Coming soon, a new meaning for the phrase âsanctuary city?â
I think it is really the difference between city folks and country folks. There is a divide. This is why Iâm for more local government. There should be fewer laws made the broader the governing body.
unfortunately, most of america doesnt agree.
unfortunately NBC like most of the media outlets lies! They are self serving and out to promote their own agenda.
the head line should read, " Of those selected by NBC/WSJ based on their political demographics and Polled results shows that Americans want the Government to do more"
When has the Government ever done something right? Name one Program the Government runs that isnât hounded by corruption, waste, fraud and efficiency.
Thatâs the beginning of a classic paraprosdokian if I ever heard one!
Much of this is the fueled by the hype of âsave our childrenâ but I donât see those same concerned parents demanding that the legal driving age be raised to 21.
The under 21 driver is a much more efficient killing machine than a semi auto rifle.
FYI: Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
This sounds good in principle, but in practice itâs a balancing act. Simply stated, to what extent should the legal landscape be consistent locality-to-locality, state-to-state? Whatâs the breakdown on federal, state, local control?
As a former self-described Libertarian, one thing thatâs struck me about so many laws is that they have basis in disapproval rather than addressing harms.
This is exasperated by Americansâ apparent decreasing geographic mobility. We just donât move for work any like we used to. Thanks to the internet, we self-segment ourselves into increasingly narrow demographic niches. The Us-vs-Them divide keeps growing because we surround ourselves with like and then burrow into identity to further narrow that focus.
Every enterprise of any size suffers this to some degree or another - government, for-profit business, non-profit.
Thereâs always someoneâs friendâs cousinâs sister-in-lawâs ex-roommate that scammed TANF or Fox Newsâs famous lobster-loving surfer on food stamps. The question that needs to be asked is are they representative?
I used to administer a part of Verizonâs Lifeline program. It seemed like we were putting an awful lot of certification burden on people who overwhelmingly lived in poverty for a benefit worth $9.25 a month per recipient. I looked at countless locations on satellite and street view map sites: residents of nursing homes dominated the recipients along with desolate trailer parks, apartments in the bad part of town, and dilapidated-looking houses in dying communities.
Some programs are indeed inefficient. With regards to Lifeline, I have no idea what the FCC counterparts were doing with our submissions - they likely had a comparable staff assessing applications, munching into the budget in the name of âefficiencyâ.
Weâve heard about the enormous cost overruns and âconcurrencyâ problems in defense contracting. Or the enormous percentage of reconstruction budgets in Iraq that was eaten by security expenses.
Social Security on the other hand looks to be rather efficient - I suspect that even an index fund where holding decisions can be fully automated charges more for the privilege.
Clueless city slickers.