Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo6bar
The poor repair of MN bridges is not the responsibility of the Federal government. It is the state who failed. Ron Paul advocates a smaller Federal government, placing greater burden on individual states, and likewise, giving states more funds with which to play.
|
The state failed and let a bridge fall, but Ron Paul wants to reduce the role of the feds and give the money directly to the states? The state that failed to keep a freaking bridge from falling down? The general irresponsiblity of state governments in things like this are the prime example of why our federal form of government is so important.
The bridge that fell was on the
interstate highway system. If left to the states (and Ron Paul) we would not have an interstate highway system. The bridge that fell was built with federal money, inspected by state and federal inspectors, and with primary repair responsibility on the state - a state that didn't want to spend any money on the bridge if it didn't come from the feds. It will be rebuilt with federal money. I hope it is built to federal standards, not state specs that are influenced by the builders' lobby.
How is Ron Paul going to reduce the role of the federal government and give more money to the states? That's oxymoronic. Instead it's a fair description of liberal Democratic dogma.