• 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!

Appropriate Roles of Government

Which are the appropriate roles of the federal government


  • Total voters
    23

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,364
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of the above listed, which do you feel are the appropriate roles of the federal government?

I see this thread(and hopefully a few more over the next few days) as more a statement of position type thread, as opposed to a debate thread. I am interested in peoples views, not in determining who is right. With that in mind, please don't argue with others in this thread about their ideas on this, just state your position and expand on each/any you choose.

Please be patient as I make the actual poll...I type slow.

Edited to add: this list is by no means inclusive, please add ones I did not include in the list that you think are important roles of government
 
Last edited:
I support federal protection from foreign and domestic threats (violent threats - we do not need protection from drugs, bad words, pornography, etc.).

I somewhat support federal funding for infrastructure, however, I think the vast majority of these projects and their funding should be handled by the states which are going to benefit from them. For example, if an interstate is going to be built, it should be paid for by the states through which is passes. Those states can then, if they so choose, charge tolls to offset the cost, impose a gas tax, set their own speed limits, etc.

I support full privitization of social security.

I am generally in favor of public health care options. Whether Medicare or Medicaid should have anything whatsoever to do with that is another question.

I am generally in favor of public education options on the state level. Whether or not the federal government should be involved at all is another question.

I do not support federal funding for arts/public TV or radio of any kind.

I do not support the FCC.

I'll be honest and admit I have no idea what the Federal Reserve does.

I support some federal regulation of industry. Mostly environmental regulation, but that regulation should be reasonable.

I do not support federal funding for any welfare programs. The states can do that if they so choose.
 
I believe in federal funding of a military and federal regulation of interstate trade.

I also support federal funds being used in scientific research to a degree as that improves society as a whole.

I'm in favor of federal funding of interstate highways and infrastructure, but I think intra-state infrastructure should be handled by teh states themselves.

I'm totally against the FCC, funding of the arts/public TV, and federal welfare.

For the stuff I haven't listed or answered, I'm not totally convinced in either direction. For all of them, I think reform is necessary, but I could be convinced to support them after reformation.
 
If I can only pick from the list, I choose Field a Military (noninterventionist) and Fund infrastructure (non intra-state highways and bridges).
 
Military and infrastructure for sure; I count scientific funding in both those categories as all advancements have to start at base science at some point. I could go with a very small and limited amount of regulation; but only in so much as to promote free market capitalism. The Federal Reserve is actually probably ok in theory, but I don't like the system which is currently set up though I find it hard to operate in full control of your currency in today's market with something backed by a real thing. The Fed can be used for regulation of the value of our currency, but because it has tools to do so it must 100% be subjected, controlled, and owned by the Congress as only Congress was given the power to print and regulate the value of our currency. The FCC should exist only in terms of anti-piracy things. Education can all be taken care of at the State level, as can most everything else. Though I'm not necessarily opposed to things like Social Security so long as it's handled properly.

Health care in general (not just limited to Medicaid/Medicare) I think in theory could have some showing on the federal level. It's just that in practical terms, the government tends to create things which benefit it and their friends and not the People at large which is why I'm always hesitant to authorize it.
 
Of all the items listed, only the top two, miliarty and "post roads" are allowed by the Constitution.
 
Of the above listed, which do you feel are the appropriate roles of the federal government?

I see this thread(and hopefully a few more over the next few days) as more a statement of position type thread, as opposed to a debate thread. I am interested in peoples views, not in determining who is right. With that in mind, please don't argue with others in this thread about their ideas on this, just state your position and expand on each/any you choose.

Please be patient as I make the actual poll...I type slow.

Edited to add: this list is by no means inclusive, please add ones I did not include in the list that you think are important roles of government

Everything in moderation.
 
Everything in moderation.

I agree with this except for public art/television. I just don't see the point in it.
 
Of all the items listed, only the top two, miliarty and "post roads" are allowed by the Constitution.

The Constitution can say just about anything you want it to say, if you just define certain terms the right way.
 
The Constitution can say just about anything you want it to say, if you just define certain terms the right way.

Actually, the Constitution is not the Bible.

It says what it says, all you have to do is read it.

Honesty when reading it helps.

Try that approach.
 
Actually, the Constitution is not the Bible.

It says what it says, all you have to do is read it.

Honesty when reading it helps.

Try that approach.

I'm not saying it should say whatever you want it to say, I'm saying it can, if you so choose.
 
The FCC option could use some clarification, as they have no business regulating content, and every right to regulate bandwidth and broadcast strength. To use a quick but possibly weak analogy, they can regulate the roads, but not where I decide to drive. I think the FCC has legitimate business to conduct, but none of it is in the realm of content.
 
The FCC option could use some clarification, as they have no business regulating content, and every right to regulate bandwidth and broadcast strength. To use a quick but possibly weak analogy, they can regulate the roads, but not where I decide to drive. I think the FCC has legitimate business to conduct, but none of it is in the realm of content.

Good point. Call it a yes, but with your noted clarification.
 
Back
Top Bottom