I need a republican..

aggiefamily said:
I agree with your statement about public vote. I think a lot of the grumbling about governmnet comes from the feeling that we don't have a say. Yes, we vote for our senators and representatives but do they really represent your own opioions, beliefs and feelings?

I think that is where the level of trust is lost. If my representative was truly representing me I would be more inclined to have more government. But right now I think they are a bunch of idiots and I don't trust that they have my best interest in mind.

I wish we were able to express our vote more. I wish I was able to vote for specifically what I want and not have someone do it for me. You can only trust yourself.
Click to expand...

This is one of the problems i I have with a more local government focused system.. because I don't believe that the small scaled government is......... governed LOL enough. We do not have all the branches in place in the same force of the federal government.. so at the end of the day- the public doesn't have "as much of" a say on the local government. This is the way I see it anyway.
Maybe THAT is what needs an overhaul. Not the federal government as a whole- but how we operate on state level.
 
lauren grier said:
But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
Our situations are similar- in the fact that we're both single parents, receiving no CS & no medical insurance from the other parent. This isn't a "unique" situation.. there are a lot of honest hard working people who need these programs.
Click to expand...

I completely and totally agree with this.
 
I just wanted to say something about health care, I'm beyond greatful for Medicad. If it wasn't for that government program we would be about $70,000 in debt from Keira's cancer.

They've paid for everything, the surgery alone to remove her her tumor was $60,000, chemo is $1000 a pop, she has 10 visits left.

I find myself smack dab in the middle on most issues, but when it comes to health care, I think we all should get it. Don't care how you slice it. As far as other things, I hate how Welfare and things like that get misused, our taxes should be spent better, there are a lot of problems with our government, but there are a lot of good things too.
 
lauren grier said:
anyway..yes. and this is yet another problem. Tightening regulations even further because of those who abuse the system would just hurt more and more families... and otoh- your statement, unfortunately, is what a lot of people DO do. Manipulating the system, once again. I understand why there are guidelines. I understand if you make 52 dollars too much you don't get it the end... But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
Our situations are similar- in the fact that we're both single parents, receiving no CS & no medical insurance from the other parent. This isn't a "unique" situation.. there are a lot of honest hard working people who need these programs.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. This is where we couldn't get state insurance either when we applied.......it was less than $200 away from not qualifying. When I said we made too much money.......it doesn't mean that we are rolling in the dough! LOL That is when we really had to make some hard decisions. Since I am a SAHM we sold a car and bought a very cheap car with cash just so we could pay our insurance premiums. I know that there are many in the same boat that you are in and I totally agree that it completley sucks. This is why I think it is horrible that people are on it that don't NEED it, they just find it as an easy way out of working.
 
This is such an interesting thread. And, I love that we can have a respectful discussion here.

About state taxes going up if we had more local control . . . I thought the exact same thing. People would have to get on board with paying more state taxes. But, I feel the same way as a PP said. I wouldn't mind paying a little more if I knew it would be used well.

And, you are also right La, that if we gave more control to state/local governments, there would need to be a massive overhaul in the way we elect our representatives, the way things are regulated, etc. It would be a HUGE shift. But, in my dream world, that's still the way it would be because I really do believe that state/local leaders know better how to deal with their problems.

I do think that we need a strong federal government for certain things - like the military. I'm definitely not for getting rid of the feds entirely. I just wish my voice was heard more. And, the way things are right now, it sounds like we all feel that way. The system is broken. But, I also feel really grateful to live in this country. Our flawed system is still the best one out there IMO.
 
Oh - and another thing I thought of . . .

To a lot of people, issues like abortion and gay marriage, are moral issues. So people who are opposed to them are opposed to them on moral grounds and it doesn't really have anything to do with big or small government. They will be opposed to them no matter what and no matter where. And, if they have to use the federal system to get the laws they want, then they probably will try to do that. Maybe that's a little hypocritical if someone says they want smaller government but still wants federal regulation on particular issues. But, I think we all agree that the federal government does have its place, and everyone will have different opinions about where that place is.
 
ltarbox said:
Oh - and another thing I thought of . . .

To a lot of people, issues like abortion and gay marriage, are moral issues. So people who are opposed to them are opposed to them on moral grounds and it doesn't really have anything to do with big or small government. They will be opposed to them no matter what and no matter where. And, if they have to use the federal system to get the laws they want, then they probably will try to do that. Maybe that's a little hypocritical if someone says they want smaller government but still wants federal regulation on particular issues. But, I think we all agree that the federal government does have its place, and everyone will have different opinions about where that place is.
Click to expand...

I'm going to try to keep my response as toned down as possible ^_^
I think it is highly hypocritical- just as i think it's hypocritical to rant that obama isn't "doing more" when you ask for less government the day before. I think ....
what it boils down to is what amanda said- that it's about trust and having a voice-- NOT imo (not amandas here lol) specifically, more or less government/regulation. I think everyone wants the government there to do .. what they want it to do. Whatever that may be.
I do think. In general however. That morals are a messy thing to mix into politics... There are those that will argue that...... murder is illegal because it is morally wrong- and therefore my argument is mute. (moot? it doesn't matter lol). I disagree. Laws are there to protect the citizens of a country. Not to impose morals. It's morally wrong to cheat on your spouse- but it is not a punishable crime by mans laws (in our country). Mans laws, are there to protect the citizens from harm inflicted by other citizens. Stealing, physical harm, i'm losing my train of thought crap... lol.. This is why I accept Kellie's argument against abortion. She believes abortion is murder- she sees a fetus as a person. She sees it as harming another person- therefore this is not a moral issue- this is a protection issue to her.
 
I am a republican for moral/religious views. That being said does not mean I only
vote for republican candidates.

As for as more or less government...I say let's make the agencies and programs work more efficiently. I know some probably do and have a hard time getting funding..and funding is hard to get from taxes or wherever it comes from in a time of recession and job loss. Another thing that runs our budgets and debt into the red is the pork barrel politics...of sure I will vote for this or that if you give me/my state/or cause x amount of dollars. This is both parties. What happened to just voting on an bill to get the greater good. Pipe Dreams, huh? But ya's know what I mean.
That's just my little 2 cents.
Great thread BTW!!!
 
Balinda said:
I am a republican for moral/religious views. That being said does not mean I only
vote for republican candidates.

As for as more or less government...I say let's make the agencies and programs work more efficiently. I know some probably do and have a hard time getting funding..and funding is hard to get from taxes or wherever it comes from in a time of recession and job loss. Another thing that runs our budgets and debt into the red is the pork barrel politics...of sure I will vote for this or that if you give me/my state/or cause x amount of dollars. This is both parties. What happened to just voting on an bill to get the greater good. Pipe Dreams, huh? But ya's know what I mean.
That's just my little 2 cents.
Great thread BTW!!!
Click to expand...

YES!!!!! I vote based on my views too but that doesn't always mean republican. Also on that note.......I know Christianity isn't everyone's view. I am strongly convicted by my views though. So I would HAVE to vote with that in mind just to stand by my beliefs. I don't judge others by their choices in their life........we all make decisions, good and bad, and have to live with the consequences of those actions. It is not up to me to decide for others. I do have to go with my "gut" and convictions though. I don't live a perfect life and I do make mistakes. I just try to be the best person I can be and show God's love and grace to others. I just hate that there are many "christians" claiming to be doing "God's work" in hate and making it hard for others to live their lives. There is no reason for hateful things to be said or done to others that I don't agree with their views or lifestyle or choices. I am not one of "those".

Also, YES on programs need to run more efficiently. Not only will that cause less head ache for those seeking assistance but it will also save our great country MAJOR dollars! What a concept. It sounds easy doesn't it? I wish I understood how this is not happening. It just seems like common sense to me.

I love this thread. I am so glad that we are all adults and can have a healthy discussion on even political matters! SSD is the best! Thank you ladies for being part of this awesome network! I just love it here!
 
joelsgirl said:
Krystal Hartley, you are pretty close to perfect. I agree with most of what you said.

In regards to abortion, it's not just a moral issue. I support legislature that makes abortion illegal because it DOES harm others. It protects an unborn child with a beating heart but no voice. Of course others don't see it this way, but that is my reason.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Totally. The Government stepping in to protect a life to me is valid.

And I think preaching small government and walking a different walk to promote legislation that protects neither life or liberty of US citizens is hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
I was going to add that my little sister and I used to argue...

We were both married with little girls, but I was 24 when I had Avery, and she was just 19. She was still in school, and her husband waited tables and various other things for income. My husband was a salaried white collar worker, and I was a SAHM.

We would constantly argue over democrat vs. republican view on things regarding size of government, welfare, healthcare, etc. She leaned liberal, and I leaned conservative. It was hilarious to me that later, when her husband landed a regular job and they bought a house, etc. that she started to see my point of view more. She finally "got" what I had been trying to say to her. She really adjusted her perspective from a young, kind-hearted, peace-love-and-happiness kind of thing to someone who was paying lots of taxes and working her butt off while friends would continue to abuse the system with their 6 kids, living on gov't funds to go to school and using it to buy fully-loaded minivans and plasma TVs, etc. And then the argument comes full circle to a discussion about how it's just not working...yes people need help, but there has got to be a better way. Just nobody has the answer.

This is very anecdotal and I know millions of women who were in my shoes who still would lean / are liberal in regards to the role of government. I also know that there are millions of women who want a smaller government but have compassion in their hearts and just accept that what we have to make the most of what we have...even if it's not a perfect system. We gripe and complain as we see system abuses, money wasted...but we don't have any answers. Even if we had a brilliant idea, the liklihood of it being implemented isn't very good. Newton's Law and all that.
 
lauren grier said:
This is also however, why i think large government- when applied properly (erm)- is important. Because we need regulation w/ the greedy companies.. We need regulation to protect our children- to keep them safe, to ensure they are getting an education, to ensure they are getting health care.. etc... and I'm not sure how to balance that. I think- at the base- our government system is awesome. Checks and balances and all that. We just need a reset button.
Click to expand...

Okay but WHO is going to regulate the greedy companies? Greedy congressmen and senators. No thanks. My dad is a very honest and well respected local politician, and he says that to get to that level, you HAVE to have sold out somewhere...and have to be willing to sell out a lot more places to stay there.
 
lauren grier said:
But no child, should be without insurance. I think that all children- should be covered... and all working adults should have a means to obtain Affordable insurance. I don't think it should just be a blanket system..
.
Click to expand...

This I completely agree with and it's already that way in my state, and has been since I moved here. The only problem I see is the word "affordable". Who is going to define what that means and how can we truthfully define it for everyone? Every situation is unique so there has to be some limitations set up and in doing so what is affordable for you might not be affordable for me. I don't know how we ever get past that.

What scares me about gov't run healthcare is that I work in healthcare. I see what happens to hospitals and clinics when the govt is reimbursing vs. a commercial ins. carrier. It bites! I'm scared that more drs. won't be able to keep their practices open because reimbursements will go down. You can't run a hospital or clinic on just medicare/medicaid patients because the gov't reimbursements are way too low.

As far as taxes, I don't mind when my local taxes get raised as much because I know where that money is going. On the local level my taxes get raised for a specific purpose: better roads, improve the local school system, etc. On the national level taxes are just raised because the gov't needs more money. Well honestly, with the national deficit, that's just not good enough for me. My state and local govt budgets are balanced (hasn't always been that way here on the state level, but we've had a good Dem. gov. who helped us and I feel has done a pretty good job the last 8 years and yes, I'm pretty much a Republican on the national level). My household budget is balanced. I have a huge problem with the national govt not doing anything I can see to try to rectify the situation except keep asking for more money. To me they can't manage what they already have and I don't feel like they'll be able to manage any more in any better way. So until I see the govt (both sides, I don't really trust politicians of any party) cutting back a little themselves and trying to set things right, I have a huge problem with them wanting more of my money that I have worked hard to get. And this is how I feel about "bigger government". I guess it all boils down to the fact that I don't trust "Washington" at all. I think they all say what they think we want to hear and then do what fits their own personal agenda. I keep a very close eye on how my federal Congressman are voting.

I didn't mean to go on so long. Hope that sounded ok and didn't offend anyone. Ducking out of the way now. :)
 
joelsgirl said:
Okay but WHO is going to regulate the greedy companies? Greedy congressmen and senators. No thanks. My dad is a very honest and well respected local politician, and he says that to get to that level, you HAVE to have sold out somewhere...and have to be willing to sell out a lot more places to stay there.
Click to expand...

I think that's part of why we in the US desperately need campaign reform. We've created the monster we detest. When it costs so much money to get elected we really limit the pool as well as create the perfect environment for the shady relationships and revolving door practices between government and big business. Even at the local level it's gotten to be way out of kilter.
 
Traci Reed said:
I like the stance that it's not really "less government" but rather local government, though in that case we might as well just split up into 50 countries, which I'm not opposed to :) haha.
Click to expand...

See I agree with you here...but I am not a republican, I am heavy liberal. I have never truly gotten the entire state's rights thing. If we are to be a unified country than there are unified laws that we need to have an a unified government that controls them.

If we allowed all the power to go back to the individual states I think we'd see a pretty interesting map emerge. The entire middle of the country would abolish abortion rights, allow excess guns and would ban gay marriage. The perimeter would be the opposite.

At that point why be a unified country?
 
taracotta7 said:
YES!!!!! I vote based on my views too but that doesn't always mean republican. Also on that note.......I know Christianity isn't everyone's view. I am strongly convicted by my views though. So I would HAVE to vote with that in mind just to stand by my beliefs. !
Click to expand...

I have to say that I find it very difficult to hear all the time that abortion rights and gay marriage issues are Christian issues and we should adopt Christian law into American Law. Sarah Palin recently said that the US Law should be based on the ten commandments.

As a non Christian (I am Jewish) I can not stand to hear that because Christianity doesn't approve of gay marriage that the American government should not either.

There is something called separation of church and state. It was created so that the government would not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of religious houses of worship. That means that if the American Government were to allow Gay Marriage that they could NOT force it upon religious organizations.

So why on earth prevent others from do it? no one is asking you to marry a woman?

These reasons are why I feel that a larger federal government free of religious affiliation is vital to our country.
 
To answer your question about higher state taxes - in theory yes I'd be ok with that. Its hard to pay taxes and know you are paying for a great life for people you had not choice of voting into office. Knowing they are living an extravagant lifestyle while our soldiers are barely making enough money to stay above poverty lines. I would like to believe that while at first it would be more expensive, it would lead to lower costs as things became more efficient. I don't think you could ever totally do away with federal taxes though, someone has to pay for the armed forces and such.

One of my biggest problems with "big" govt is the waste. If you've ever used a military hospital you've probably seen it. I would also like to think that politicians would be much more accountable if just at a local level. You make promises, you don't keep them, that community is much more likely to band together and boot your ass.

I agree with whoever said bipartisanship is killing our nation. I think it causes more hate and anger than it does anything positive
 
ltarbox said:
To a lot of people, issues like abortion and gay marriage, are moral issues. So people who are opposed to them are opposed to them on moral grounds and it doesn't really have anything to do with big or small government. They will be opposed to them no matter what and no matter where. And, if they have to use the federal system to get the laws they want, then they probably will try to do that. Maybe that's a little hypocritical if someone says they want smaller government but still wants federal regulation on particular issues. But, I think we all agree that the federal government does have its place, and everyone will have different opinions about where that place is.
Click to expand...

I guess what I was trying to say with this is that not necessarily EVERYONE who identifies a Republican does so because they like the idea of small government. Some of them probably call themselves Republican because they agree with the stance that the Republican Party has traditionally taken on some of these issues. And, others may be Republicans for entirely different reasons. For me, it's about having more power at the local level.

I just don't see it as black and white. There are so many different kinds of people who belong to both parties and such a range of opinions within each party. And, it's not all or nothing. Wanting more power at the local level doesn't mean that you want to eradicate the federal government. We DO need them. But, like I said, everyone will have a different opinion about how large of a role they should take and on which issues.
 
A comment I have to make - capitalism is a good thing (IMO). Where would be we be without capitalism? Working hard to "make something of yourself" is a long held American idea and it's been important to the growth of our country. Immigrants flooded our country in the last century purely because it was the land of opportunity and if they worked hard enough they could build a success for themselves, become a business owner, get a good education for their children, etc. Capitalism makes our country work well. There is little incentive to work HARD if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your efforts - that is why capitalism works.

This is an interesting thread and I am glad that people aren't fighting - there have been some awful political threads on the homeschool board I visit. :blink: That being said - as much as a liberal would have trouble understanding my base level views on politics, I struggle just as much with understanding theirs, kwim? We could have this exact thread from the opposite perspective with me asking - so explain to me this democrat shizz, why they heck do they want to tell me how to do everything? :p (of course La asked her question a lot more gently - I'm just being silly)

As to the healthcare thing - that truly is such a difficult issue. Healthcare is a MESS. I'll post about my thoughts on that in a different post - feeding Hazel right now.:)
 
I don't wan to tell you how to do everything :] With the two main political parties to "chose" from i def am on the democratic side- but like I said early on i'm not a dem. I think personally.. the democratic side offers MORE liberties to the people- than the repub side- which is (imo) telling me how to live, who to love, etc etc.

Kellie my statement was more hypothetical than anything.. Stemming from krystals perfect world- thus why I Said if "run properly (erm)" or whatevr exactly I said.

You can not remove the human element from our government- there will therefore always be greed and corruption.
 
ltarbox said:
I just don't see it as black and white. There are so many different kinds of people who belong to both parties and such a range of opinions within each party. And, it's not all or nothing. Wanting more power at the local level doesn't mean that you want to eradicate the federal government. We DO need them. But, like I said, everyone will have a different opinion about how large of a role they should take and on which issues.
Click to expand...

It's def not black and white.. and as has been stated- the bipartisanship is def a problem. There are some platforms of the dem party that i am absolutely opposed to. There are platforms that I don't think either party even addresses adequately.
I was just chuckling to myself the other day listening to some political radio (yeh im a dork) thinking how HARD it was drilled into our heads in school- that a third party candidate has and never will win an election. Of course they won't. We've been told for our entire lives not to waste our votes on someone other than a repub or dem.
 
La - my perception is that the democrats try to tell me how to do everything via their regulation. An example - while I live in a very homeschool friendly state, many states have hardcore regulations that dictate what homeschooled kids have to be taught and how much and all that. Presumably this is for the protection of the kids education. But in my opinion the responsibility of educating my child falls on my shoulders not the governments. Same goes for vaccines, homebirth, even things like being able to buy raw milk (not legal in my state) etc. Their seems to be a pervasive viewpoint that the american people can't be trusted to make their own choices and therefore we need to regulate those choices so they make the "right" ones. Again - totally my opinion, my perception, my viewpoint.
 
Emmy said:
La - my perception is that the democrats try to tell me how to do everything via their regulation. An example - while I live in a very homeschool friendly state, many states have hardcore regulations that dictate what homeschooled kids have to be taught and how much and all that. Presumably this is for the protection of the kids education. But in my opinion the responsibility of educating my child falls on my shoulders not the governments. Same goes for vaccines, homebirth, even things like being able to buy raw milk (not legal in my state) etc. Their seems to be a pervasive viewpoint that the american people can't be trusted to make their own choices and therefore we need to regulate those choices so they make the "right" ones. Again - totally my opinion, my perception, my viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Well........
A lot of those things are state level issues. Right? Actually all of them but vaccines may be (and even those vary slightly from state to state yes?). If we want to reduce the regulations imposed on us by the federal govt- and put it in the hands of local govt-- how will that help things?
 
Honestly I don't know any Republicans who say Obama should be doing more. I do know Dems who think that though because they voted him in on the hope that he would do more. Those Reps I know think the BPs problem is BPs problem & BP need to get their butts in gear and fix it. Those Dems I know want to know why Obama hasn't made BP do 'something' to fix it, since Obama is supposed to be saviour of the country & right all the wrongs just like he promised in 2008.

I've voted Independent in every election since 1986. Throw the Bums Out! has been my rallying cry for almost 25 years now. Dems, Reps doesn't matter. The current system is broken, in part because since the Interstate Commerce Act if 1887 & the Transportation Act of 1920 there is absolutely nothing that cannot be defined as needing 'federal oversight' should the federal govt. choose to say so. That gives the feds far more power than the founders intended. More power=more corruption=more waste. Starting with FDR presidents on both sides have used those acts & others to broaden the federal scope more than I think warrented. We need fed money for roads & other transportation & help policing. That's needed from an economic standpoint. Schools as well need fed help and some basic health care for kids. Also for basic economic reasons. The feds don't need to be involved in drugs, gambling, abortion, marriage, guns, etc. Those things are better handled on a local level because what works in the country (a gun in every closet for hunting) doesn't work in the city (too many people to go hunting) or what works in Montana might be useless in California.

I'm not against some federal power, it needs to be there to hold the union together & there are things that are just handled better federally like making sure poor states still have working roads & decent schools. But if California wants to legalize pot, they should be allowed to & if Arizona wants to make possession an offense the should be allowed to.

Too much power has been given to the feds, they have become too partisan because too much is at stake & that is why I think the current system is broken and needs to be torn down & rebuilt.
 
Well that's the thing that I said early on in the thread-- States already CAN create legislation that is "against" the federal legislation. RE: Gay marriage.. Marijuana Decriminalization (mass passed this last year i know for sure), ETC.
 
The healthcare issue....this is such a crazy mess. One of the reasons that I do not support the healthcare bill is that I think it addresses some of the wrong issues. It makes healthcare more available to people that couldn't get it before but it didn't do anything about the cost of health insurance or the cost of healthcare. Both of those issues are HUGE and yet they weren't addressed. For that matter - why not open up the health insurance market and let people buy health insurance across state lines from any provider? This was something the dems dodged consistently during the healthcare debates and it makes no sense to me - greater competition results in better pricing for the consumers.

As to the cost of healthcare itself - it's absolute craziness. The pricing is all over the place. If you have no health insurance at all you can pay $900 for something that will cost an insured person $179 (because their insurance company gets a better deal). The inconsistency in pricing makes having no health insurance an even greater problem for the uninsured.

That being said - there is no easy fix and I was glad to see the pre-existing condition thing go away for sure.

I suppose if we wanted to get really intellectual we could discuss whether healthcare is a right or a privilege? ;) That discussion makes my head spin though so I won't go there. I will leave it to say I don't want any child to be without needed healthcare but I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide it out of hand. There are no easy answers.
 
Emmy said:
I will leave it to say I don't want any child to be without needed healthcare but I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide it out of hand. There are no easy answers.
Click to expand...

I think we agree there.. as I said earlier similar. :]
 
I've never been a supporter of the so called "universal healthcare" and from what I can understand- the president wasn't either. There are members of the democratic political party - and members of his staff- that do support UH.. but I don't think it's the solution either.
 
But they shouldn't have to. The feds have no business making those laws. California, Mass & others can currently say 'oh this is legal here in spite of you feds' because Obama has chosen not to interfere. Some other president might decide otherwise, then we have this long drawn out expensive process of getting cases to the Supreme Court so they can decide whether drugs are a state or federal issue & whether states are allowed to legalize it.
 
Stacey42 said:
But they shouldn't have to. The feds have no business making those laws. California, Mass & others can currently say 'oh this is legal here in spite of you feds' because Obama has chosen not to interfere. Some other president might decide otherwise, then we have this long drawn out expensive process of getting cases to the Supreme Court so they can decide whether drugs are a state or federal issue & whether states are allowed to legalize it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. I DO think that they should be state regulated-- The concerns of course are, that we are a country, and should be unified.. and I can hop skip over the mass border (which is literally.. 2 steps away from my house) and do something there that is considered a crime when i get to the other corner. It's hairy.
 
lauren grier said:
If we want to reduce the regulations imposed on us by the federal govt- and put it in the hands of local govt-- how will that help things?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question anymore - I was just speaking to my general political philosophy - why I believe in less government kwim? The basis of what I was saying is that my perception is that democrats want to tell people how to live because they believe people can't be trusted to make their own informed choices. Yes some of the examples I gave are regulated more at the state level but there are similar issues at the federal level (the FDA, Dept. of Education, health insurance regulation, etc). And just to clarify - I'm not arguing my point - just explaining where I'm coming from.
 
Emmy said:
I'm not sure I understand the question anymore - I was just speaking to my general political philosophy - why I believe in less government kwim? The basis of what I was saying is that my perception is that democrats want to tell people how to live because they believe people can't be trusted to make their own informed choices. Yes some of the examples I gave are regulated more at the state level but there are similar issues at the federal level (the FDA, Dept. of Education, health insurance regulation, etc). And just to clarify - I'm not arguing my point - just explaining where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...

I know you're not arguing :]
I'm just trying to understand too-- but i think stacey explained what you are saying-- that the federal regulations shouldn't exist to begin with-- that there shouldn't have to be laws overriding fed legislation- there should JUST be the state level laws.. yes what you pointed out where all state legislation - so to me, I said.. well How does giving more power to the state help your cause? because they'd just make more laws that you don't agree with. LOL it was a lot clearer in my head.
 
I think at a state level I'd probably be less likely to disgree with the laws. I have always been of the feeling that state & local laws are something I have a say in. I am far more active politically in my county than I am at a federal level. Yes, majority rules but I am far more accepting of defeat when I know it was my neighbors who chose otherwise and have to live with the consquences just like I do. I feel much more 'we're all in this together' at the county & state level, than I do at the federal level.
 
Stacey42 said:
I think at a state level I'd probably be less likely to disgree with the laws. I have always been of the feeling that state & local laws are something I have a say in. I am far more active politically in my county than I am at a federal level. Yes, majority rules but I am far more accepting of defeat when I know it was my neighbors who chose otherwise and have to live with the consquences just like I do. I feel much more 'we're all in this together' at the county & state level, than I do at the federal level.
Click to expand...

I think that's really important-- and a really valid point. I was thinking about asking earlier-- how many people were politically active on the local level. Sometimes i don't even KNOW when things are up to vote :confused: It's like a secret- (it's not really- but it's obv not as in your face as the federal level)
 
yeah, local elections & things don't seem to get as much coverage. You see signs in people's yards suddenly saying things like "Yes on Bond 135" and "No on Prop 72" and you're left wondering what the heck bond 135 is for & when are we voting on it? But in a way I sort of like it. Less quick feel good sound bites, less fluff, more actual info & I think, at least around here, more people making informed decisions based on more than a 30 second commercial & radio punditry, just because these is less of those things.

You also have a much better idea of people's biases when you hear things. I know the Hayes are against development bonds because they own the local mini mart & both local gas stations & it will increase the ease for new businesses (their competition) to open. I know the Alberts are for it because their 95 year old grandfather owns a 200acre farm they are hoping to develop into housing subdivisions as soon as he dies & the bond will make the possible lot sizes smaller meaning they can sell more of them. Since i know them & their motivations I can take what they are saying in a better context than I can with senators & special interest groups at a federal level
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2026 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top