is this right or just?

/TOA



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join