"Government is the only way to fix anything"- The wisdom of tom (Tommy Boy) corona

Hmmmmm..... seems kind of silly doesn't it? Or does it?

As this teeny little group argues about politics and what should be done, what is best for the country etc. what are we really doing? Putting it into the hands of elected officials in the long run. These people are known as politicians and work for the government in some capacity.

They put into place the laws that "fix" things. The problem is we all have differernt views as to what needs to be "fixed" and how to "fix" it. Alas, the bottom line is that it falls into the hands of government and what particular government happens to be in power.

We have a voice but our politicians don't always hear us now do they. SO it falls into the hands of the government. We don't always agree do we folks? Still the government DOES make the decisions - there's really no denying it.
Folks can turn to civil disobedience, for example, and perhaps get a law overturned. Who would overturn that law? The government.

As silly as Tom C's remark might sound it's horribly true. It really doesn't matter who or what you believe in.

I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

 

You say "The problem is we all have differernt views as to what needs to be "fixed" and how to "fix" it." I would say you are wrong. So long as that is really the case, America will do well. As soon as the government starts deciding what our views should be, we will fall apart.

 

What you just said REALLY makes no sense but thanks for the response.

I'm not saying the government should make our decisions. What I AM saying is that the decisions are based on political climate. Therefore the government IS the soulution albeit a bad one in so many cases.

I have no intentions of turning this into a right vs. left vs. centrist thread. What I AM saying is things DON'T change without government influence and ultimately passage of laws, etc. To deny that is ludicrous.

It boils down to politics (whether or not one agrees) and then government.

"As soon as the government starts deciding what our views should be, we will fall apart. " If this is true than it's been happening for a long time. I call it campaigning.

 

Ask it another way Clembo LOL What is the Job of Goverment? well by deffinition it is to govern, how does it govern. Does it make decisions based soley on a whim or does it make decisions based on the needs of the greater majority? etc

 

Government, is essentially just another name for a bureaucracy. Republicans have tried to make goverment the enemy of the people since Reagan. They either try to make government look silly when a Democrat is in the White House or prove that government doesn't work when they occupy the White House. It's a cynical political ploy that helps them win elections but does nothing for the country. The current gridlock in Washington is completely at the hands of the Republicans because they know that the less we address the problems this country should be working on solving and the worse the problems become, the more likely the country will blame the party in power. Government IS broken no doubt but putting those people in power that do not believe in using government to solve the problems we all face, isn't likely to fix it any time soon. If the problems of this country are ever to be solved it will take both parties working together. Republicans have already proved that they are unwilling to reach across the aisle for the interest of the county. Instead, they have tried to convince us that their priorities are our priorities. They aren't.

On Bureaucracies:

The fact that bureaucracy is necessary is indisputable. Even government on the smallest of scales must administer its programs and implement its policies. The primary dilemma of bureaucracy, however, is an extension of the dilemma of popular governance -- striking the right balance between providing order and protecting liberty. When a bureaucracy is given authority, it is given that authority to establish order, usually in the form of peace, safety, and economic security or stability. When a government bureaucracy exercises authority, the liberty of the people is necessarily diminished. But how much should liberty be diminished and for what purposes or objectives?
A second and related dilemma faced by bureaucracy is the conflict between authority and accountability. If efficiency were the only objective of administration, bureaucracies would be given extensive power and discretion. However, in a political system in which the powers of government are derived from the people, the government must be accountable to the people for how it exercises those powers. On the one hand, then, managerial and administrative effectiveness demands that bureaucracies and bureaucrats be armed with the tools, authority and flexibility they need to accomplish the tasks they are assigned. However, popular governance demands that bureaucracies and bureaucrats be held accountable for their actions. These objectives are not always compatible. Time spent responding to congressional inquiries and investigations or holding public hearings satisfy the demands of accountability, but they directly diminish the capacity of bureaucracies to accomplish their allotted responsibilities.
Taken from ThisNation.com at:
http://thisnation.com/bureaucracy.html

 

But you are saying that the government should (and does) make our decisions.

And it is a left vs. right discussion. I realize it is an over-generalization, but the left feels that the government should make our decisions and the right feels that the more decisions the people make, the better off we are.

As for your last line, have you ever heard the old adage, "If you give a fellow a fish, he will eat for a day, but if you teach him to fish, you will feed him for life"? When the government makes our decisions, everyone eats for a day.............

 

By voting in senators, congressmen, etc., arent the people allowing those elected to make decisions for us? Arent they suppose to be our voice in government?

 

Read the first three words of the constitution “WE THE PEOPLE” not we the government. The constitution for all practical purposes is designed for a limited government. The states should have more power than the collective except for national defense. Read the preamble. Read the 10th admendment.

Democrats make themselves look silly on their own and might I add arrogant and condescending. The government doesn’t work when you rule against the will of the people (a regime). Passing bills that they don’t even read. Passing staggering stimulus money that we don’t have (sorry kids and grandkids)to pay for union pensions to name one of many. Takeover of private business (Government Motors) GM. Where does the lunacy stop? If gridlock means stopping this runaway spending, then I am all for it. The elitist professors in our esteemed universities have suggested economic theories for years and when put into practice have proven to be dismal failures. Unfortunately these theories get tested in government at the peoples expence.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. TJ

 

Would you rather below average professors from mediocre universities come up with economic plans? As for 'We the People'. The people dont get to vote on everything. Thats why we elect like minded people to do our bidding. And if the majority thinks one way and votes for their canidate. The minority will just have to bear it until next time.

 

If this is the economic plans superior professors from great universities came up with, ABSOLUTELY! Anything but this might even work.

Maybe the people don't get to vote on everything, but they also get to vote people out. I am hoping ad believing that you will see some of that in a couple months.

 

Thats what I just said.

 

Please tell me where I stated the government should make our decisions because I certainly did not. What I DID state is that government ultimately "fixes" things and it's not always a "fix" that is particularly popular. At this point one could reasonably argue that they DO indeed make our decisions.

You're making this a left vs. right discussion when it's not I'm afraid no matter how you generalize it. In order for people to "make more decisions" how do they do it? Through the government.

I've heard that line so many times it makes me want to hurl. So I'll ask this. Who sets fishing limits? The DNR and if I'm not mistaken they are part of the government.

This kind of sums it up.

Yes, and you can bring that level down to town council. Elected officials that are SUPPOSED to do what is right for the needs of the people. It certainly doesn't mean they do but that's how it works in theory.

All aspects of our lives are influenced by government "decisions" and "fixes" and not everyone agrees on those "decisions" and "fixes". Don't believe me? Then try an experiment. Find a stretch of road with a 35MPH speed limit and keep driving through at 45MPH till you get pulled over.
Then tell the officer that you think it should be a 45MPH zone so you shouldn't get a ticket and see what happens. You'll probably get a ticket.

Now start talking to local politicians and show them a good reason why it should be a 45MPH zone and perhaps they'll agree and it will change.
Simple scenario I know but the government is involved and they could "fix" it.

 

Fix? Just what have they fixed? As for stating the government does make our decisions, "At this point one could reasonably argue that they DO indeed make our decisions." And "As this teeny little group argues about politics and what should be done......" That is also what I read you to be asking in your OP.

Or, please, let them make it with their own free will. That is how we learned and became a world leader - because our government let us win or lose and learn.

Are you trying to tell me because the government sets the limit, the fisherman does not earn his own living?. I will tell you the welfare recipient does not earn his living and is worse off in the long run because of it. (Before you go ape, there are some obvious exceptions here.)

 

I really don't know why you want to argue on this one since you were typing the above while I was typing.

Cripes man you just proved it! Voting people OUT of office is part of the "fix". Getting other people in to "fix" it is part of the "fix". Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on.

A "fix" is a "fix" and bada bing bada boom it goes through government channels.

 

Voting people out may be a fix (we have not been batting too well lately), but I fail to see how you call that a government fix. That is the people fixing the government.

 

You're arguing just to argue at this point.

 

Government is actually more limited that we give them credit for. What can they really do? Make laws and spend money.

Laws are only as good as your ability and desire to enforce them. Many of the laws, regulations, etc that get made are not enforced or are unenforceable. Is that really a fix? Look at our border and immigration policies. There are tons of laws on the books. And we still don't have secure borders or a working immigration policy. I shudder to think how many people were supposed to be watching offshore drilling and 'make it safe'.

And for spending money, that is typically a relatively short term fix. Look at the housing situation. We stimulated house buying...until the money ran out. Then things went in the crapper again. There is not enough money to spend to really fix everything forever.

The only real fixes seem to come from the people. People producing. People consuming. People willing to sacrifice. People willing to do what is right. Can government assist that by their actions? Yes. But can they really make it happen? I don't think so. Not in a free state.

And I think that belief that government can really fix things for the long term, instead of just assisting in their fixing, is what has brought us to where we are. There is a belief out there that the government can 'do it all' but our economy, deficit, etc is starting to show that not to be true.

We need government to do things and we need taxes and government spending. Roads and infrastructure, I think, are an absolute example. That isn;t getting done by you and me deciding that road over there needs to get repaired and pooling our money. Education is another.

But someday, as the national debt becomes more and more unsustainable, we will have to make the hard choice as to what we do want the government to do and what we can't afford to let the government do. It may take a situation like what has developed in Greece to do it but I can't see anyway that the government can fix everything or give people everything they want fixed.

Just my thoughts...

 

When government tries to fix things they are only digging the hole deeper. Extending the moocher class is no way to fix anything….and we are about to reach that critical level where the takers outnumber the givers. Its funny how everybody uses roads as a example….necessary, yes. Trillions of dollars worth, only if we build a tunnel to the moon. Abolish the Departenment of Education and put it in private hands and the benefit would be enormous.This would be cut #1 on my list of many.

I tend to agree with a former congressman’s ideas on big government:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." [Barry Goldwater]

 

How would the benefit be enormous? Who would benefit from that? Besides the private schools. The amount in taxes that pays for public education is rather small when compared to each household paying for private education. Preschool itself costs upwards of $800 a month. I'm sure elementary school would surpass that many times. I just dont think ridding this country of public basic education is going to be the panacea you think it will be. Its what I think. My opinion. Nothing personal.

I thought Goldwater was a senator.