Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1  
    Hello Everyone,

    I've noted that some people have stated the following in defense of President Obama: He can't be expected to fix everything in one year."

    That got me thinking--who exactly expects this or any President to "fix" things in one year, or over any term, excepting of course Government's own problems?

    Many threads here have been about the specifics of what government should do, or the details of what they are doing. I think there is a much larger question that should be asked, which is "Why is government involved at all?

    Now, this isn't to say that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in anything--obviously, they have specifically denoted responsibilities in the Constitution, but beyond that...why should we expect them to be involved at all.

    I suggest that perhaps one of the reasons the Federal government isn't able to do the things it is supposed to (by the Constitution) is that it is too busy trying to do things that it was never designed to do--and in some cases really isn't empowered to do.

    My view is that Politicians have been wildly successful at convincing the public that they indeed MUST be involved in pretty much everything. They've been so successful that we are debating about what is done, forgetting almost completely that in some cases--they shouldn't be involved at all.

    Why have we become so dependent on the government to solve our problems for us? The immediate answer that comes to mind is that they're part of the problem, so naturally we have to deal with them to "fix" things.

    Let's take the Recent Housing Crisis bubble. I think it would be hard to argue factually that government (via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac primarily) wasn't inherently tied to what happened. While everyone is busy screaming about government "fixing" this, do we even bother to ask why they were involved in the first place? Why did the government sponsor these organizations that enabled and in fact encouraged these bad lending practices. Why did various politicians encourage banks to engage in these practices, violating all free market sensibility that led us to the Housing Crisis and through that into the so-called "Great Recession?"

    The current administration seems dedicated to the idea of expanding government involvement in the lives of individuals. They believe it is their place to "fix" healthcare, energy issues, the environment, housing, etc.

    Is anyone even asking the question why we are looking to a President to "fix" our problems. Are we not free citizens who are responsible for our own lives? I suggest that the reality staring us in the face is that a President CAN'T "fix" things, and we shouldn't be expecting him to. Now, I realize that this is a natural extension of the desire to blame a President for everything as well, but that's really just more political nonsense.

    In short--while government can certainly do things to harm the public, and the economy, their proper place really isn't to control it. Their Constitutional role is to insure that commerce can take place, not to be the master of it. Their role is to oversee a nation where people can pursue opportunities, not provide them with cradle to grave care.

    Our Constitution did not establish a Feudal system where our governmental lords control every aspect of our lives. It was designed to provide an environment where we could take care of ourselves internally, while protecting us from external threats.

    I'd hope that free citizens at least consider whether or not we are on the totally wrong path, and that those presenting themselves as our problem solvers aren't in fact part of the problem. Isn't it at least POSSIBLE, that the way to "fix" things is to just get out of the way. I'd argue that, at least in some areas this is exactly what's needed.

    Additionally, we often forget that the Constitution didn't create a Federal Government that was intended to treat State Government as errand boys--but rather was empowered for specific purposes, leaving the rest to the States. The improper concentration of more and more power at the Federal level isn't only unconstitutional, but perhaps very harmful.

    I'm hoping that people have seen how dangerous and damaging it is to put our fate so fully in the hands of Centralized government. We might not be begging for "solutions" so eagerly, if we considered that they might in fact be responsible for at least some of the problems.

    These "problems" didn't start with President Obama, or Bush, but this has been going on for a long time, really picking up speed with the so-called "progressives" in the early 20th Century, grabbing full hold with FDR and never really turning back, except in minor ways. President Obama seems dedicated to pulling us further down that overwhelming Government road, and I hope that people realize this isn't the solution--or at least consider it as a possibility.

    KAM
  2. #2  
    +1

    Selling my Palm things: just make an offer: http://forums.webosnation.com/market...nd-offers.html
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #3  
    Hello Everyone,

    Well, a little bit of non-specific agreement.

    In addition to debating what is "proper" I'd also be interested in hearing what people think is the Federal Government's primary responsibility(s) and what they are best able to accomplish.

    For example--it is very obvious that they must handle our national defense. Given that we have a (somewhat) free market system, the government really can't create prosperity, jobs (except government jobs), or just magically make the economy get better.

    I think a major problem is politicians who forward the false notion that they CAN make it better. Unless we are willing to properly identify problems, we won't have any chance at solving them, and if people are waiting around for President Obama to make things better--they are in for a long wait. Presidents don't have that power.

    KAM
  4. #4  
    The Fed should do very little if even have a place to exist. If we didn't have troops in ~150 countries around the world I don't believe we would need much of a federal national defense group.

    As for local government..
    Cops, Courts and Roads. That's the size government should be.

    Selling my Palm things: just make an offer: http://forums.webosnation.com/market...nd-offers.html
  5. #5  
    So, there are no doubt really, really big issues that seem to be getting worse and worse.
    I agree that Govn't can't fix them, they (Govn't) are a big portion of the problem.
    I'm not trying to sound apathetic, but how in the world are we going to 'fix' these enormous issues?

    Maybe some feel nothing needs to be fixed.

    Side Point;
    You (KAM) mention that it started way before Bush.
    I do see an interesting trend that seem to start with Clinton, and then flew through the roof with Bush, and now seems to have the Nation in a totally ticked at 'the other party' frenzy.
    I knew so many people that were just utterly ticked at Bush.
    This division that is stirring seems to be motivated by: 'that party made such a mess, now this party is going to step in and 'fix' it. While the other party is screaming; "No, You're Making it Worse!"

    Are we just being played by both parties?
    How many politicians are struggling financially?
    How many politicians don't have adequate health care?
    How many politicians are worried that another year has gone by and they still haven't been able to put something away for retirement?

    I've mentioned it many times before; I don't know enough about politics.
    All I know, is what I feel. How I feel. When things seem to be going good for my family. The last 8 years have been the most insecure times I've ever lived.
    And everyday, I feel less and less secure.

    Maybe that's the problem.
    Maybe millions feel like me.
    And they, (not me) because of feeling so insecure, are looking to their Govn't to solve these problems for them.
    Just call me Berd.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by IcerC View Post
    The Fed should do very little if even have a place to exist. If we didn't have troops in ~150 countries around the world I don't believe we would need much of a federal national defense group.

    As for local government..
    Cops, Courts and Roads. That's the size government should be.
    So, it sounds as if you have a minimalist view of government. I tend to lean that way as well. However, I think the (obviously) biggest entity where this is a problem is the Federal (national) Government. The Constitution spells out what the Federal Government is supposed to do, and they are clearly far beyond that, and in growing as it has is trampling the role of the States.

    Example: California I hear has proposed a Single Payer medical system on their own. While I'm not for that, and I'm not sure what the California Constitution allows for, my Constitutional view of this is "good luck California." The States essentially can decide for themselves if they want this sort of thing or not. The State Government is closer to the people of that State, and theoretically, they have more direct control.

    In general terms, my views are pretty easy to understand. Simply, we have government in order to provide for GENERAL benefits which we cannot as individuals provide--like you say, Roads, National Defense, Law enforcement, etc. The government isn't designed to provide individuals with individual needs, which is obvious to anyone who understands that an independent citizen is. I think this sort of thought process is needed for all of these things being bandied about.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    So, there are no doubt really, really big issues that seem to be getting worse and worse.
    I agree that Govn't can't fix them, they (Govn't) are a big portion of the problem.
    I'm not trying to sound apathetic, but how in the world are we going to 'fix' these enormous issues?

    Maybe some feel nothing needs to be fixed.
    Or maybe in some cases, the fix is to simply undo the problem of having government involved where they shouldn't be. Would government Debt be an issue if government wasn't involved in so many things? They need so much money, because they have grabbed so much power over things.

    Let's take Energy. This is something that I think the Private sector can easily handle--IF the government stops hindering it. We have the technology to build Nuclear Power plants, to find other sources of oil and Natural gas--the Government is blocking these efforts.

    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Side Point;
    You (KAM) mention that it started way before Bush.
    I do see an interesting trend that seem to start with Clinton, and then flew through the roof with Bush, and now seems to have the Nation in a totally ticked at 'the other party' frenzy.
    I knew so many people that were just utterly ticked at Bush.
    This division that is stirring seems to be motivated by: 'that party made such a mess, now this party is going to step in and 'fix' it. While the other party is screaming; "No, You're Making it Worse!"

    Are we just being played by both parties?
    How many politicians are struggling financially?
    How many politicians don't have adequate health care?
    How many politicians are worried that another year has gone by and they still haven't been able to put something away for retirement?

    I've mentioned it many times before; I don't know enough about politics.
    All I know, is what I feel. How I feel. When things seem to be going good for my family. The last 8 years have been the most insecure times I've ever lived.
    And everyday, I feel less and less secure.

    Maybe that's the problem.
    Maybe millions feel like me.
    And they, (not me) because of feeling so insecure, are looking to their Govn't to solve these problems for them.
    I've stated my view many times--that the people are dragged along in the game that benefits politicians. The insistence of some (as demonstrated here) to scream and yell when one party does something, and turn a blind eye when another does is a demonstration of this problem.

    I think that Clinton really kicked off a new era of polarization, which bled into Bush, which Bled into Obama--getting worse as it goes. That's why I've repeatedly said that I don't go for this blame game stuff. When someone does something bad--fine, talk about it, but it has become this insane game, where everything under the Sun is blamed on one person or another.

    On another forum, I literally had someone blame George Bush for their cousin getting Cancer. The internet has given inordinate voice to this sort of irrational voice, and it is overwhelming reasonable people I think.

    However, I think the average American people are catching up to the kooks (in a good way). They probably feel a lot like you do, and are saying "enough is enough." That's what things like the TEA Parties are about--people who want better government.

    We have and are being played by our politicians in many cases (if not all). They serve themselves first and we get whatever scraps are necessary to keep us mollified and disengaged. I think the reason people are now more engaged, is that President Obama's plans are really outside what the American Public wants. They fell in love with the concept of what he talked about, but that is quite different from what he actually is trying to do.

    You hear some talking about how great things would be if these politicians just rammed their stuff through--that the (implied stupid) people would be happy then if they just shut up and took what they were given. Well, I've not heard a more wrong-headed idea in my life. The job of politicians isn't to aggressively ram things down the throat of the public with the rallying cry "its for your own good." Sorry--that's not what we send you to Washington for. We send them to REPRESENT us, not RULE us.

    I see a major problem. Apparently some (again, as demonstrated here) believe that it is ok to do whatever is "necessary" to get what they want done. Since they've decided (or been told) what is "best", then it doesn't matter what they do to accomplish it. I think this is the exact path that has been followed in regards to this Healthcare "reform." Well, thankfully, the American people aren't that far removed from the notions of representative government and liberty that they are going to lay down for that.

    If we have a government of "by any means necessary" we are in very deep trouble.

    KAM
  8. zambalis's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    56 Global Posts
    #8  
    Can i repost this on my facebook. I found it very interesting??
    I'm not crazy cause my hands are in my pants...... I'm just feeling Nuts!!!
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by zambalis View Post
    Can i repost this on my facebook. I found it very interesting??
    Are you talking about the OP or the posts here? As far as I'm concerned, I've no problem if you want to discuss these ideas on your Facebook (reposting whatever you wish). However, I suggest cleaning it up to improve the presentation.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #10  
    Hello Everyone,

    I mentioned what government can and cannot do. Keep in mind that the overarching theme that some politicians (including our current President) push is that government is your source for solutions. Government is how things get done.

    I'd argue that for most things--it isn't. Government can INFLUENCE things, but that can be very negative as well. A year after coming into office, "jobs, jobs, jobs" is the new focus, despite having been promised by the Stimulus Bill. Well, despite claims of "saved or created" jobs (something that isn't quantifiable) we got a net loss of about 7 million jobs, and unemployment at about 10%. Now, unlike our current President, who ran heavily on blaming the former President for everything bad in the economy, I know that the President really doesn't control this. While it is a convenient political tool to blame your enemy, and tout your success, the President simply does not control the economy.

    The DANGER here for the average citizen is in believing this--that we simply have to wait to be GIVEN jobs by some government action. With the exception of government jobs (which we pay for via taxes) that isn't how it works. The Private sector creates jobs, including the much maligned "corporations" and small businesses especially. They don't do it because they decide one day to create jobs--they do it, because business levels demand it. In short--jobs will come when the economy grows.

    Pretending you can strong-arm jobs into existence is foolish and dangerous. The economy grows, when there are opportunities for people to make money. I know it is popular for people to bash people who try and make money, but that's empty populism, and nonsense more than reality. Someone else making money is GOOD for me, if I'm looking for a job.

    Now, what can the government do? Well, they can remove burdens that they place on business (taxes, onerous regulation, and other limitations) and allow them to work. Essentially, the government doesn't need to do anything. Now, is a targeted stimulus a potentially effective thing? Sure--it can be. A little help here or there might work, but really, it is only effective to undo a negative that really shouldn't exist.

    In summary--many politicians try to sell us on the illusion that they can provide for us, because it elevates them, and makes us dependent on them. In reality, I believe in many cases (especially where we are now), that the best thing the government can do is step back, and allow the citizens of this country to pursue opportunities unfettered. We can't afford to wait to be GIVEN a solution, we (as a whole) need to create our own solutions, and we (businesses) are more able to do that, when the government removes its burdens.

    Now, President Obama has made mention of moving in this direction. If he's sincere about this, and they enough of this, the economy will grow again.

    KAM
  11. #11  
    A good example of this is Education. The Dept. of Ed was formed in 1980. Schools were pretty good in general before that. Most schools now teach to the test, so that the students can pass the tests required from All Children Left Behind the Same Amount (Sorry, No Child Left Behind.) In Indiana, it is the ISTEP. Kids are NOT learning more and are NOT doing better than before all this junk was forced on us by the Federal Government.

    Of course, I also believe the Constitution isn't toilet paper, so I wouldn't belong on DC anyway...
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
  12. jc924's Avatar
    Posts
    173 Posts
    Global Posts
    225 Global Posts
    #12  
    I don't usually get involved in these discussions, especially on this forum, which is supposed to be about Palm. But, I feel that there needs to be a response to the point that the role of government should be limited. I think limiting government sound nice and part of me responds to the Libertarian ideal of individual freedom. But, pure freedom results in the strong preying on the weak. Governments were formed so that the people could band together to protect themselves from the strong and powerful. That is still it's function, but it isn't limited to cops and soldiers. It also has to be used to protect the average person from the strong and powerful economic interests. Also, it is necessary to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

    The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, at a time when the country was mostly farmers and people involved in the trades (with a few slaves mixed in). By the 20th. Century, the country had changed considerably. More and more people were working for big corporations and being exploited. When people tried to organize, the local and state governments sided with the rich and put them down. Look at the history of the labor movement in the early 20th. Century. It took the federal government (under the leadership of progressives like Teddy Roosevelt) to get involved before things began to be better for the workers. Then we had the Depression of the 20's and 30's, which was caused by an unregulated Wall Street and economy. The New Deal didn't fix the Depression, but it helped it from getting worse and put a safety net under people. Then we have the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. Nothing was being done about segregation and the Jim Crow laws on the local or state level. It took the federal government to step in and protect Civil Rights.

    To me, one important purpose of government is protect the weak from the strong. The strong and powerful often exert an undue influence on local and state governments. The federal government is more removed from this influence and can act to protect the people when state and local government can't or won't.

    Admittedly, the federal government isn't free from these influences, but less so than state and local governments. The real problem with influence in the federal government is the enormous cost of campaigning. It takes millions of dollars to even run for Congress, let alone the Senate. If we could come up with real campaign reform, then there would be less influence of big bucks.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by sacherjj View Post
    A good example of this is Education. The Dept. of Ed was formed in 1980. Schools were pretty good in general before that. Most schools now teach to the test, so that the students can pass the tests required from All Children Left Behind the Same Amount (Sorry, No Child Left Behind.) In Indiana, it is the ISTEP. Kids are NOT learning more and are NOT doing better than before all this junk was forced on us by the Federal Government.

    Of course, I also believe the Constitution isn't toilet paper, so I wouldn't belong on DC anyway...
    Well, I've never placed much stock in standardized testing. In general, the concept of evaluating schools is a good idea, but the execution of this is not good.

    I strongly believe that the Federal Government has little place in Education systems. The States are fully capable of handling this along with the local school boards. The concept of centralized control of education is very flawed in my view, and a prime area where national government should remove itself.

    Obviously we have a national need for educated people in certain fields, but beyond advocacy of that, the issue of education is better dealt with by those closest to the people being educated.

    The issue of schools and what they do is a very big subject and one where I think reform is greatly needed. We've essentially devalued a High school education completely, and that is ridiculous. We spend Billions upon billions of dollars, and schools and teachers (and parents) do need to be accountable, and that is best handled at the local level.

    KAM
  14. jwinn35's Avatar
    Posts
    390 Posts
    Global Posts
    396 Global Posts
    #14  
    the federal government is horrible at everything, but the military. I mean look at the post office. They can't even get us our mail, what makes anyone think they could run our health care let alone anything else. I say they start following the constitution the way it was meant to be followed. I mean everythings all messed up just look at the state of the union address. Obama calls out the justices for their ruling on corporations being able to donate money to whom they choose campaign. Last I checked this was America and a person or group of persons can do what they want with legally earned money. Instead of pointing fingers at big business how about pointing at the politicians who allow themselves to be persuaded and bought out. I know what I've just said isn't part of the question, but in my eyes it shows what's wrong with federal government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't.
    Last edited by jwinn35; 01/29/2010 at 09:05 AM.
  15. zambalis's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    56 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Are you talking about the OP or the posts here? As far as I'm concerned, I've no problem if you want to discuss these ideas on your Facebook (reposting whatever you wish). However, I suggest cleaning it up to improve the presentation.

    KAM
    The OP, im not in total 100% agreement but i like the postural view point and some of the assisted comments beneath it.. i think its a great interpretation of your opinion, and even though im differently swayed in areas i like the presentation, and what you had to say.. thought i could share it a bit
    I'm not crazy cause my hands are in my pants...... I'm just feeling Nuts!!!
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by jc924 View Post
    I don't usually get involved in these discussions, especially on this forum, which is supposed to be about Palm. But, I feel that there needs to be a response to the point that the role of government should be limited. I think limiting government sound nice and part of me responds to the Libertarian ideal of individual freedom. But, pure freedom results in the strong preying on the weak. Governments were formed so that the people could band together to protect themselves from the strong and powerful. That is still it's function, but it isn't limited to cops and soldiers. It also has to be used to protect the average person from the strong and powerful economic interests. Also, it is necessary to protect the minority from the will of the majority.
    Snipped the Rest.

    I don't disagree with you, but in my view, that's not what the National Government is concentrating on. Perhaps if they were actually prosecuting fraud--instead of letting repeated warnings go by for guys like Bernie Madoff, those things wouldn't happen.

    I'm all for government aggressively protecting the rights of individuals, when they are threatened by the illegal activity of people with more power (financial or otherwise). Government is needed as that THIRD party.

    That's why the government being the second party is so problematic. Like with healthcare--if things worked properly, and someone gets screwed by an insurance company--the person turns to the Government to arbitrate and enforce fair practices. What do you do when the government is the one screwing you? Who do you turn to? If the government decides your claim isn't valid, you are out of luck.

    The government has a very vital role to perform, and no one here (at least not I) is suggesting anarchy. Rather, I want government to concentrate on performing the role that we set out for them--including that of a watchdog, separate from either party--as an impartial entity, not as a participant.

    KAM
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by zambalis View Post
    The OP, im not in total 100% agreement but i like the postural view point and some of the assisted comments beneath it.. i think its a great interpretation of your opinion, and even though im differently swayed in areas i like the presentation, and what you had to say.. thought i could share it a bit
    Sure--take whatever you like. In my opinion, the goal isn't to enforce 100% agreement--but rather to share different views. I'm glad you found it interesting.

    KAM
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by jwinn35 View Post
    the federal government is horrible at everything, but the military. I mean look at the post office. They can't even get us our mail, what makes anyone think they could run our health care let alone anything else. I say they start following the constitution the way it was meant to be followed. I mean everythings all messed up just look at the state of the union address. Obama calls out the justices for their ruling on corporations being able to donate money to whom they choose campaign. Last I checked this was America and a person or group of persons can do what they want with legally earned money. Instead of pointing fingers at big business how about pointing at the politicians who allow themselves to be persuaded and bought out. I know what I've just said isn't part of the question, but in my eyes it shows what's wrong with federal government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't.
    Actually, it might very well be part of the issue. I think a lot of politicians depend on this caricature of "corporations" as being something they aren't. At the core--all they are is a collection of people (shareholders) who have joined together for some purpose.

    Instead of politicians preaching about how money from corporations is going to ruin the country, how about they clean up their own acts first.

    Also--related to your post, but not specific to this topic. I would remind everyone that Pretty much every News Organization or Media organization are CORPORATIONS too. They are of course not considered as such. But why should a theoretical corporation I form have less right to speak than GE does (via MSNBC/NBC)?

    The chest beating anguish over this ruling is VERY insincere in my view.

    KAM
  19. jwinn35's Avatar
    Posts
    390 Posts
    Global Posts
    396 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by jc924 View Post
    I don't usually get involved in these discussions
    what do you mean, it's our country isn't it? that's part of the problem, you've seen the mass effect 2 commercials right, 'fight for the lost' that's us the lost. and there are not enough people fighting to get our country back.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by jwinn35 View Post
    what do you mean, it's our country isn't it? that's part of the problem, you've seen the mass effect 2 commercials right, 'fight for the lost' that's us the lost. and there are not enough people fighting to get our country back.
    Millions are fighting,
    and sincerely think for the 'just' cause.
    All the little people on the Left fighting for the Left.
    All the little people on the Right fighting for the Right.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions