BOOM
Favorite Answer
Stronger local. Someone from out of town isn't going to know anything about what our local needs are. Plus, that's how the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution intended it to be. Big Government is definitely NOT something which Benjamin Franklin would support.
That said, I don't have any problem with Social Security or many other social programs about which so many conservatives irrationally rant and rave. Truth is, if we balanced our federal budget and cut back our military spending to what's required to defend America and America ONLY, we could lower taxes even more and still have enough for all the social programs the liberals want.
knightrunner13
Stronger state . Looking at how California was screwed when the voters passed a law saying you had to be a US citizen to be able to get state welfare and medical help from the state . Some thought the law was too anti illegal alien and went to a supreme court in a state that was friendly to the illegals and had the law thrown out . Now California has the most hospital shut downs in the US . Clinics have gone under and the welfare system is broke . A stronger state government could have stopped it . If your wondering the law was passed by state voters by 97 % .
Anonymous
strong local governments increase the quality of life for more people, while strong federal governments can accomplish amazing things. we need a little of both, but local and state governments should have more effect on peoples every day lives than federal government.
it is only logical. not everybody in the country shares the same ideals, while typically people in municipalities can come to majority agreements on how they would like the government to handle certain things. every time we decide things on a federal level, we leave a large portion of the country unsatisfied WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
another point. alot of things brought to washington are only issues to a select few groups of people in the country. when they are not a problem for the vast majority of the country, there is no reason for decisions to be made above the local level.
grumpyoldman
Stronger distant. If left totally to the states, without federal grants, the less populated, poor states couldn't bear the strain. Property owners would be taxed to death.
sophieb
seems you are asking if we are a democrat or a republican. Republicans, from what I know, favor a smaller federal government and Democrats favor a larger federal government. And then for the local government people try to get them the same party so it's easier to get funds and ask for things. If they don't match parties then there's problems, time wasted, decisions not made...just like Bush's administration...he can't get much done (has to do it himself) because the parties don't match up.