• 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!

Less Government vs. Better Government

Less Government or Better Government?

  • Total voters
    57
Gimmesometruth said:
I know, I know.....talking about the conditions of a population as the result of govt policy....and then bringing up a govt policy (slavery) is dumb.......and forgetting that slavery is big bro run amok is...er....not dumb......er.... is it?
Click to expand...

How about sticking to reality? No one here has been talking about slavery. WTH are you talking about? Dude, get a hold of yourself and try to have a rational discussion.
 
DA60 said:
Less government.

'Better' and 'government' are contradictions in terms.
Click to expand...

Of course, of course! Which is precisely why the most successful nations on the planet - the first-world democracies - are all SOCIALIZED democracies (including America) with the very kind of Really Big Government that the Right says is automatically doomed to failure?

Y'know, guy, if a particular dogma - no matter how precious that dogma is to you - does not explain the reality of the world, if the success and failure of nations of the world is running completely counter to the way that dogma says it should...

...then maybe, just maybe y'all oughta take a second look at that dogma...because if the dogma of bigger government is automatically worse government were true, then ALL the world's most successful democracies wouldn't have (and have had for over half a century or more in all cases) the kind of government that dogma says is doomed to fail.

Faced with that reality that the dogma says should be impossible, is it really so unthinkable to question that dogma?
 
ChrisL said:
Who said they were "fine?" I said it was normal back then, which it was.
Click to expand...
"Normal"? FFS! Lets not measure if it was "fine", lets just sidestep and say it was "normal", thats a good excuse to ignore whether govt policy is beneficial for a population.....just call it "normal".

FFS!

Nobody said there weren't issues. We are talking about our current bloated money-eating machine wasteful government. I don't have any idea WHAT you are talking about. Apparently you are going off on some wild tangent because your love for Obama has driven you mad. It's a mad, mad world. ;)
Click to expand...
Of course you don't, you have not been following along with the topic at hand for at least two pages, liking and commenting to responses to me......but you have no idea what I am talking about....as you respond to me.

chris, get a grip.
 
ChrisL said:
How about sticking to reality? No one here has been talking about slavery. WTH are you talking about? Dude, get a hold of yourself and try to have a rational discussion.
Click to expand...
Um, anyone who talks about "what the founders wanted" in a debate about measuring the best outcomes for all people of a country had better keep in mind that slavery was a govt policy THAT THEY ALLOWED.

Talk about DUMB.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh gawd......yes, you are right.....the govt of a country....is analogous to a football team.

Thank you for pushing the argument to new heights.
Click to expand...

Analogical reasoning is considered an important component of human intelligence. Would you care to play along and discuss the merits of the anology, or would you prefer to continue in your fatuousness?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Of course, of course! Which is precisely why the most successful nations on the planet - the first-world democracies - are all SOCIALIZED democracies (including America) with the very kind of Really Big Government that the Right says is automatically doomed to failure?

Y'know, guy, if a particular dogma - no matter how precious that dogma is to you - does not explain the reality of the world, if the success and failure of nations of the world is running completely counter to the way that dogma says it should...

...then maybe, just maybe y'all oughta take a second look at that dogma...because if the dogma of bigger government is automatically worse government were true, then ALL the world's most successful democracies wouldn't have (and have had for over half a century or more in all cases) the kind of government that dogma says is doomed to fail.

Faced with that reality that the dogma says should be impossible, is it really so unthinkable to question that dogma?
Click to expand...

Big government = Better government is faulty logic. Big government is wasteful, is intrusive, is arrogant and lives to create and extend itself. The focus of big government is big government, not the people they are there to supposedly serve. You're view of "success" and your misaligned and misinformed history I'll simply chalk up to your extreme partisanship and failed political view.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Of course, the absurd position that we cannot measure quality of life within different poli-sci systems! Statistical analysis has not been invented! Objectiveness is impossible!

It is as if the arguments over the PPACA never happened, that the War on Poverty has not been mulled over, that measurements of income growth per capita are unexplained!

Really....that is your line of argument?
Click to expand...

In your case, probably.
 
My God there is a lot of arguing against strawmen in this one.

Social Security is nearly 80 years old, it is still solvent today, but according to some right wingers on here its some kind of a failure because without modification, it will become insolvent in the future. Name one program in the private sector that has been solvent for over 80 years and never missed a payment. Of course it will need modification going forward, that doesn't mean its some kind of a failure, it simply means that it must change as demographics and economics change.

Medicare has been around for 50 years now. Going forward it will need modification to remain solvent. That does not mean its a failure, it simply is a reflection of changing economics and demographics. The fact is, the vast majority of seniors are uninsurable in the private sector, and the older they get, the more uninsurable they become. Medicare is simply a reaction to that reality that some people cannot seem to accept due to their own ideological blinders.

I don't want some huge Scandinavian Style cradle to grave welfare state. I think that in many areas our government is too big and has become to inefficient, but I also am a realist and recognize that there are areas that require public sector involvement in a modern developed country. Namely, environmental protection, some sort of a safety-net, defense, market / banking oversight, and intervening where there is a market failure. That requires a significant public sector. Ideally one that is much more decentralized and thus much more efficient than the one we have, but it still requires one.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Analogical reasoning is considered an important component of human intelligence. Would you care to play along and discuss the merits of the anology, or would you prefer to continue in your fatuousness?
Click to expand...
Sure, I'm being inane, while you bring up football teams to substitute for discussion of measurement of the effectiveness of policy for people of a nation.

You already admitted to the fact that we can measure effectiveness of policy, you are still stuck at this gem:

I just don't think, politically, there is ever going to be an effective measure of government effectiveness
Click to expand...

Gobbledygook...defined.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
My God there is a lot of arguing against strawmen in this one.

Social Security is nearly 80 years old, it is still solvent today, but according to some right wingers on here its some kind of a failure because without modification, it will become insolvent in the future. Name one program in the private sector that has been solvent for over 80 years and never missed a payment. Of course it will need modification going forward, that doesn't mean its some kind of a failure, it simply means that it must change as demographics and economics change.

Medicare has been around for 50 years now. Going forward it will need modification to remain solvent. That does not mean its a failure, it simply is a reflection of changing economics and demographics. The fact is, the vast majority of seniors are uninsurable in the private sector, and the older they get, the more uninsurable they become. Medicare is simply a reaction to that reality that some people cannot seem to accept due to their own ideological blinders.
Click to expand...
The broken clock method of government success doesn't really mean much. Granted the two programs you've identified are the most widely held bi-partisan examples of government success yet the 80 years of failures, in both (R) and (D) leadership are ignored.

SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't want some huge Scandinavian Style cradle to grave welfare state. I think that in many areas our government is too big and has become to inefficient, but I also am a realist and recognize that there are areas that require public sector involvement in a modern developed country. Namely, environmental protection, some sort of a safety-net, defense, market / banking oversight, and intervening where there is a market failure. That requires a significant public sector. Ideally one that is much more decentralized and thus much more efficient than the one we have, but it still requires one.
Click to expand...

I share your view in that cradle to grave is not wanted but that is the path we're on. Giving any government more fuel to create yet more programs, more policy, more law, more requirements and more regulation only increases the monster that is government. Continue to feed it and the unintended consequence is cradle to grave. The public sector can be bullied, can be threatened, and can be sued and can be audited by government yet the reverse is not possible so the public sector is only as strong as the public and society allow them to be. My concern has been the public has been desensitized to government control through all sorts of areas where, hell, we don't even care that the NSA is keeping all sorts of data on us, that our smart phone camera's can be turned on, mics turned on without our notice. Sure there's a small number of people who are concerned but no buildings are burning.... that's the desensitization. It's bound to fail and rot from the inside or collapse onto itself. People like me would like to avoid that but if it's inevitable and the morons who drown out valid concern with purely partisan hackery, let's hasten the country's demise and start over. :shrug:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sure, I'm being inane, while you bring up football teams to substitute for discussion of measurement of the effectiveness of policy for people of a nation.

You already admitted to the fact that we can measure effectiveness of policy, you are still stuck at this gem:

Gobbledygook...defined.
Click to expand...

I believe you are the one stuck on that remark, unable to listen, process or understand and with all faculty of reason seemingly shut down. Your basic ability to understand the words put in front of your face is lacking and your reaction to such a failure of self is deplorable: you demean those who seek only to be understood as well as those who wish to help you understand.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I believe you are the one stuck on that remark, unable to listen, process or understand and with all faculty of reason seemingly shut down. Your basic ability to understand the words put in front of your face is lacking and your reaction to such a failure of self is deplorable: you demean those who seek only to be understood as well as those who wish to help you understand.
Click to expand...
Hint: We have plenty of PRACTICAL measurement of government policy showing the desired result of policy. To deny this....is nuts.

Gimmesometruth said:
Of course, the absurd position that we cannot measure quality of life within different poli-sci systems! Statistical analysis has not been invented! Objectiveness is impossible!

It is as if the arguments over the PPACA never happened, that the War on Poverty has not been mulled over, that measurements of income growth per capita are unexplained!

Really....that is your line of argument?
Click to expand...
 
Ockham said:
Big government = Better government is faulty logic. Big government is wasteful, is intrusive, is arrogant and lives to create and extend itself. The focus of big government is big government, not the people they are there to supposedly serve. You're view of "success" and your misaligned and misinformed history I'll simply chalk up to your extreme partisanship and failed political view.
Click to expand...

And what nations are the most successful nations on the planet?

The very same ones your dogma would require to be failures.

Unless, of course, the definition of 'failure' in your world means having a high standard of living in a clean and safe nation where you have the ability to go pretty much wherever you want, do pretty much whatever you wanted to do (within reason), and to say pretty much whatever you wanted to say. If that's 'failure' in your book, one must wonder exactly what the definition of 'success' is to you.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, anyone who talks about "what the founders wanted" in a debate about measuring the best outcomes for all people of a country had better keep in mind that slavery was a govt policy THAT THEY ALLOWED.

Talk about DUMB.
Click to expand...

It isn't dumb at all because THAT is what our Constitution is based upon. :doh Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. The topic is Do you think a larger government is better than a smaller government and why?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hint: We have plenty of PRACTICAL measurement of government policy showing the desired result of policy. To deny this....is nuts.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post some of it. What do you think of our federal deficit figures? What does that reflect?
 
American said:
Then our government (in fact all governments) fail, because we still have the least fortunate.
Click to expand...
Fail ?
Not at all, and NOT perfectly...we are dealing with humanity....And, as long as we have this(humanity or man), there will always be the less fortunate...The idea is, of course, the reduction of numbers (less crime - for one) (less suicide, for another)
 
Amadeus said:
Not at all, it's a matter of where your ideological priorities are.
Click to expand...

In other words you are admitting to political blinders in your poll.

A smaller government can be better than a bigger government since our elected officials can better focus on fewer functions than more and with less functions being maintained it can receive better funding for those who do.
 
Amadeus said:
No, my presumption is that cooperation and collective problem solving are required for certain problems. How do you solve a national problem without government?
Click to expand...

NGOs (Non-Government Organizations).
 
TurtleDude said:
weak response. again-less government can be measured. Better government cannot because what socialist income redistributionists call better, many of us call worse
Click to expand...

Those on the wrong like to measure a society's success by how much government “helps” the people.

Those of us on the right would rather measure a society's success by what people are able to accomplish without (or in spite of) any “help” from the government.
 
mmi said:
So is promoting the general welfare.
Click to expand...


WRONG. "Promoting the general welfare" is a general prescription for the existence of government it is not a pow. of under the Constitution of the Untied States.
 
earthworm said:
Fail ?
Not at all, and NOT perfectly...we are dealing with humanity....And, as long as we have this(humanity or man), there will always be the less fortunate...The idea is, of course, the reduction of numbers (less crime - for one) (less suicide, for another)
Click to expand...

Taking money from one person to give to another for their sustenance is not the purpose of government.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Are you still clinging to the argument that the measurement of a better life is impossible? That the quality of a life, the wealth, health, satisfaction.....happiness in life....cannot be measured?

FFS, what is wrong with you folks?

Next up, we cannot criticize govt policy or POTUS's......because we cannot measure whether or not those policies have an effect on people or their lives!
Click to expand...

Nice try, no go. Wealth and health are indeed measurable. Well wealth in terms of money. When used in concepts like "I'm wealthy in friends", it becomes more subjective. "Better", "Quality", "Satisfaction", and "Happyness" are all indeed subjective values. Now we can measure an individual's view on each of these by asking. We can also measure trends among a group of people. What we cannot do is take a specific item, action or whatever and say that everyone across the board will agree as to whether or not it is "better", or that all will be satisfied, or that it will make everyone happy or satisfied. That's because they are subjective.

We can take event A that someone works to change into B. You may feel that is better for your life. I on the other hand feel that it makes my life worse. So, does the action result in a better way of life or a worse one? The answer is yes. Both resulted because "better" is subjective.
 
Shadow Serious said:
WRONG. "Promoting the general welfare" is a general prescription for the existence of government it is not a pow. of under the Constitution of the Untied States.
Click to expand...

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …"

You can argue that I should have used the expression "provide for" that's associated with the enumerated powers listed in Article One, Section 8, rather than the word "promote" that's found in the Preamble. But I was responding to:

cpgrad08 said:
… National Defense is one the powers the Federal Government has under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I felt that cpgrad08 was focused more on the Preamble's "provide for the common defence" than the Taxing and Spending Clause.

I'm not sure where yer going with "a general prescription for the existence of government."

American said:
Taking money from one person to give to another for their sustenance is not the purpose of government.
Click to expand...

That's yer opinion. The disbursement of tax revenues is decided democratically. Looks like you are in the minority on this one.
 
Personally I don't really have an issue with programs to help the poor, mostly because of the children. At the same time, the government really needs to start reeling in their disgusting amount of wasteful unnecessary spending. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom