Doesn't appear that you have any concept as to the role of the Federal Govt. which provide security for its people and PROMOTE, not provide for domestic welfare.
a bit full of yourself aren't you
especially considering the ignorant tripe which was the remainder of your post
so, share with us what the government is doing which is NOT found to be promoting the domestic welfare
and i really look forward to a specific reply to that question and not another nonsensical rant
IF there isn't the revenue necessary for social engineering then don't do it ...
i see that you are a true neoconservative, who follows the party's 'starve the beast' philosophy: spend all the revenues so that there is nothing remaining for a social safety net
the compassionate conservatism we have come to know and love
... or put it where it belongs at the state and local levels. That is the role of the state and local govt. not a bureaucrat in D.C. who you seem to believe understands your local community problems better than anyone else.
explain for us why the social safety net needs to be constructed only at the state and local level, rather than by the federal government
The greater good is determined by the people at the state and local level, not the Federal Govt.
why is it that you believe those state and local officials have a better feel for the 'greater good', than a federal official
Obamacare is an example of overreach. Uninsured expenses are borne by the people of the state and local communities not the Federal taxpayer.
why? i live on the border of two states. if the adjoining state offers more than my state of residence and i seek local medical assistance from the adjoining state, aren't i then exploiting the taxpayers of that adjoining state?
It isn't the role of the Federal Taxpayer to fund social programs
not even to 'promote the general welfare'? are you saying we should disregard the preamble?
This country was built on equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
who do you see posting an expectation for an equal outcome for all ... if you are unable to show us such posts then you are crafting a bogus issue to argue against
It was built on a small central govt, not a massive 3.77 trillion dollar one.
says what? any portion of that budget appropriated in an unConstitutional manner? if so, show us. if you cannot show us, then you are making **** up again to have something to rant about
It wasn't built to provide national health insurance for its people ...
you do know that the supreme court of the United States of America has made a ruling that says your argument is full of crap ... don't you?
... nor for saving people for their own poor choices.
what poor choices is the federal government saving people from?
please list them and the people who are so unConstitutionally assisted; please be specific [NO rants]
You made a mistake growing up, who bailed you out, a federal bureaucrat?
yep. but then my father was a federal employee. does that mean he did something wrong?
if you were trying to make a point with that statement, you failed. but you are more than welcome to try again to explain what you wanted us to read and understand
We live in a country that was built on risk and opportunity.
would you please point to a country, any country, where its people do NOT live in an environment where there is risk and opportunity
Liberals now want to remove the risk and create equal outcome.
again, you are just making stuff up. i see no one arguing for equal outcomes, instead of equal opportunities. but if i missed such a post - or posts - please point them out and i will join your rant against any citizen who expresses an expectation that the federal government should assure equal outcomes for all
All the while the printing presses keep running and people like you give the govt. a pass.
i did not receive such a pass
where does one go to get one
please share the details