A presidential candidate who understands the concept of federalism?
Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders. Rather than perpetual combat in Washington, he insists, the nation could reach a new equilibrium as different states gravitated to different solutions.
But that would make states like little laboratories of democracy. How inefficient.
Comments
Why not just seperate the red and blue states altogether and create new countries, but of course the red states would lose all the tax subsidies they get from blue states
The red states wouldn't need the subsidies, they'd actually go to work.
Of course, that's the problem--laziness! How simple. If everybody would just get up off of their dead asses and go to work for the corporate masters, stop worrying about their rotten incomes, and keep their mouths shut like good little bobbleheads that are lucky to even HAVE a job, everything would be OK.
Just accept the fact that the corporations own us body and soul, that what we want doesn't matter in the grand scheme of US hegemony, and drone on for oil, insurance, and pharmaceuticals, and maybe one day we'll be able to afford them.
Let me re-structure that rant for you.
Of course, that
Ah yes - the "lazy" worker argument - a common meme of the pro globalist right. Of course the the fact that US workers are THE most productive in the world and the productivity numbers prove that makes the lazy worker and its cousin the "stupid" worker argument false.
The poverty levels have increased under Bush, as has the gap between the rich and the poor grown too.
The middle class has seen their wages stagnate, at the same time as their costs of food, fuel, utilities, medical care, education and local taxes increase beyond rates of inflation. Of course inflation rates are understated because they conveniently do not include any of these costs.
But don't take my word for it, check out the US census bureau and many other economic reporting agencies that is unbiased and not affiliated with a political viewpoint.
Of course sarcasm doesn't penetrate; no numbers to back it up.
I'm sure you're convinced that all State workers, of which I'm one, are both lazy and stupid. It's a common perception.
First, "The poverty levels have increased under Bush," uhhh
you may want to read this......
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html
I am not speaking of poverty levels, per se. To do that arbitrarily assigns some artificial cutoff point on poverty.
Nor am I referring to unemployment figures. Regardless of those somewhat questionable numbers, flipping burgers is not really a top-notch job.
My complaint is with the inability of average people to do anything more than live paycheck to paycheck--if they can do that. The high cost of medical, gas, food, and housing assures that saving for the future is out of the question. The nonregulation of credit forces people deeper and deeper into debt.
Ultraconsumerism is a trap that, once fallen into, can be impossible to climb out of because business is deemed more important than lives in this country.