Little government, or big government?

[Andy]

I see this sort of thing in the news everyday. Whether it's better to have a big government that regulates a lot of things, but needs higher taxes, or a little one that has less control, but needs less taxes.

Your thoughts?

[appleofmyeye]

The non-conformist in me wants to say little government. But I don't want disorder.

[Starry]

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works--whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account--to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day--because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Yay Obama being nonpartisan! (I know nothing about how government actually works and thus will not make a definitive stand on anything.)

[ScottyMcGee]

How about. . .

NO GOVERNMENT! YEAH MAN! TRASH THE PLACE! ANARCHY! YEAH BOY!




(I will answer seriously to this later when I feel like it.)

[nagarjuna]

The non-conformist in me wants to say little government. But I don't want disorder.

I think you always have to strike a balance. But ideally, that balance involves having no government. Why:

I think of government as an especially big, especially powerful gang. Whether they are benign or malevolent, they are in power because they can enforce. So, in that sense, a thug with a gun is a form of government because he/she uses physical force. I would say that the difference is that governments work for good, but then there are examples of bad governments (totalitarianism) and good criminals (civil disobedience.)

But since it's not like we're going to live in an anarchistic Utopia tomorrow at 10:00(unfortunately :(), in the meantime we have to just go with what works, big or small. And those of us who feel like creating anarchy in the here and now can resist the draft :ninja: and download music illegally :pirate:.

[Diocletian]

Yay Obama being nonpartisan!

Obama...nonpartisan? Have you looked at the man's voting record in Congress? Please don't be one of the Obamaniacs who cheerlead his every word and follow his speeches as if everything he says on stage is concrete proof of his stances. If you agree with him, fine, but don't base it on a speech you heard from him. Same goes for all politicians, really.

Government should regulate social affairs to an extent but should let the market regulate itself.

[nagarjuna]

Government should regulate social affairs to an extent but should let the market regulate itself.

What social affairs would we be regulating, exactly?

[Mercy]

I'm not entirely sure as of yet, but for now, I believe it is vital to have at least some government. However, the people should also remember that the government can not take away their rights and if the government does something out of line, the people have every right to strike back.

[Starry]

Obama...nonpartisan? Have you looked at the man's voting record in Congress? Please don't be one of the Obamaniacs who cheerlead his every word and follow his speeches as if everything he says on stage is concrete proof of his stances. If you agree with him, fine, but don't base it on a speech you heard from him. Same goes for all politicians, really.

Government should regulate social affairs to an extent but should let the market regulate itself.

Sarcasm = not functioning on the internet. Obama's speech was nonpartisan, as he was pretty much riding the high of being more popuar than he will ever be at any time in his career. Obama himself is totally not nonpartisan.

I am in no ways a mindless fanatic. I like Obama because he was the best of the options, and because we need a liberal president. Ultimately, the president leads the nation through who he picks for all of the offices he appoints, which is why the basic ideology of a president matters more than their personality or any other factor. Unfortunately, people look at personality much more than they should when voting.

[appleofmyeye]

How about. . .

NO GOVERNMENT! YEAH MAN! TRASH THE PLACE! ANARCHY! YEAH BOY!




(I will answer seriously to this later when I feel like it.)

I love you (and your insanely big font).

There can never be no government though. If there is a group of ten people, and one person displays the most leadership, he is the government. Then, typically, somebody thinks they can do a better job, overthrows the first leader, and runs things his own way. And people divide over which leader is best. And so it continues...

That is only on a small scale but you get the point.

[nagarjuna]

If there is a group of ten people, and one person displays the most leadership, he is the government.

What if his leadership doesn't involve making any laws or telling anybody what to do... one of the greatest "leaders" the world has known, Gandhi, exerted incredible authority but refused to make anyone do anything against their will.

Then, typically, somebody thinks they can do a better job, overthrows the first leader, and runs things his own way. And people divide over which leader is best. And so it continues...

Aw, so pessimistic. :mellow: I think it's possible. But it won't happen overnight, that's for sure.

[Shaun]

It needs to be a careful balance. Too much government means we have no freedom. Too little means there is nothing to protect the people who need protection (the poor, the minoritized, etc.). I don't agree with massive government that have their hand in everything, but I also don't believe we can have a government that lets you do whatever you want. It's necessary for government to exist. A market that is completely free will abuse its people; a market that has no freedom will be stifled.

Remember: Government should be afraid of you; you shouldn't be afraid of your government. If the last 8 years have taught us anything it is that we're forgotten that very important point. That has to change.

And of course the Obama-hate-parade has already started. Watch Fox News. It's like watching hypocrisy that's not afraid to be ignorant, biased, and stupid. After all, Christian conservatives and other right-wingers told us if we weren't for the success of the U.S. in Iraq, then we were unAmerican; now the same people are telling us not to root for the success of our current president. Kinda sick of the unwillingness for any particular party to man up and actually work with the other side.

[Alex]

I personally think the better argument is federal government vs. small-scale government, but specifically on this issue I tend to agree with Dio. The market should be a little more open. I like the fact that minimums are set, it prevents the aforementioned abuse, but caps on how much companies can pay their CEOs? Sure, CEOs make too much money, but the government shouldn't have the right to tell a company that they can't pay them that money if they want. If the government feels that minimum wage isn't high enough, go for it, raise it a bit, and laws that prevent monopolies are fine, but (from someone who doesn't know much) that should be the extent of it, economically.

Socially, well, its all subjective. Even statistics with social issues are all subject to violent interpretation and it makes it much more difficult to regulate. That being said attempts should be made because conforming to the nation socially, I believe, will appease them more than doing it economically, but that might just be an off-based belief.

[Shaun]

Yeah, because freeing up the market did us a lot of good in the last 8 years. You guys do realize that a lot of the economic problems we have is from a market with too much freedom, right? And raising minimum wage doesn't actually do anything. It's more of a gesture than anything else, because cost of living just adjusts to the shift in wage. But, we're in the pickle we're in because there weren't enough controls on the market to prevent people with enough money to be powerful from abusing the system. Remember, we're bailing out people now that have screwed us. That's right, you and I are paying out of our tax dollars for people who should be going bankrupt for being idiots to get out of the problem they created because nobody was stopping them from doing the things they were doing. And the people who are suffering the most are those that still have to pay off their loans, etc.

Free market is good and all, but if it's too free it abuses the nation and its people. Profit shouldn't be at the expense of the well-being of our citizens.

[Alex]

Its not like the Clinton economy wasn't that good either. I liken it to the 1920s, when on the surface everything was dandy, but in reality there were some issues (not Great Depression issues, but nevertheless). Also, a true free economy would not have gone through with the bail outs. Personally I feel that they were needed, as too many insurance companies falling out of the sky would have allowed the few companies left to possibly monopolize the market, and it would leave many people without insurance, even if only for a short period of time.

There are many examples of both free economies and government-dictated economies failing, Shaun, so while I understand your point that if x didn't work lets try y, but some of the downfall, in my opinion, can be attributed to natural economic cycles (yes, quite a bit was done wrong as well). I'll say this, there is a fine line and it is up to each person to design how to decide to try and walk it (or tell other people how they want it to be walked).

I feel that just because a company is wasting money, it shouldn't be our perogative to fix what they're doing wrong (if they are causing significant harm to the population then its a different issue). The issue that arises is that some buisinesses have become so big that, despite there not being monopolies, have forced America to be dependent on them. More smaller companies with stronger competition is what would probably work best, but that is just uninformed speculation on my part.

[Shaun]

Its not like the Clinton economy wasn't that good either. I liken it to the 1920s, when on the surface everything was dandy, but in reality there were some issues (not Great Depression issues, but nevertheless). Also, a true free economy would not have gone through with the bail outs. Personally I feel that they were needed, as too many insurance companies falling out of the sky would have allowed the few companies left to possibly monopolize the market, and it would leave many people without insurance, even if only for a short period of time.

No, but I'm not really interested in Clinton's failings at this point :P. I'm interested in the last 8 years and how quickly we've gone down the tubes due to bad politics.
I'm iffy about the bailouts. My problem with them is it puts money in the hands of people that were wreckless and not enough money in the hands of people who are actualy suffering. I don't feel sorry for the CEOs. They brought this on themselves by being idiots for too long. I feel sorry for the millions of Americans who are losing their jobs and their homes because people who should have known better screwed up and took advantage.

There are many examples of both free economies and government-dictated economies failing, Shaun, so while I understand your point that if x didn't work lets try y, but some of the downfall, in my opinion, can be attributed to natural economic cycles (yes, quite a bit was done wrong as well). I'll say this, there is a fine line and it is up to each person to design how to decide to try and walk it (or tell other people how they want it to be walked).

I'm talking about a middle ground economic policy. One that maintains some freedom in the economy, but doesn't allow it to get out of control, that takes necessary steps when things aren't going in an intelligent direction.
Natural economic cycles shouldn't have massive recessions. Small recessions like the one that occurred when Bush came into office, yes, but not the one we're having now. The reasons for this massive recession had almost everything to do with too much freedom placed in the hands of the market. Trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK. It never has. The belief that it will is like believing in the tooth fairy at 45. It's stupid. There always have to be measures to protect the little person and make sure that the people up top, who won't suffer if the economy crashes to the ground, can't take advantage of the market as a whole. That's what happened: too much freedom put too much money in the hands of people who were all too willing to take unnecessary risks. And now we're suffering because of it. The shift of wealth in this country in the last eight years has been staggering.
So, I'm not for full government regulation. I'm for partial government regulation that makes sure the market doesn't do what it has been doing the last 8 years.

I feel that just because a company is wasting money, it shouldn't be our perogative to fix what they're doing wrong (if they are causing significant harm to the population then its a different issue). The issue that arises is that some buisinesses have become so big that, despite there not being monopolies, have forced America to be dependent on them. More smaller companies with stronger competition is what would probably work best, but that is just uninformed speculation on my part.

I agree. A lot of companies deserve to die.