Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
and I dont mind being a "Log Cabin Republican" or whatever that is 
I'm registered INDY but I'm def. a conservative with liberal social views (which I feel social issues should not be things decided by the gov anyway) |
i don't know what log cabin rep is either. i'm not registered as anything, it's not required here to list a party.
as for social issues...most should have been assumed by individual states long ago, the fed should never have become what it is now.
each state knows best it's constituency, the cost of living is different in each area-it just seems you'd have less fraud, less waste, if it was all more localized. but how do you move the burden to states, along with the taxing ability? obviously local and state taxes would rise, with a simultaneous lowering of federal-how that could ever be accomplished is beyond me.
but, like when the electoral college came up--this country isn't the same as when it began; back then, most wanted no kind of centralized govt-now it's exactly what we've got. individual states no longer look at themselves as autonomous for the most part. it's a big mess, really.
here in arkansas, we have arkids first to provide health care for kids without insurace. and everyone says it's a much better program than the federal program, more kids are covered, and more procedures. yet we still pay for the federal program as well. double dipping so to speak..but that's a prime example of locally handling an issue being better than everything thru d.c. but who will attack the problem?
11-06-2008, 03:45 PM
Hybrid Mode
