“...if states want to fund local business, that’s fine but keep the Feds out of it.”
“...Government tampering with free enterprise and trying to central plan it all.”
I sense a contradiction here. Why is it ok for a State Government to tamper with free enterprise, central plan it all, and take from one to fund another local business, as long as the Federal Government is kept out of it?
I want them BOTH kept of of it - and by the way, so does the constitution.
He is saying that, as president, he will stay out of state business. He’s not saying that he approves of what a state might do to subsidize business.
For example, California can be California and if it goes over a cliff, it goes over it alonw.
Feds out.
I want them BOTH kept of of it - and by the way, so does the constitution.
Then you and your neighbors have absolute control over that. That is why our forefathers intended that "government" closest to the people (ie state and local) are best because it will reflect what the people want.
“I want them BOTH kept of of it - and by the way, so does the constitution.”
Ummm...no it doesn’t. Go read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution then get back to me.
Look at the Constitution. That’s where he gets it from.
The powers are reserved to the states that aren’t expressly given to the Feds.
Do you assume that he means every state idea to help a business is good?
He absolutely does not mean that...and if in your state you don’t like what the state is doing, by all means oppose it. There in your state, you have a much better chance of affecting change than if it’s done in Washington DC.
But the Constitution says what it says.
There is no contradiction, although some people will perceive one because they just don’t understand where this is coming from.
Perry adamantly opposes Romneycare.
But the Constitution would allow Romneycare in a state, which puts the burden on the people of any state to control their own destinies by holding politicians accountable when they do something as boneheaded as that...