• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Agree or disagree: Government is the problem

Is government the problem?

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Ed Gein said:
A FriscoLib slams The Gipper, not using reason, not using facts(facts defeat partisan stupidity).

Thanks for the laffs, and for solidifying why I truly hate most liberals.
Click to expand...

Most politicians, and most certainly presidents, regardless of affiliation, do and say ridiculously stupid things.
Any person that disagrees with that is simply a partisan hack that deserves our sympathy...
 
earthworm said:
Turtle, you may prefer the way things were during the 1700s.....but its 2011, with 2011 people and problems...did you know that ?
Click to expand...

And we have 2011 problems because people and the government don't treat issues like it is the 1700's...
they create issues and then throw ridiculous plans around as to how to solve them, this is called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 

Now, to be fair to Reagan, I think he had a good idea for the time.

Remember, Reagan grew up in an age with little government intervention, so he was looking at how government was impeding businesses. Unfortunately, I don't think he really realized how unethical businesses could be, and exactly why they needed regulating.

Also, Reagan's lifetime had the attitudes go from "every man for himself" to "the government will provide you a living." Now, granted, the reason why the government provided work to Americans was because it was the only way the federal government knew how to guarantee getting the American people out of the Great Depression - they couldn't rely on businesses to volunteer to do the policies that would help re-stir economic growth. Which is why FDR centralized the economy like he did.

But after the Depression, LBJ did his "War on Poverty" and the welfare state was an actuality. Why work when the government will provide you with food if you can't afford it?

However, after Reagan, and especially during the Clinton administration, I think we have gotten farther away from policies of welfare and towards policies of workfare. Instead of having an impoverished class relying on the government for sustenance, the policies liberals prefer are those that allow the impoverished to get educated enough to pull themselves up from poverty.

So liberals have gone from giving aid directly to the poor continually - which is what the liberals of the '60's and '70's were doing, and what Reagan and Goldwater were fearing - to giving aid to the poor indirectly - by giving them an education and work skills that they can use to live a life of quality on their own.

This latter type of government assistance was done by compromising with conservatives, and they do have valid arguments of caution.

However, this doesn't mean that they are totally right and that the best government is the one that governs least. In fact, we are all consumers, and we all benefit from consumer protections that the federal government enforces.

So, in short, I think Reagan's rhetoric was good for it's time. Some things in the U.S. does need less regulation. However, the evil in his rhetoric is his use of a broad brush - deregulation needs to be targeted, not total.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Most politicians, and most certainly presidents, regardless of affiliation, do and say ridiculously stupid things.
Any person that disagrees with that is simply a partisan hack that deserves our sympathy...
Click to expand...

That may be true.

However, it doesn't mean that politicians only do ridiculously stupid things. Any person that disagrees with that is simply a partisan hack that doesn't deserve our sympathy...
 
earthworm said:
Turtle, you may prefer the way things were during the 1700s.....but its 2011, with 2011 people and problems...did you know that ?
Click to expand...

that question would be another good poll question.
 
earthworm said:
Turtle, you may prefer the way things were during the 1700s.....but its 2011, with 2011 people and problems...did you know that ?
Click to expand...

that is rather stupid

I prefer that the destruction of the tenth amendment and expansion of the commerce clause and the enactment of the 16-17th amendments had never happened. that only means we wouldn't have a bloated federal government, massive debt and millions of dependent sloths demanding more and more government handouts. we'd still have all the stuff most people like like microwave popcorn, Ipods, cell phones, battery powered "toys" and debit cards
 

lots of that was good

public sector employees should not be in unions,let alone striking

cutting the taxes was a good idea-no one can justify taking70% of anyone's next dollar
 
samsmart said:
That may be true.

However, it doesn't mean that politicians only do ridiculously stupid things. Any person that disagrees with that is simply a partisan hack that doesn't deserve our sympathy...
Click to expand...

I completely agree and I would certainly never assert such a notion... It is just that many people rail against one candidate or president and conveniently forget their favorite presidents crap that they were involved in/responsible for...
 
It was true to a large degree in 1980.

It's true to a large degree at present.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with it as an absolute statement that was true at all times in all places, however.
 

I was a little kid when Reagen was president, but for some reason... I doubt Reagen meant the phrase to be taken in the extreme sense. I think it was his rebuttal to Jimmy Carter trying to solve problems with the government and setting price ceilings... but IDK. That would make sense to me, and I think most of the Conservatives today do think government is justified and is the solution in some cases, otherwise they wouldn't support government at all. If government always fails, and you honestly believe that... then why the hell are you supporting it's existence? Doesn't make sense to me...
 

Kudos for being reasonable, keeping your cool, and trying to start a respectful thread...
 

I like this response, and I think it is more true about Reagen and the people who really like him... I mean, he was obviously a social conservative, and felt government intervention in people's lives was necessary in some situations.
 
TurtleDude said:
cutting the taxes was a good idea-no one can justify taking70% of anyone's next dollar
Click to expand...

Its easy to justify when that income class owns 80% of the wealth.
 

Earthworm had a very vaild point in pointing out that your ideas and what you advocate fit in much better to the 18th century than they do the 21st century. You basically want to repeal all the important political and democratic reforms of the past century. I hear Glen Beck say much the same thing constantly. We do NOT live in the 18th century anymore.
 
Government is mostly the problem. It's too large and responds to the wrong inputs. There are a lot of problems though, not all limited to just government. One of the real problems is that even though it's obvious that government is the problem, the two main parties are both Big Government parties in all senses of the word.
 
Chappy said:
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” — Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural¹​
Is government the problem?

Explain.

Minute 4:20

Click to expand...

I would have to say the government is a necessary evil. Its the voters to a certian degree who are the problem, because most of them would rather watch American idol,sports and other dumb ass shows instead of paying attention to what their elected tax payer funded servants do. That said I wouldn't have it any other way. Because it is better for the people to choose our law makers and so on. That said the government can not be trusted on their own.
 
Chappy said:
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” — Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural¹​
Is government the problem?

Explain.

Minute 4:20

Click to expand...

:shrug: sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
 
Tucker Case said:
People are the problem. People suck.

If the government is, as Lincoln said, "of the people, by the people, for the people" then it is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Sure most people are gullible and uninformed but that's because they spend most of their time looking for work to take care of their families. They don't have the time to improve their lot.

They do the best they can with what they've got. Don't be so hard on them.

ricksfolly
 

Well said, Rick. I retract that cynical statement.
 
Depends what topic were talking about, when it comes to the job sector in particular I think they're very destructive. Obviously nobody has a problem with them regulating roads, bridges, etc. They try to exercise their power more than they should in most cases, IMO.
 
Well, I honestly do see government as the problem. I teach in a very poor mostly rural area. We've had an influx of very poor folk that are; irresponsible, mostly divorced, broken up, never married, and drug using, engaged in multiple criminal activities who rely on government checks as a base for continuing their lives. It's positively...........criminal. In my neighborhood, government is the problem.
 
We seem to be entering a climate where all gov. regulations - be they federal or state regulations - are viewed as evil. I cannot agree with that stance. Of course, the Gov. can overstep its boundaries. Anytime it passes a law that is overkill or unnecessarily burdens a person's liberty, such a law is not proper. If the restriction on liberty is worse than the benefit the regulations provide, the law shouldn't exist. But this is basic due process analysis. Today it seems like people see due process as more of a flat prohibition on all Gov. interference with personal liberty. That's just ridiculous.

I'm in complete favor of giving individuals as much freedom as possible. But people are prone to cutting corners, and throwing others under the bus for temporary advantage, when given total freedom. I think it is more than appropriate for the Gov. to "solve" this problem through oversight and thoughtful regulations. A government that allows the majority to prey on the minority, that allows the powerful the freedom to use that power to take advantage of others, is worthless.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those funny threads. It purports to be about "government" and if it is the problem. Without stating what the problem is. Reagan's comments were aimed at "the current crisis" but I'm not sure anyone in the thread is even aware what he was referring to. Reading through the thread and in particular at the author of the threads comments, it looks as clear as day to me that the real problem is this is just another bash Reagan thread. It certainly is not really about discussing the problems associated with government or too much of it or even government overspending. Just another anti Reagan thread trying to masquerade as an honest discussion about the topic of government. Maybe next time just be honest and label your thread what it is and engage on that topic. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Government has been more of a problem than a solution for a very long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…