From a semantic standpoint, there is no way to be NOT in a bad position and still need help. There’s no way to patch over that with the word “coming” that somehow makes sense. Once you’re at all healthy signs, you don’t need help.
Let’s be charitable, for example, and assume that you mean that some states have recovered and some have not - or something to that effect. If that’s true but the numbers are saying that we’re at or better than average healthy times then that’s saying that some states are well beyond average and plain off doing exceptional and, obviously, that would mean that some others are doing worse than average and need help.
Well what do you think, in previous times that the national average was at an average of a healthy economy? Do you think that it was all 50 states sitting there perfectly at an average - none higher and none lower? Or do you think some were performing above average and some below? I’d probably expect the latter because I live in the real world.
Sure, today, some states are performing before average. That’s the same as every year of your human existence.
Minus all other considerations, sure. But if we consider things like:
- Does the full nation need help? If, for example, 35 of the states are out of the hole and 15 are not, it might make more sense to let those 15 states handle further recovery matters because it’s no longer a national issue. That seems like a better way to do things.
- Maybe there are more important things to work on at the national level. If you’ve only got enough time in the day to work on one mega-issue, maybe you should work on the most important mega-issue and let the secondary ones sit back in the queue. So let’s say that the biggest issues are that we need to keep strong on clean energy, need to give women time off from work during a pregnancy, and need to ensure that everyone has medical care but we can’t have any of those in any lasting form unless we clean out partisan gamesmanship from governance. Well then, what’s the biggest issue that needs to be worked on? If there’s one issue that you need to solve before you can solve any other issue, then that’s the one most important issue.
[quote]For point 1:
[/quote]
Holy shit! You’re right, it’s only now that I’m coming out of a pandemic and my stocks are at an all-time high and I’ve bought a new house that I’ve realized that my child care options aren’t everything that I ever dreamed of! I didn’t realize that before 2019! If you asked me back then, I woulda been all, “Nah, I got all the options for my tots. No worries, y’all.” I certainly didn’t realize it when my children were born. No it was definitely when the common cold became more common.
That is to say, I’m pretty damn sure that you could poll people in any year and they’d be all in for better child care. And, more importantly, that has dick to do with coming out of a pandemic. Economic stimulus for underperforming states and regions doesn’t look like government funding for nannies. You’re just taking something that you want and have always wanted and you’re trying to use the pandemic as an excuse to say that it’s the right moment to do it.
But hey, if you do want it and you think that any rational person would would agree that the central government should be the force to work on that issue, then focus on the one most important thing: Being able to pass and keep legislation that is rational. If that’s not something that we can do then, you’re not going to get your dream.
