Point is South Dakota was allowed to pursue a very different COVID strategy than New York. A Democrat would've tried very hard to make everyone follow the same rules.
Point is South Dakota was allowed to pursue a very different COVID strategy than New York. A Democrat would've tried very hard to make everyone follow the same rules.
The President cannot enforce federal COVID policy in the manner you describe, only the states can. Biden will be restricted in the same way and the change he will make is mandating masks on Federal property.
Him responding to COVID in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean he tried to reduce the power of the state he inherited. That was the response to something new. Trump never really lead any discussion on what reform would look like if we were to reduce the state in size and scope. If the current state of politics is the result of the incentives inherent to system, how are we going to change that? What in the system must be changed? If you blame the individual actors within an incentive structure you will never fix anything.
Sure. I'd probably say that given the secular long term trend towards ever increasing the scope and power of the federal government, "holding the line" against radical expansions is probably the most that we can really hope for in the White House. I'm not sure how it could be argued that he wasn't better on that than anyone since Reagan, and before that, you're into the 1920's? But yeah, if Rand Paul wins in 2024, then I'd assume we'd see something much different.
I need to go to bed so we can agree to disagree on this one. I wouldn't claim Reagan was not an expansionist. He was all rhetoric on that as he ran what were eye popping deficits at the time.
I don't think we disagree that much about it. According to you, no President since (?) has been "good" on expansion of federal power, including Trump. If that's your standard, then I agree.
Point is South Dakota was allowed to pursue a very different COVID strategy than New York. A Democrat would've tried very hard to make everyone follow the same rules.
The President cannot enforce federal COVID policy in the manner you describe, only the states can. Biden will be restricted in the same way and the change he will make is mandating masks on Federal property.
Thank you, M. Iconoclast, for bringing the discussion back to real earth.
No political party, let alone one POTUS, can get this debt paid. We either service it with more Capitalism, or default and start again.
Him responding to COVID in a decentralized fashion doesn't mean he tried to reduce the power of the state he inherited. That was the response to something new. Trump never really lead any discussion on what reform would look like if we were to reduce the state in size and scope. If the current state of politics is the result of the incentives inherent to system, how are we going to change that? What in the system must be changed? If you blame the individual actors within an incentive structure you will never fix anything.
Sure. I'd probably say that given the secular long term trend towards ever increasing the scope and power of the federal government, "holding the line" against radical expansions is probably the most that we can really hope for in the White House. I'm not sure how it could be argued that he wasn't better on that than anyone since Reagan, and before that, you're into the 1920's? But yeah, if Rand Paul wins in 2024, then I'd assume we'd see something much different.
I need to go to bed so we can agree to disagree on this one. I wouldn't claim Reagan was not an expansionist. He was all rhetoric on that as he ran what were eye popping deficits at the time.
I don't think we disagree that much about it. According to you, no President since (?) has been "good" on expansion of federal power, including Trump. If that's your standard, then I agree.