How America uses its treasury has changed since the Founders decided a small and limited government was a superior system to the burdens their European forebears supported until entrenched families and their advisers became aloof from almost all other people. We also picked a system of replacing presidents by way of an electoral college picked from each state to each cast a number of votes equal to the sum of senators (2) + (x) a number equivalent to representatives in the House of Representatives. That was to end all bickering. Today in America, a bicameral system has evolved consisting of two sides, Good and Bad. If you are a liberal, you place your opponent into the "bad" column and say bad things about him, whether true or false. You, the hometeam are "good." If you are a conservative, then of course, your side's members are the "good" guys, and the liberals are "bad." If you read 90% of the posts, you will find this to be a rule of thumb. Each side considers itself better than the other, and some days it's take no prisoners on the part of both sides. Other times, people converse. The Continental Congress depended on the Continental Army to win independence. It did. They launched a financial campaign to support their fighters, whose families originally provided shoes, clothing, and they brought their own hunting rifles, etc., for when they were attacked in the course of earning their independence. This took up most of the money collected by the original government. The Congress borrowed money from France, which invested so much money in our country's war with the British, it initiated a revolution of people angry with King Louis XVI for being a weak leader and his Austrian wife Marie Antoinette who ostentatiously wasted money while average people couldn't buy a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger. So wasteful spending has a deleterious effect in societies, which brings us up to speed with the thread title, "Pet Rock Politics v. State Rights." I'm not sure these are parallels because there are many factors why we are growing divided, and I thought maybe we should look at projects from a clinically objective viewpoint and decide whether we think we can keep doing trillions and trillions of dollars' worth of Pet Rocks the newly-elected leader promises in order to learn a legacy, and the effect too much prosperity has on children in the country. Again, we have so much money in changing politics that we must be coming across to others in the world as spoiled children who have to have the latest scientific luxury now, and not later in accordance with our Mac Donald's instant gratification meals rather than home-prepared, nutritionally-conscientious cuisine that builds strong bones and bodies in the nation's children, who will be the leaders of tomorrow. The Federal Government, State governments, County and City governments, are each taking a whopping amount to prosper their own workers, and our workforce is shrinking as people age and children are avoided by many who prefer a life of playing, and not one of contributing a future of children into society. That causes the nation's poorer neighbors to want to take up the slack, since there will be fewer children inheriting anything with more and more government agencies interested in perpetuating their employees' wealth hopes of wanting to be millionaires the same as people who risk their savings on business ventures. So, what do you think? Do we keep a turnover of new, new, and more new, always new leaders with more and more ambitious pet rock projects they grew up thinking government should give us, or do we think maybe we need to quit depending on foreign countries for investing in our smaller workforce and more expensive products, due to production cost increases when workers demand their "right" to take away company profits from investors?