2007-08-05 09:53:08 · 13 answers · asked by me 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Bridges.
Schools.
Hospitals.
Bring our guys home so they can help.
2007-08-05 10:01:31 · answer #1 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The states and the federal government have enough to do both! Some blame the Republican governor for not allowing the 5 cent tax hike on gasoline take effect and that left them short of cash. At that time Minnesota had a 2.2 billion dollar surplus! It's not about the shortage of money it's about state and federal priorities. They spend the time and money on things like a 20 million dollar liberal arts building or a tribute to bears and on and on. the fight against terrorism is real and although I hate any kind of war we have been put in a place to defend our way of life or be murdered and that includes any nation that yearns to be a free country. Don't let liberals fool you on this one.....
2007-08-05 17:05:59 · answer #2 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Each state gets money from the Federal Government EVERY YEAR to fix their bridges!!. What are they doing with it? And how can that compare with trying to do what's right in Iraq?
2007-08-05 16:57:23 · answer #3 · answered by and socialism 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can spread Democracy and Fix Bridges.
2007-08-05 16:55:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
state and local taxes should go toward maintaining roads and bridges the federal government should stay out. Thats when things get into a cluster fu--.To put it simply, keep the graf and curuption on a local level.
2007-08-05 17:56:15 · answer #5 · answered by a person of interest 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would that we were given the option. But in this worse but probable scenario, the boys will keep dying over there and the commuters will keep going off bridges over here.
2007-08-05 16:58:14 · answer #6 · answered by nutsfornouveau 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. States should fix their own bridges.
2007-08-05 17:02:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Minnesota had a surplus in their budget yet they chose to do other things with it. Talk to them, and leave Iraq alone.
2007-08-05 16:56:45 · answer #8 · answered by GoGo Girls 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think spending money locally to address problems in the US should ALWAYS have a higher priority than helping any other country.
US first.
2007-08-05 16:58:35 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd be in favor of curing cancer over growing roses ... like your question, these two things have nothing to do with each other!
2007-08-05 16:57:10 · answer #10 · answered by Jim 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no siree, we need to win this war at any cost, otherwise we won't have any bridges left to drive over.
2007-08-05 17:14:57 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋