Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1
ijusluvit, since you are subscribed to the political forum, you know as well as I, the name calling and mudslinging goes both ways. I have tried countless times, and I must say I have been sucessful on a few attempts with cologal and a very few other more liberal leaning thinkers to have an intelligent conversation.
But with that said, my problem isn't so much just the concept behind the programs you listed: Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - my problem, very basically, is handing over that much power to the federal government. Our country wasn't setup this way.
It just seems when I try to question any of these programs, laws or issues on the grounds of individual and states freedoms and/or liberties, I get no response or called names.
|
I clearly stated that the personal attacks were not the monopoly of TOTV conservatives, but that conservatives more frequently engage in it at present because they are frustrated by, and so vehemently disagree with the current administration. As I have done repeatedly in the past, I again advocated an end to this unproductive behavior.
I also stay in this forum to try to participate in intelligent discussion, so I'll go right to what you describe as your problem "handing over that much power to the federal government." That's really at the core of disagreement between conservatives and liberals, so lets talk about it. In the short term, a mere 18 months, the current administration and Congress has taken a number of steps, none of which is appears to be unconstitutional. If any of those actions are unconstitutional they will be addressed in the future by the courts according to our pretty good formula for the separation and balance of powers. If any of those actions proves so unpopular with the electorate, they will be repealed in the future. IMHO I do not believe that any of the recent laws passed or actions taken will be overturned in the future.
More importantly, I suggest that Thomas Jefferson and others who first expressed fears about a powerful central government, would support a revised, more centrist view if they were with us today. Jefferson would get physically ill to see the power of banks, huge corporations, unions, Wall Street, and especially the lobbyists. He would rail against their oppression of the common man. However, I believe he would support social security and the new health care reform because of the benefits provided for the average citizen. He would have supported financial regulations from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to the current efforts to regulate consumer credit and financial institutions. I'm not sure how much he would support the effort to check terrorism in Afghanistan, but he would not have expected the Virginla Militia to respond to the 9/11 attack. Our world is different than Jefferson's and I think he would admit that a functional, effective federal government would be necessary to keep the enormous influence of money and power in check, as well as to protect us from dangers far more imminent than he could imagine in his day.
So, I'm not attacking you or your position on the power of the federal government. I'm just suggesting that now, more than at any other time in our history, with the world so small and change so rapid, we must be equipped to act as one nation. In a general way, I see the steps taken by the current administration and Congress as a reasonable and potentially correct response to the problems we faced in 2008. Everyone is concerned about the financial cost of these steps. There are strong indicators that they will ultimately work and only speculation that they will "destroy this nation". I prefer seeing some positive turn around to the prospect of where we would be today with 'more of the same'. We will see.