Quote:
Originally Posted by Socks
Surely that's not his stance? I guess that's your view, and I'm compelled to agree with you personally, but I'm also not crazy about just letting said fat bitches kids go unfed or unattended... Y'know?
New rules could help ween them off, but cutting off their check and saying 'get a job' tomorrow isn't going to work, they A> aren't qualified and B> salary - rent - daycare for 5 kids - food = less than 0.
So what would really happen under his policy to these people?
|
His stance is to get the federal government out of such things. The thing that most of his ideas and policies revolve around (besides the constitution) is states rights. He wants to give the states more freedom, and minimize the federal government. By removing these programs at the federal level, the states then have the choice to implement something similar, or try different solutions all together. If you want socialized medicine, welfare, etc etc work with your *state* government to make it happen. If you want to legalize drugs work with your state to make it happen etc etc.
The states have so little power these days... we pay our taxes mostly to the fed, then the fed funds the states. This allows the federal government to basically hold states hostage, and withhold funding unless they come around and enact laws and regulations that the fed wants them too. While states acting too independently can cause problems (slavery, civil war?) the power has swung way to far in favor of the federal government. The power needs to swing the other way for a while.
He also doesn't believe in revoking or dismantling the programs for beneficiaries. Since we have paid into social security all our lives, the government needs to make good on its promise to pay us when the time comes. Hes for the gradual phasing out of social security and welfare type programs at the federal level, but not in such a way that the people who receive them or have paid into the system thus far, will be screwed out of the benefits.