Thread: The purpose of government

Originally Posted by norman931

Good point.

Norm

Same in Baltimore and Denver. In Baltimore, they gave the team millions...meanwhile, many of the students graduating (if they managed that) couldn't spell "stadium".

This is one reason I have no use for "professional" sports....one group of millionaires chasing another group of millionaires across a field....paid for by citizens, most of whom can't even afford a ticket.

The owner of one of the Baltimore teams even forced the city to keep mom-and-pop roasted peanut vendors away from the immediate area of the stadium, as they were cutting into his profit from concessions.....what a parasite.

Originally Posted by DEwey

I don't think it is the purpose of government, but it is the result of government unless it is bound by the restraints of the Constitution and those restraints are constantly monitored and respected.
The spirit of America has always been freedom from government interference into your personal lives except where it must interfere to protect the rights of others.
The rationale behind Socialism (which is expressed in America as the Democrat Party) is that Government provides rights and that government can ensure equality of outcome. This is a very dangerous idea. The Founders clearly believed that the rights of the individual were paramount and were a natural expectation that could not legally be infringed upon by the government without a it being a crime against the citizenry. Obviously, we have drifted far away from that core belief.
On the other hand, the Republicans believe that our Constitutional rights extend not only to our own citizens but to all people of the world. This is true only insomuch as all people naturally HAVE these rights and that it is a crime when their governments do not recognize their rights as they should. Sorry, but this DOES NOT justify our entangling alliances and interferences around the globe. We should be a shining city on the hill - an example to all and a beacon of hope in a dark unjust world. Not a shining city on a hill with a huge army that is actively running down said hill to conquer all bad guys in the name of justice and liberation. We have a history of remaining neutral in world affairs. Abandoning that principle has cost plenty in blood and treasure - not to mention good will.

I would hardly call Democrats socialist...the difference between the two parties is so narrow....in the end, the main difference is the size of the crumbs left for the citizens after all the special interest groups have left the table.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Also, if you have ever belonged to a labor union, collected unemployment insurance, are a woman who has voted, are a minority who has voted, were poor but got into college on a scholarship, or have your bank deposits covered by the FDIC, or have enjoyed the benefits of most of what we now consider normal government-funded programs, you are partaking of socialism. Don't believe it? Look at the politics of most of the originators of these ideas. Again, Americans know so little about their history and next to nothing about the history beyond the borders of the US, that it is frightening....and you get what we have now in government and in the White House. Americans view "socialism" as the government taking money out of their pockets to give it to people they don't think deserve it. They argue they "real Americans" make it on their own. So I guess all the poor and starving during the Depression (caused by rampant, unregulated capitalism) were not "real Americans." The closest the US ever came to even touch on the edge of Socialism was under FDR. Socialism and Communism are not even close to the same thing.

We need serious leaders, not comic-book hero wannabes....we need a more intelligent platform than "Vote for us or the terrorists are going to blow up the malls and married gays are going to move in next door to you and make up give up your SUV!"

After the Russian Revolution, there was a general (a "communist") who was asked a question about individuals who felt they should not have to join in manual labor to complete some project....his response was "To ne rabotaet, ne est'" (Those who won't work, won't eat!)...now to me, he sounds like a Republican.

(1) O --you got me
(2) Speak for yourself
(3) No they were desperately starving people who would do anything not to starve. And I've read that government involvement played a good part in causing the depression.

Justin

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

(1)
(3) No they were desperately starving people who would do anything not to starve. And I've read that government involvement played a good part in causing the depression.

Justin

The government always has a hand in creating one crisis or another!
It seems every answer the government has for solving a particular problem, that answer in turn will create seven more problems as bad or worse than the problem it was designed to fix!

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

(1) O --you got me
(2) Speak for yourself
(3) No they were desperately starving people who would do anything not to starve. And I've read that government involvement played a good part in causing the depression.

Justin

Yes, but programs that came out of the Depression: Unemployment, Social Security, FDIC, etc. Now, are some of these programs abused today? Hell, yes! But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater (unless the kid is really ugly... ).

To of the biggest problems in the US today are the people who feel they "deserve" something or that they are "owed" something.

Don't get me started on the pathetic treatment of our veterans.....

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Yes, but programs that came out of the Depression: Unemployment, Social Security, FDIC, etc. Now, are some of these programs abused today? Hell, yes! But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater (unless the kid is really ugly... ).

To of the biggest problems in the US today are the people who feel they "deserve" something or that they are "owed" something.

Don't get me started on the pathetic treatment of our veterans.....

If it ain't ugly it sho' is a gettin' that way!

So what are we concluding here guys? (Anyone else notice we hardly ever make conclusions, we just debate? Just like governments!)

Are we saying that modern life has become so complex and over-governed that we should eschew state goverment?

Or shall are we damned to just sticking with the status quo and making sure we vote?

Originally Posted by majurey

So yes, I pay a lot of tax. More than my American brothers. But then, I get free healthcare, as do any of my friends and family who range from being hard up to comfortably well off. My garbage is recycled and cleared weekly. My streets and roads are maintained. My kids go to a decent state school. And the little punk down the road who has been smashing car windows gets his ass arrested and hauled into court. Man, I'm actually happy to let the state take MORE of my hard-earned cash to take on the big issues in life.

Call me naive, but I believe the purpose of government is to take care of us. And when they start abusing that trust, well... long live the revolution, bro.

1) if you are paying more taxes, your healthcare isn't free, now is it?
2) i have all of those things you mentioned (minus the kids part, don't have any) the only difference is i get billed for them. i really don't have a problem paying for services i use. the difference is i CHOOSE to buy them, rather than having the gov't force me to
3) if you want to pay the gov't to hold your hand and nanny you, fine, but does that mean EVERYONE should get that choice chosen for them? i'd rather take care of myself when i can, pay someone else to when i can't, and have the gov't stay the heck away.

in summary, i think folks ought to be able to have a level of government they are comfortable with, rather than the "one size fits all" mentality, ESPECIALLY if that one size is a nanny state that thinks it knows what i need better than i do.

Originally Posted by jockeys

1) if you are paying more taxes, your healthcare isn't free, now is it?
2) i have all of those things you mentioned (minus the kids part, don't have any) the only difference is i get billed for them. i really don't have a problem paying for services i use. the difference is i CHOOSE to buy them, rather than having the gov't force me to
3) if you want to pay the gov't to hold your hand and nanny you, fine, but does that mean EVERYONE should get that choice chosen for them? i'd rather take care of myself when i can, pay someone else to when i can't, and have the gov't stay the heck away.

in summary, i think folks ought to be able to have a level of government they are comfortable with, rather than the "one size fits all" mentality, ESPECIALLY if that one size is a nanny state that thinks it knows what i need better than i do.

Apparently your my kind of thinker after all!

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

And I've read that government involvement played a good part in causing the depression.

Read some Milton Friedman. There is a good case being made that the creation of the Federal Reserve was directly responsible for the Great Depression.

And to whoever said Social Security was a positive side-effect, I can't disagree more. Social(ist) Security is WAY less efficient than privately investing, it sickens me that Uncle Sam thinks he should take my money and invest it for me. If that gov't can't trust me to be wise enough to handle my own retirement finances, why the HELL should I trust the gov't at all?