The role of the federal government in our lives

[Red Arrow]

He'll go blind

Not if he stops when he needs glasses.

[Red Arrow]

As in a profit margin? 

A loss leader might be good enough.  Just don't lose it all.

[Gaspar]

As in a profit margin? 

No!
But when you give a dollar it is cherished and valued more when the recipient aquates it to some labor or skill.  There is no pride in a hand out.

[nathanm]

There is no pride in a hand out.

A corollary: There is no shame in being needy.

[Red Arrow]

A corollary: There is no shame in being needy.

Unless it is self inflicted by factors within one's control.

[Teatownclown]

Are you serious? Government rewards the risk takers and the successful by taxing the ever-living crap out of them. In all seriousness, had I known that all the years I spent in college/law school (and my wife even more than I) would result in me paying the astronomical federal income tax that I get hit with every year I would have chosen a different path.

Powerful opportunists owe a debt to "society." (Interchange THAT with "government!"...it works!). 


Way to show some moxie!

[guido911]

Powerful opportunists owe a debt to "society." (Interchange THAT with "government!"...it works!). 


Way to show some moxie!

Am I and my wife "opportunists" that owe some sort of a debt to someone? Please explain how I am an opportunist or how I have gamed the system to get to where I am today.

[Teatownclown]

Am I and my wife "opportunists" that owe some sort of a debt to someone? Please explain how I am an opportunist or how I have gamed the system to get to where I am today.

You don't portray your sensitive side too often. I am sorry you took the comment personally but I do not place you in the category I refer to.

You certainly did not game the system. Otherwise, you wouldn't spend your time here. You'd have enough money to be living the high life. And besides that, I can't place you in the "powerful" category unless you buy politicians or government officials for special treatment and personal gain.

Even Buffet has said the collections are out of kilter and the code's a lopsided miss.

The favorable depreciation schedules for developing on "native American" land in Oklahoma is an incentive for those with the money for risk but it means less is available to fund the necessary obligation of society to each other. Do you ever wonder how these welfare incentives sneak their way into the code?

[we vs us]

I was really interested in the ideas the Obama the candidate seemed to be espousing -- especially in contrast to Bush II.  Obama's liberalism rested on two essential points:  1) government is still necessary to modern life and 2) it can always be smarter and more efficient.  Amongst the left, it was a subtle and important re-think because it acknowledges the importance of government, but then issued an essential challenge, which was to make it move smoother, to make it smaller if necessary, to absolutely make it more efficient. 

As much as Obama's been painted as an ideologue, he's been very nonideological when it's come to his place in the liberal timeline, especially in comparison with Big Government Liberalism of the 60's and 70's (a liberalism that, I might point out, the GOP is still fighting against and still scoring points again all the way up to the present day).  Obama's explicitly said that government can and should be smaller if smaller government is called for.  At the same time, he's willing to make sweeping policy if the problem calls for it. If you take a look at his policies to date, he's been willing to work both of those sides of the government divide. 

I like this because I still believe that government can and should have an active hand in our lives.  I believe that we're now in an era of human development where the problems we face are largely national, regional, or global, and can't be addressed on an individual level.  IMO, a lot of American conservatism harkens back to a socio-political time that no longer exists in our country (The Wild West, the Gilded Age, a lot of the late 1800's pioneer ethos), and is now fighting kind of a rearguard effort to recreate not only the political conditions but the whole historical environment.   

But I also think that oversize bureaucracy doesn't have to follow; we can be smart, and use technology to make things more streamlined.  Government should be big where it needs to be big, but should be small where it needs to be small.  That's a little simplistic, but thinking of it that way can help us detach from some of the old old battles we're fighting and maybe get to a place where we can be more pragmatic about our government. 

I guess I can't see a smaller, weaker federal government being able to deal with climate change, our aging population, the healthcare crisis, the general global resource crunch that's coming with rising populations, or the transition of billions of people into a consumer middle class.  There are multiple global upheavals coming our way in the very near future, and a less empowered federal government is exactly what we don't need in order to weather those problems. 

[Conan71]

I was really interested in the ideas the Obama the candidate seemed to be espousing -- especially in contrast to Bush II.  Obama's liberalism rested on two essential points:  1) government is still necessary to modern life and 2) it can always be smarter and more efficient.  Amongst the left, it was a subtle and important re-think because it acknowledges the importance of government, but then issued an essential challenge, which was to make it move smoother, to make it smaller if necessary, to absolutely make it more efficient. 

As much as Obama's been painted as an ideologue, he's been very nonideological when it's come to his place in the liberal timeline, especially in comparison with Big Government Liberalism of the 60's and 70's (a liberalism that, I might point out, the GOP is still fighting against and still scoring points again all the way up to the present day).  Obama's explicitly said that government can and should be smaller if smaller government is called for.  At the same time, he's willing to make sweeping policy if the problem calls for it. If you take a look at his policies to date, he's been willing to work both of those sides of the government divide. 

I like this because I still believe that government can and should have an active hand in our lives.  I believe that we're now in an era of human development where the problems we face are largely national, regional, or global, and can't be addressed on an individual level.  IMO, a lot of American conservatism harkens back to a socio-political time that no longer exists in our country (The Wild West, the Gilded Age, a lot of the late 1800's pioneer ethos), and is now fighting kind of a rearguard effort to recreate not only the political conditions but the whole historical environment.   

But I also think that oversize bureaucracy doesn't have to follow; we can be smart, and use technology to make things more streamlined.  Government should be big where it needs to be big, but should be small where it needs to be small.  That's a little simplistic, but thinking of it that way can help us detach from some of the old old battles we're fighting and maybe get to a place where we can be more pragmatic about our government. 

I guess I can't see a smaller, weaker federal government being able to deal with climate change, our aging population, the healthcare crisis, the general global resource crunch that's coming with rising populations, or the transition of billions of people into a consumer middle class.  There are multiple global upheavals coming our way in the very near future, and a less empowered federal government is exactly what we don't need in order to weather those problems. 

English major, right? 

I'm in agreement with most of what you say in the last two paragraphs other than climate change or healthcare being a "crisis".  I detest a government which creates "crises" to make itself relevant in as many lives and arenas as possible.  And I don't think you are being simplistic. It's a common sense approach.

No one wants a weaker government, often times too much bulk makes someone or something much weaker because of inefficiency.  There are most definitely examples of where government does need to be necessarily large and examples where it's too large for it's own good.

Agencies like the EPA have been quite effective in cleaning up the environment and I do shudder to think what the country might look like today if many of the air, water, land, etc. pollution initiatives had never been brought about.  I appreciate what they have done for the most part.  However, they have also created many over-reaching rules and regs which find their way into the cost of doing business and ultimately what consumers pay for a product.

OSHA has done quite a bit to protect the American worker in the workplace.  The FAA, NHTSA, NTSA, FDA, USDA, etc. ad nauseum protect us and help the country run smoothly every day without doubt.  But there is a lot of waste and redundancy within those agencies which could be cut.  The problem in doing that is pretty much what we've seen on the state level.  Each department head claims there's no room for cutting and threatens their system will be thrown into total chaos if they suffer cut-backs.  All they care about is protecting their own little fiefdom.  There should be some sort of reward system for each department coming up with ways to cut budgets and reduce staff.  Perhaps outsourcing is a better alternative which will help grow the private sector.

Okay, I'm rambling now, but mainly wanted to point out you've made some good points and say a simplistic approach is the best approach, IMO.

[Gaspar]

we vs us,

Great organization of thought and presentation of your position.  I understand exactly what you feel the role of government should be, and I think it would be a valid position if government actually worked that way, but it does not.  It never has.  It simply cannot.

Yours is the exact position that most liberals share, and I think you did a far better job in explaining it than most.  This is exactly how I used to think.  The vision of a governmental system that is inherently free, fair, and structured efficiently.  The problem is that human nature will not allow for this.  We have to accept the role of ego in government just as we do in society.

As much as I enjoy Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry's template of society can never exist.  Bureaucracy is the very goal of government.
 
Why?  

Because there is no reward for efficiency.  There is no concern for competition.

Any surplus in revenue is viewed as threat by the entities fed by that revenue, so they expand to encompass it.  

The reason that conservatives fight for smaller government is because they know that the only way to halt the growth of government is to stop feeding it.

Liberals on the other hand still have this Gene Roddenberry idea of the technology based, streamlined, efficient society where everyone is cared for according to their needs.  They then take that a step further by replacing the word "society" with "government" and convince themselves that it applies.

What President Obama was espousing on the campaign trail was the same tired dialogue that can be heard on any college campus on the merit of collective societal models.  The Utopian principal, while nourishing to the imagination, fails to manifest.  Because humans make up government. Human nature and the drive for self preservation, security, and political advancement corrupt the concept.

Let me go ahead and answer the next question that will be posed by some.

"Why would private endeavor be any different?"

It is not, but competition and profit cause private industry to seek efficiency, become smarter and use technology to advance.  Free market causes private industry to move in the direction that serves the end user with the most cost effective and comprehensive solutions.  A broad contrast to any government endeavor.

[tulsascoot]

The problem with private entities serving the public is that they are liable to shareholders and not citizens or elected officials for their performance. This is why I have such a huge problem with our health care delivery. If it were government run, the officials would have to answer to the voters for their decisions, not the shareholders. As it is, there is no way to demand that we all have a fair stake in health care, and we are all subject to a private bureaucracy for our health care decisions based on a profit percentage loss ratio.

I am not saying gov't run health care is what we need, but a point to argue.

I do not feel profits should be considered over our citizens welfare.

[Red Arrow]

If it were government run, the officials would have to answer to the voters for their decisions,...

We all know how well that works.

[Gaspar]

The problem with private entities serving the public is that they are liable to shareholders and not citizens or elected officials for their performance. This is why I have such a huge problem with our health care delivery. If it were government run, the officials would have to answer to the voters for their decisions, not the shareholders. As it is, there is no way to demand that we all have a fair stake in health care, and we are all subject to a private bureaucracy for our health care decisions based on a profit percentage loss ratio.

I am not saying gov't run health care is what we need, but a point to argue.

I do not feel profits should be considered over our citizens welfare.

I like your argument because it can be applied to almost anything.

The problem with private entities serving the public is that they are liable to shareholders and not citizens or elected officials for their performance. This is why I have such a huge problem with our food producers. If they were government run, the producers would have to answer to the voters for their decisions, not the shareholders. As it is, there is no way to demand that we all have healthy food to eat, and we are all subject to a private bureaucracy for our grocery decisions based on a profit percentage loss ratio.

I am not saying gov't run food production is what we need, but a point to argue.

I do not feel profits should be considered over feeding our citizens.

The reason that healthcare is in a shambles is because of government intervention.  Step one was to distribute care through social programs.  As a result the snowball was formed and eventually regulation to restrict healthcare organizations from free trade between states was mandated.  This was originally to protect risk pools (and insulate local companies from competition),  but as you can imagine it ended with the death of the small to medium size health provider and ultimately the birth of the mega-clinics.  The end result is what we have now.  Very little competition because the law protects the big players from competition.  The cost of care is no longer based on simple cost, but spread out to cover noncollectable liabilities.

For the past 25+ years, healthcare has been semi-government.  Now we propose to make it total government.  There is absolutely no chance that this will serve anyone well.  Instead of expensive quality care, we will end up with expensive deplorable care, but the cost will be hidden from sight so that the sheep don't "bahh" to loudly.

[we vs us]

I don't by any means think that government is a panacea, or that all your troubles will be solved if you'd just trust it.  There's simply no reason to believe that.  And I want to make clear that I don't think there's ANY human-devised organization out there that will miraculously solve all of our problems.  Trust me, Gaspar, Gene Roddenberry was the dewiest of idealists, and his fantasies would dry up and float away if they were exposed to the air outside of a TV box.  I don't know anyone beyond the occasional 15 yr old Trekkie who might believe that.

If, like me, you believe that the world is essentially the grinding together of massive power centers (nations, religions, corporations, etc), a democratic government is the one power center that might be responsive to all of its citizens.  Other forms of government aren't made with everyone in mind; corporations certainly aren't; and international orgs (UN, World Bank, etc) live in an abstract level of the atmosphere that have little to do with real world stuff.  

At least our government gives us the opportunity, no matter how hamfisted, to address the problems of the least of us.  

And bureaucracy isn't necessarily the natural state of government.  It's the natural state of our government.  Look: we have governmental forms on the neighborhood level, the city and county level, the state level, and the federal level.  Most of that is an outgrowth of our founding documents, and the sorts of oppositions between branches, regions, and sizes that the Founders put in motion.  We're built to be unwieldy and to be checked and balanced.  Is it any wonder that all of the branches of government have grown around that?  

Also, we're the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world.  Why wouldn't the machinery needed to sustain that be huge?  

This is not to argue that our current level of bureaucracy should continue to exist unchallenged, but this is to argue that there are logical reasons for our size and cost of government that don't involve original sin.