• 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 .
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.

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...
 
Turtle, you may prefer the way things were during the 1700s.....but its 2011, with 2011 people and problems...did you know that ?

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.
 
QFT.

Wow, I was hoping for a reasoned argument as to your opinion; but, no, that's not to be from you.

Reagan's legacy to the American people is a non-rational movement that believe what they believe without any conscious justification whatsoever. It's just what they feel that counts. Because? 'Cause. Got it.

No thanks for that.

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.
 
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...

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...
 
Turtle, you may prefer the way things were during the 1700s.....but its 2011, with 2011 people and problems...did you know that ?

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

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
 
Reagan's deregulation gutted consumer protection, environmental protection, workplace safety and the right to organize. It led to many scandals that made his administration one of the most corrupt in history, with a record 138 officials investigated, indicted or convicted. But the biggest change was deregulation of banking, which led to crashes that have cost taxpayers literally trillions. The first was the Savings and Loan debacle that followed on Reagan's reforms that empowered banksters to gamble with other people's money, with their losses guaranteed by the federal government.

Fired 1300 air traffic controllers, destroyed Union's bargaining power, dropped the income tax for the top 2 percent from 70 to 38 percent. Tripled the national debt, spent trillions on the SDI, which to this day still doesn't work.

ricksfolly

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
 
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...

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.
 
Government is not always the problem. Its stupid beyond all reason to even try to claim that. While government is not perfect, it is not always wrong either. I can't stress how stupid it is to deal in such an extreme.

Does anyone actually want one example of how government worked? I don't think thats necessary, unless someone is hopelessly partisan and ignorant.

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...
 
Here, I'll try again because this thread is intended to engage all sides.

I made a point in my opening post of presenting the question as neutral a way as I could. I asked the poll question. I gave the Reagan quote. I even attached the YouTube link and location in the video where Reagan spoke the quote.

In the poll, I made a point of keeping the choices as neutral as possible, Yes, No, Don't Know.

Throughout I avoided loaded words because I wanted to invite participation.

My response post, I unloaded as hard as I know how, because I am partisan, I do have an opinion. I know I am in a distinct minority that is critical of Ronald Reagan. That's okay. I don't actually find much comfort being among the majority of respondents.

So, here's the bit where you get to offer an opinion and offer some insight about how you think about Reagan's point. Directing your opinion at me seems kind of a waste. But, hey, we'll all contribute in our own ways.

Kudos for being reasonable, keeping your cool, and trying to start a respectful thread...
 
Such statements are oversimplified crap that represent the greatest problem in modern American politics. You might as well say" is water is the problem?". A drowning man and a man dying of thirst will have very different opinions on the subject, and neither of them will be wrong. Government can be the problem, the solution or completely irrelevant depending on specific circumstances. You should decide whether government should be involved after you analyze the situation, not before. Even more importantly, you have to decide whether the specific solution is a good idea or not. In short, don't be a lazy fool, get off you ass and actually think about a problem before deciding how to deal with it.

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.
 
cutting the taxes was a good idea-no one can justify taking70% of anyone's next dollar

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

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.
 
“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



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.
 
“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



:shrug: sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
 
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.

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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom