General positions:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:54am

Fiscally I am old school conservative. Federal gov't roles and responsibilities limited to those assigned in the US Constitution. Just because an idea is a good done does not authorize the FEDERAL gov't to do it, and just because I don't think it is a FEDERAL problem does not mean I don't think it isn't a problem. State governments should have broader ranges of influence, and local governments the most. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution is one of the most forgotten aspects of that document.

Like others, spending money is not enough. It has to be spend well. It has to be spent in a manner that will ACTUALLY achieve the stated goal. Not just spending money as a gesture demonstrating political interest in the issue. I see an all too common claim in politics where one party proposes one solution to a given problem, and if anyone disagrees with the proposed solution, they are accused of not wanting to fix the problem at all. As if there is only one way to skin a cat.

Socially I am quite libertarian. It is not the governments position to meddle in people's personal choices in any way. This goes both ways though. Just as the gov't should leave people free to choose it should leave the responsibility with the people as well. It is not within the scope of authority of the gov't to dictate what I eat. At the SAME TIME it is not the responsibility of the gov't to feed me. The biggest problem is that these two concepts are NOT separable. If we give the gov't the RESPONSIBLITY of feeding me, we AUTOMATICALLY and UNAVOIDABLY give the gov't AUTHORITY over my food as well. It is a fantasy that the gov't can be held responsible for an aspect of your life WITHOUT having an AUTHORITY over it.

As an example, take healthcare. If I want total CONTROL over my healthcare, I have to exercise total RESPONSIBILITY for it. When I want to ask someone else like an insurance company to help with my healthcare costs, I automatically give up a degree of control. They then get to dictate to a degree what doctors I go to, what treatments are available or will be paid for, etc... The same applies to the gov't IF I request the gov't handle my healthcare for me. If I expect the gov't to become 100% responsible for funding my healthcare, the gov't AUTOMATICALLY gains the same degree of AUTHORITY over my healthcare. I'm not paranoid over 'death panels' or anything like that. But if the gov't chooses to give me crutches as opposed to surgically repairing my knee, I really have no authority to demand otherwise because I ABDICATED my responsibility when I gave up funding my own healthcare.

Another example would be gay marriage. I don't care what you do in the bedroom. I don't care whose hands you hold in public. It is no right of mine to interfere with those life choices. My question is this. Why is marriage a gov't license anyway? If two (or more) people want a sacrament, they go to whatever clergy they choose and is willing to perform that religious ceremony. If two (or more) people want a contractual relationship (what a marriage certificate REALLY is) they go to a lawyer and draft one up. Why is the gov't involved at all? Repurpose the "divorce" courts to regular civil courts and any contractual disputes can be handled there.

  • I don't think that's necessarily true. Sia☺giah, Thu Sep 13 11:33am
    I'm pretty sure that HH recognizes that I am an independent too. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat either. I lean heavily liberal on social issues, but I lean heavily conservative fiscally. However, ... more
Click here to receive daily updates