Didn't say that but nice try.
You took wizards to task for praising Cruz's obstructionism, stating that people want compromise. But when I asked you how that squares with the Democrats' unilateral passage of the ACA, you indicated that they didn't have to compromise, so they were in the right. Seems to be a contradiction there, but perhaps I misread you.
Making Obama a 1 term president was their priority. Stopping him from having a signature policy was their priority, making sure that no Republicans broke ranks and voted for it was their priority. I can't speak for every single individual but as far as the party goes, it sure as hell was a group doing.
They were, by and large, representing their constituents. That's how a republic is supposed to work. If one faction proposes a policy, and another faction strongly opposes it, the elected representatives of the latter aren't doing their jobs
unless they attempt to obstruct it.
First off, no one is talking about Africa but nice straw man.
It's not a straw man. You asked, "Do you really think it should matter if a person is born in rural Arkansas or NYC whether they have healthcare or not?" Yes, it matters tremendously, because rural Arkansans and New Yorkers have different values, and they should have the freedom to govern themselves accordingly.
2nd, the Federal Government IMHO and in that of the Supreme Court has wide latitude under the General Welfare Clause.
There's no way to reconcile that interpretation with an honest reading of the 10th Amendment. If you support an omnipotent Federal government, just own it and say so; but that's a far cry from the system described in our Constitution, and it's one that a huge number of your countrymen don't want to live under.
Lastly your idea of living in mostly self-sufficient communities is just about impossible in this day and age. It is not compatible with how the world has changed.
Why is that now impossible? Why aren't states capable of governing their own welfare programs or their education systems?
Ultimately I think that we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to make sure that the basic needs are met (food, water, a roof to live under), that children are given a fighting chance to succeed at life (education, food and healthcare so that they can live), and I think that we are responsible not only for the people living in my community but also for all of the citizens of the U.S. At what point are we our brothers keeps? At what point do we bear responsibility for their basic needs to be met? To me the Catholic teaching on Human Dignity, says you take care of those people, that the poor aren't someone that we just throw money at, but someone that we partner with and help them to rise up from where they are at currently. I guess, how do you reconcile your beliefs that we don't need to help them with their basic needs with your beliefs as a Catholic?
Catholic social teaching emphasizes the communitarian, the local and the sustainable. Huge centralized institutions, whether corporate or governmental, are a threat to those values. Our welfare programs have never been more generous than they are today, and yet our culture is a debased consumerist joke and the American family has never been in worse shape. The nanny state does far more harm than good.
. Yes he took the money, and no I don't think he should have...but he did very well with it. In terms of being a budget buster...we'll see. He seems to think they'll have it under control. With the surplus he claims, that could be true.
