Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"SteveB" wrote in message
... Our debt accumulating every year... A dark and stormy night... perhaps. I guess we could go back to no gov't involvement, but I don't think anyone with any intelligence is really suggesting that. The Dark Ages weren't all that comfy, as I recall from the history books. I don't mind paying for things I might not use directly. I am my brother's keeper. Who would Jesus not cover with health insurance? Didn't He take the side of the poor, and wasn't He against the money changers? Or, was He for big business, and anything-goes capitalism? I think that the "crew" is acutely aware of the issues you raise... growing debt and potentional financial disaster. Heck, the boys in charge in the last administration knew they had to do something. -- Nom=de=Plume I have been a registered libertarian all my voting life. I guess I'm one of those who doesn't have any real intelligence because I think government's role should be minimal as stated in the Constitution. Now they have taken "regulate commerce" to mean any time a dollar changes hands in the us, they want their juice. And to get into all things and businesses that they should have never been allowed to incrementally infest. There are almost always situations of over-regulation. Unfortunately, lack of regulation can and has been a huge problem, because of the abuses that have been inflicted upon people. You can go back to feudal times if necessary to find examples, but one really doesn't have to go back in time very far if given half a thought. Unions, for example, were a direct result of management deliberately exploiting people in horrible conditions for no other reason than greed (aka one one of the deadly sins). Polluting the environment is another example. It's easy to "blame" gov't for over-regulation, and there's some merit to it, but removing gov't (by the people for the people, promote the common good) isn't even close to the solution. Intelligent gov't is the answer. The healthcare situation in this country is a great example. We profess to have "the best healthcare in the world." I hear this all the time, yet we don't live as long, have as good outcomes, and we have worse infant mortality rates than the other "rich" countries. And, we spend far more. Is this in the best interest, for the public good? I hear, "Don't insure illegal immigrants!" Yet, we do insure them when they show up in our ERs, the most expensive time. And, it's not just illegals that are showing up in ERs. There are nearly 50M Americans with no insurance. They can't afford it, so they wait until the problem is critical. Then, we all get to pay. This isn't right for them or fair to us. Yet a little bit of prevention, of being able to see a doc early, would solve a lot of this. We have a vast population of under-insured. When a catastrophy strikes, they become destitute, perhaps forced into bankruptcy or their life-savings is wiped out. Both of these situations cause increased economic stress for everyone. I could go on, but I'm running out of ink. lol The boys on the hill know what's up. Always have. They just want their cut, and to bring some back to the pack, like wild dogs. It's just now that there's a feeding frenzy as the trough dries up to plunder whatever is left, and that is getting thin. Mostly correct. Of course, this is on both sides of the isle. I don't know what the solution is beside voting them out when it gets out of control. This is easier said than done. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Would Sotomayor Exonerate Bill Richardson & His "Moving AmericaForward" "Latino Voter Registration" Scam? | General | |||
FS: 1961 "PT 109 John F. Kennedy in World War II" Book in Ontario | Marketplace |