Cities aren't really equipped to handle this sort of thing. Part of our federalist system is figuring which among the various federal, state, county, city and other overlapping municipal entities is the right one to address any given problem.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"
And for some strange reason, we have a "subpar" economy due to the fault of people that worked hard and took on RISK.
Never mind that the demographics of this country (as I posted above) are heavily skewed to the 60+ crowd that no longer need to spend money like they did when they were younger and as a result, drive economic growth. For some reason, demographics and a declining birth rate dont play into your "tidy" narrative as to why our economy is stuck in low growth. Nope, it's the rich people's fault.
So, we will "reward" the entrepreneurs who took on RISK and created jobs and products that improved our quality of life and liberty - - - by taxing them more than they already are so that we can "redistribute" their money to the poor and the middle class. Because you know, the Govt knows how to spend money far better than you or I do. We should really trust Government on the ability to redistribute people's wealth.
What could go wrong???
Anyone for an $80 BILLION DOLLAR BULLET TRAIN?
I strongly suggest that you take a look at one of the most liberal City Council's in America and what their policies" have done for their citizens (of whom 57% are black) in Flint, Michigan. We're talking about a city with a poverty rate of 41%. That's 2.5x the rate across the state of Michigan.
One out of every 2.4 residents of Flint lives in poverty.
How have all of the social welfare policies "benefitted" the residents of Flint?
Think that's a liberal success story?
Think again.
Similarly, a number of the points that Dajo brings up either raise federalism questions. How are the feds going to pay for community colleges and state colleges?