Wouldn’t it be great if Democrats rejected big federal government? That is, they dumped the idea of federal entitlement programs and mandates. Instead, leaving it to every state to set up “security nets,” if that’s what the voters in their respective state wanted? Well, why shouldn’t Democrats consider keeping government intervention local? Was just thinking about this, after reading this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/states_rights_stimulus
Also, wouldn’t it be great if Lithuanians stopped being Lithuanians?
Zell Miller is gone.
Yeah, but wouldn’t it be nice if Republicans rejected big government?
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Yeah, but wouldn’t it be nice if Republicans rejected big government?
mike[/quote]
You got there before I did. Let’s work on this first please.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Yeah, but wouldn’t it be nice if Republicans rejected big government?
mike
You got there before I did. Let’s work on this first please.[/quote]
They’re lost in the wilderness. And, I no longer concern myself with their success, or lack of. I’m just curious why Democrats have to give up the idea of state sovereignty, for big national programs.
Give up?
That would suggest that the current crop has ever had that idea.