as far as welfare goes, does that mean its the federal governments job to provide things like food stamps and government funded healthcare to those who make below a certain income?
When the government (we the people) provides basic necessities to live a standard quality life to those who cannot do so, is that not promoting general welfare?
The rightwing reactionaries believe austerity and supply side economics promote a prosperous society. But the prosperity stays at the top, meanwhile America has the worst poverty rates in the developed world comparable to Indonesia
clearly i'm ignorant to the subject but i've been reading into the healthcare debate and it would seem that some people insist that requiring everyone to purchase health insurance is the only way to ensure that everyone has access to the care they might potentially need, whereas others insist that the only way to avoid costly premiums and poor care is to step away from government healthcare and through changing the tax code allow people to have access to affordable healthcare by making the free market compete to provide the most quality service and allowing people to deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes. sort of seems like its making sure insurance companies have a steady flow of money coming in and preventing them from turning people down vs government stepping away from healthcare for the majority of people and letting them purchase it on their own or pay out of pocket when necessary. i guess i see the ups and downs of both points of view
For profit health care should be banned, anything else is just handing over big profits to the ultra rich
interesting. apparently under the new healthcare profits for insurers have gone up. Insurer Profits Are Up In The Wake Of Health Care Law They Opposed
would a smaller government make it harder for lobbyists to influence government policy? central banking and fiat currency seem to be a beast that's out of control.
It would leave a smaller sphere of influence for lobbyists to bother getting involved in, but it all depends on how small the government is and whether or not there are any backwards policies and loophole. If the size of the government is decreased substantially across the board then yes.
central banking and fiat currency go hand in hand, but monetary policy should not be blamed on congressional squabbles lobbyists use congress or the judicial system to create/tweak/change laws in their favor, most are successful due to the amount of money they have available to throw at the bureaucrats, hundreds of millions. The "job creators" are putting their wealth to great use. the 'revolving door' nonsense does nothing to promote any sort of profitable privatization
all in all it sounds like the big corporate influenced federal government is the cause of a lot of problems. not sure why people would be demanding more federal government regulations