Do we need a strong federal government?

[BigRedChief]

Govenment is meant to be a place for all of us to gather. A unifying enitity in which all diverse groups and individuals can find common ground and leadership. Not give or do "stuff" for us but a meeting place in which we can do things together as a nation that we can't do individually.

There are some things that only a government can do. We saw what a vacum of federal government leadership causes.......citizens of the USA are dead because of that vacum. Those people relied on the state and local officials to help them. The federal governent is not suppose to step in and take over immediately. This is why we need a strong federal govenment.

We need to return to the middle of the road politically and spritually. Individuals and corperations can only do so much. We need a strong federal government not just a strong military to protect us from our enemies.

[alnorth]

Hell F***ing No.

The complete, utter, and total incompetence of the local government combined with one of the worst storms in history does not prove a need for a strong federal government. Especially in light of the fact that the death toll estimates were overinflated, and would have been largely unchanged regardless of the power of the feds.

The federal government is intended to assist the local government in disaster responce, and if the need for a large widespread responce arises, the military is designed to be able to move in within about a week. Aside from some tweaks in coordination, as well as a defined policy on what should be done when an idiot governor refuses to place the needs of her own people above her own petty political concerns is needed, but thats about it.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Hell F***ing No.

The complete, utter, and total incompetence of the local government combined with one of the worst storms in history does not prove a need for a strong federal government. Especially in light of the fact that the death toll estimates were overinflated, and would have been largely unchanged regardless of the power of the feds.

The federal government is intended to assist the local government in disaster responce, and if the need for a large widespread responce arises, the military is designed to be able to move in within about a week. Aside from some tweaks in coordination, as well as a defined policy on what should be done when an idiot governor refuses to place the needs of her own people above her own petty political concerns is needed, but thats about it.
The current administration is all about bigger federal government.

[alnorth]

The current administration is all about bigger federal government.

*sigh* sadly I dont have a witty comeback for that because this administration is all about growing the government more slowly than his opponent. No one seems to care about cutting back anymore. I know that no Democrat will ever exist that believes in limited government, so I'm forced to vote Republican by default (nationally anyway, local politics is different). However, if the next GOP presidential candidate doesnt believe in limited government, I wont stay home, but I'll leave the top of the ballot blank.

[WoodDraw]

We need a strong federal government as long as it is a responsible one. Providing security is a good thing, handing out bloated contracts just to do something is not. Guaranteeing that every person has affordable health care is a good thing, creating a welfare state is not. Making sure that every child has a quality education is a good thing, continuing to put more and more money into a bureaucratic mess is not.

A strong government doesn't have to be a wasteful government just like a weak government doesn't necessarily mean it is fiscally responsible. What I want is a government capable of ending wasteful spending while still addressing our country's biggest issues.

[alnorth]

Guaranteeing that every person has affordable health care is a good thing

The only major problem we have in medicine is a lack of competition between hospitals to keep prices lower. You can thank big government for that. If we used all that money being poured into medicare, medicaid, etc into individual accounts, where anything you dont spend you can keep, people will be more likely to not go to the hospital for the flu, and better yet, shop around in non-emergency cases. As it is, if the government will pay for it, we dont give a rat's ass how expensive it is, so hospitals are free to jack up the prices outside of supply and demand.

Aside from that, there is no lack of medical care in the US. If you are sick and go to a public hospital, they must give you care regardless of ability to pay.

[WoodDraw]

The only major problem we have in medicine is a lack of competition between hospitals to keep prices lower. You can thank big government for that. If we used all that money being poured into medicare, medicaid, etc into individual accounts, where anything you dont spend you can keep, people will be more likely to not go to the hospital for the flu, and better yet, shop around in non-emergency cases. As it is, if the government will pay for it, we dont give a rat's ass how expensive it is, so hospitals are free to jack up the prices outside of supply and demand.

Aside from that, there is no lack of medical care in the US. If you are sick and go to a public hospital, they must give you care regardless of ability to pay.

Hospitals don't have to care for everyone; they have to stabilize everyone. Big difference. The EMTALA act isn't a solution to the health care crisis and it was never meant as one. It was created because private (not public) hospitals were turning away dieing patients because they couldn't pay. All hospitals have to do is stabilize the patient and then they can kick them out. These people receive no real care (unless your definition of care is not being dead) and most cycle in and out for their entire life. The costs get passed on to those who can afford health care or the hospitals simply go bankrupt.

You say that the only problem with health care is the lack of competition and yet there are millions (many of them children or elderly) who have no health care. You say create individual accounts but for who and where are you going to get the money. Coverage and benefits are being cut across the country and that isn't going to change by putting the money in an individual account.

[BigRedChief]

However, if the next GOP presidential candidate doesnt believe in limited government, I wont stay home, but I'll leave the top of the ballot blank.

The only thing that should be limited in a government is the budget.

Government can do so much more than private enterprise in some aspects of life.

Nobody wants a welfare state. Nobody wants to give governemnt handouts.

[Taco John]

*sigh* sadly I dont have a witty comeback for that because this administration is all about growing the government more slowly than his opponent.

Whoah! Do you seriously believe that? This is the fastest growing government in the history of the United States, and whenever a new problem is presented, Bush's answer is to grow it some more.

There is no way I believe that Kerry could have even dreamed of growing government as fast as this "Conservative" administration.

[the Talking Can]

I like having a broken government run by Bush's cronies...really:

horse whisperer appointed to head FEMA (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/17/katrina.response/index.html)


A disturbing view from inside FEMA
Worker: Decision-makers lack disaster experience

Sunday, September 18, 2005; Posted: 6:48 a.m. EDT (10:48 GMT)


As Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast three weeks ago, veteran workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency braced for an epic disaster.

But their bosses, political appointees with almost no emergency management experience, didn't seem to share the sense of urgency, a FEMA veteran said.

"We told these fellows that there was a killer hurricane heading right toward New Orleans," Leo Bosner, a 26-year FEMA employee and union leader told CNN. "We had done our job, but they didn't do theirs."( Watch video of the whistleblower)

Bosner's storm warning came early Saturday, three days before Hurricane Katrina came ashore in eastern Louisiana.

"New Orleans is of particular concern because much of that city lies below sea level," he warned in his daily alert to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, then-FEMA chief Michael Brown and other Bush administration officials.

"If the hurricane winds blow from a certain direction, there are dire predictions of what may happen in the city," it said. FEMA's tepid response while Katrina's victims grew desperate, suffered and died has been acknowledged and widely criticized.

The agency's failure is a tragic element of the Hurricane Katrina story. But, according to Bosner, FEMA's troubles came as no surprise after its role and stature shifted when federal agencies were reshuffled in response to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Raised concerns

A longtime union leader, Bosner has been a whistle-blower before. This time, he says, colleagues are quietly thanking him for speaking out.

A year ago he raised concerns that Brown was in over his head. Brown stepped down earlier this month after he was removed from leading the government's Katrina relief effort. After resigning, he criticized local officials in an interview with The New York Times, saying the White House wasn't at fault.

"I have nothing personal against Mike Brown," Bosner told CNN. "I feel badly about the guy. But he took a job he was never trained for. The man was a lawyer."

FEMA, formerly an independent agency led by a Cabinet-level official, was among the 22 federal agencies shuffled into the Department of Homeland Security. Brown was an undersecretary who answered to the secretary of Homeland Security.

Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown had spent a decade as the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.

The Washington Post reported earlier this month that the top three FEMA officials had ties to Bush's 2000 presidential election campaign. Five of eight top FEMA officials had no crisis management experience, the newspaper said.

Chertoff and Brown have legal backgrounds but scant emergency management experience.

Brown came to work for FEMA in 2001 as legal counsel to his college friend, then-FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, who was Bush's 2000 campaign manager. Brown assumed the top job when Allbaugh left FEMA in 2003.

Chertoff is a former federal prosecutor and appellate court judge. As a prosecutor, he was involved in developing legal strategies for dealing with terrorism following the September 11 attacks. He was appointed Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in February by a 98-0 Senate vote.

Chertoff worked from home the day Bosner first warned of the hurricane's catastrophic potential for New Orleans, CNN's Tom Foreman reported. Chertoff also has been criticized for writing a memo the day after Katrina struck, delegating authority to Brown and deferring to the White House rather than taking charge.

Chertoff has not commented, but a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said he was in touch with Brown the weekend Katrina approached New Orleans.

The homeland security spokesperson also defended the memo, saying it merely put in writing procedures already in place. But the national disaster plan states that Homeland Security is in charge of the response to disasters like Katrina....

[Baby Lee]

We need a strong federal government as long as it is a responsible one. Providing security is a good thing, handing out bloated contracts just to do something is not. Guaranteeing that every person has affordable health care is a good thing, creating a welfare state is not. Making sure that every child has a quality education is a good thing, continuing to put more and more money into a bureaucratic mess is not.

A strong government doesn't have to be a wasteful government just like a weak government doesn't necessarily mean it is fiscally responsible. What I want is a government capable of ending wasteful spending while still addressing our country's biggest issues.
I agree completely, and I've taken the liberty of calling it pragmatic progressivism. :thumb:

[Baby Lee]

The current administration is all about bigger federal government.
The irony is that, in my view, it's Bush trying to make everyone happy that makes no one happy. The Dems for decades thrived off the mantra that Republicans hate the poor and disfranchised and that's why they back small government, not the lie of fiscal responsibility. So he dispenses the treasury with abandon to say "see, we like people too." And the fiscal conservatives say "f@ck this guy, he's throwing away money." and the fiscal liberals say "f@ck this guy, he's just trying to buy love." Then, once the largess is distributed, it's back to "this guy hates poor people."
Just reinforces my stance that whether you think things are good or bad depends more on what you think about the pres on a personal level than how things actually are.

[alnorth]

You say create individual accounts but for who and where are you going to get the money.

From the programs we have that seek to help pay health care costs for the old and needy, for those who qualify for them. I didnt say I supported universal health insurance.

[alnorth]

There is no way I believe that Kerry could have even dreamed of growing government as fast as this "Conservative" administration.

If you seriously believe that, you havent been paying attention to the Democrat's long wish list of new government programs. Clinton failed only because he had a hostile congress for most of his presidency, but if he could have gotten away with it, we would have had a serious attempt at nationalizing health care for starters.

[WoodDraw]

From the programs we have that seek to help pay health care costs for the old and needy, for those who qualify for them. I didnt say I supported universal health insurance.

Well fine then but don't say that the only problem with health care in this country is the lack of competition. That's just idiotic.