• 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!

A Simple And Straightforward Question For You.

Is Big Government the answer to America's problems??

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • No

    Votes: 8 17.0%
  • Hell No!!!

    Votes: 29 61.7%

  • Total voters
    47
"The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, in particular, gets a lot of blame. It created the National Recovery Administration, a federal bureaucracy that limited competition in various industries by setting prices and wages above market levels. The ensuing upward pressure on the price of goods and unemployment may have turned a bad situation worse. While it benefited some producers, the NRA's policies meant basic goods were more expensive for consumers and jobs harder to come by for people who were already in dire straits." - Did the New Deal Work? - US News and World Report

Not so much.

From the same article:

In 1995, economist Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University published a survey of academic economists that asked them if they agreed with the statement, "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Fifty-one percent disagreed, and 49 percent agreed. Whaples today says that the New Deal remains a thorny issue for economists because it's so difficult to measure the effects it had on the country. "You need a credible model of the economy, and not everyone is going to agree on what that model should be," he says.

I think that you used your source a bit misleadingly there. And I disagree, if the government would have had it's eye on the predatory lending practices, this recession may have been avoided.
 
From the same article:

I think that you used your source a bit misleadingly there. And I disagree, if the government would have had it's eye on the predatory lending practices, this recession may have been avoided.

Misleading how? It clearly states economists are split in general, but you used a specific example of the middle class. So I took the information specifically relating to that.

It's the governments fault the bad lending practices where started in the first place. US government policy, by encouraging banks to lend to people with poor credit records, was a contributory factor in undermining US banks. You cannot deny it was the leading contributor.
 
Last edited:
Misleading how? It clearly states economists are split in general, but you used a specific example of the middle class. So I took the information specifically relating to that.

It's the governments fault the bad lending practices where started in the first place. US government policy, by encouraging banks to lend to people with poor credit records, was a contributory factor in undermining US banks. You cannot deny it was the leading contributor.

Take this for example:
A product of the early industrial era, the second American middle class was largely limited to the industrial states of the Northeast and the Midwest. Unlike the factory workers in those states, the rural majority in the South and the West did not share in the income gains from industrialization; tariffs were, in effect, a tax imposed on them to subsidize urban workers and capitalists. The protectionist system also hurt the professional elite, because it raised prices on high-end consumer goods. Economics goes a long way toward explaining why elite progressives from the North teamed up with southern and western populists in the New Deal coalition that lasted from 1932 until the 1960s. The New Dealers created the third American middle class.

Whereas the second American middle class was founded on high wages for workers in the industrial sector, the third American middle class was founded on the supplementation of wage income by government benefits that collectively constituted a "social wage." The social wage included not only private-sector benefits encouraged by the tax code, such as employer-provided health insurance, but also subsidies such as the home-mortgage-interest deduction and government entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare (which freed many middle-class families from the bankrupting burden of caring for elderly parents), the GI Bill for higher education, and student loans. As the Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker has pointed out, when the hidden welfare state is counted along with the visible welfare state, the United States has a system of social provision as generous as those in Western Europe -- though in this country much of that system extends only to the middle class and the professional elite.

The social-wage system had many flaws -- for example, it failed to provide health insurance for tens of millions of Americans. Nevertheless, the third American middle class, the product of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, was larger and more inclusive than the earlier two. From the 1930s to the 1970s income inequality in America shrank dramatically, producing what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have called the Great Compression.
Are We Still a Middle-Class Nation? | The New America Foundation

As you can clearly see, and there are more citations I can produce, most historians agree that it was FDR that set-off, with the New Deal, the modern Middle Class. The high taxes and such referred to by your source, refers to high-end items that in those days were limited to the richer folks, so it is misleading.

As to the government contributing to the problem of this current recession, I agree they played a part, but not the major part. Banks were knowingly selling bad loans into the market in order to protect themselves from their own practice. Then, once the market stopped purchasing these loans, were stuck with their own creation. The government certainly encouraged some lending to questionable borrowers, but not at the risk level banks took things to.
 
Last edited:
Take this for example:
Are We Still a Middle-Class Nation? | The New America Foundation

As you can clearly see, and there are more citations I can produce, most historians agree that it was FDR that set-off, with the New Deal, the modern Middle Class. The high taxes and such referred to by your source, refers to high-end items that in those days were limited to the richer folks, so it is misleading.

I can produce more as well it means little at this point.

I think you are the one being misleading here. As was stated before historians are split right down the middle. And yet you say "most historians agree that it was FDR that set-off." Most?

As to the government contributing to the problem of this current recession, I agree they played a part, but not the major part. Banks were knowingly selling bad loans into the market in order to protect themselves from their own practice.

Lets look at this logically...

Government says: Loan to poor people and bad credit risks!
Banks: Bad Idea
Government: American dream! Housing! Blah Blah
Banks: OK
President Bush and Republicans: We need oversite. (6 years before the crash)
Democrats: Nahhhhh.
Banks: lets sell these high risk loans to protecht ourselfs.
Madoff types: Lets package the high risk mortages and sell to the banks!

Make no mistake the banks were forced (if indirectly) by the US government to give out the loans.

Then, once the market stopped purchasing these loans, were stuck with their own creation. The government certainly encouraged some lending to questionable borrowers, but not at the risk level banks took things to.

When Congress passed the AMT PA in 82' which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages this opened the flood gates to the banking problems. Around 80% of your sub prime mortgages were adjustable rate and with no oversite a recipe for disaster courtesy of the US government.

It gets worse when GSEs like Fannie Mae, got involved again due to government involvement.

It goes on but I think you get the just of what I am saying.
 
I can produce more as well it means little at this point.

I think you are the one being misleading here. As was stated before historians are split right down the middle. And yet you say "most historians agree that it was FDR that set-off." Most?

Most historians, not economists. Economists are split, with that I agree. I have yet to find a historian, though I am sure there are some, that do not attribute start of the rise of the modern Middle Class to FDR and his policies.


Lets look at this logically...

Government says: Loan to poor people and bad credit risks!
Banks: Bad Idea
Government: American dream! Housing! Blah Blah
Banks: OK
President Bush and Republicans: We need oversite. (6 years before the crash)
Democrats: Nahhhhh.
Banks: lets sell these high risk loans to protecht ourselfs.
Madoff types: Lets package the high risk mortages and sell to the banks!

Make no mistake the banks were forced (if indirectly) by the US government to give out the loans.



When Congress passed the AMT PA in 82' which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages this opened the flood gates to the banking problems. Around 80% of your sub prime mortgages were adjustable rate and with no oversite a recipe for disaster courtesy of the US government.

It gets worse when GSEs like Fannie Mae, got involved again due to government involvement.

It goes on but I think you get the just of what I am saying.

I agree the government was a big factor, I just do not think they were the major factor, unless if it is in their lack of oversight. If we are blaming them for not conducting proper oversight, then I will agree with you.
 
Really? I think you underestimate what all the government actually does. I would point to our infrastructure again as an example. I would point to the first gulf war. I would point to vast steps forward on gay marriage. I would point to Afghanistan, which is hard going, but we are at least doing better than the Soviets did there.

I wouldn't consider the government's actions in most of those to be very good. While the first gulf war was defensible under UN jurisdiction and we left when we were supposed to, that never set well with the federal government and they spent a lot of time looking for reasons to get back in there. Walking into Afghanistan and then Iraq again were two massive mistakes, both of which we can directly trace to our support of these regimes in the first place. We put them in power, we supplied them, we ended up having to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get them out again. And now... they're coming back, at least in Afghanistan.

Gay marriage? Vast steps forward? Where? Certainly not the federal government, which passed DOMA. The only advances have come from state and local governments, which would have meant something had Clinton not guaranteed that the other states don't have to recognize them.

I'm just not seeing anything really great about the federal government in the past 20 years from either side.
 
I voted yes, for now. Just as government programs helped move the country out of the great depression, I think the government is working to move this economy now. After the economy is back on it's feet, the government should begin to recede like an ocean tide.

The government didn't help us in the great depression, if anything, government programs extended the effects of the great depression. What saved us was WWII and the fact that we spent years being arms dealers to the world. Wars are great money-makers if done right and our technological superiority for the next 50 years was almost entirely due to our WWII buildup and the fact that we weren't bombed back to the stone age like much of Europe. We were lucky, but we have since entirely squandered any superiority we might have had.

Today, the government isn't solving the economic problems, Obama is just printing money and throwing it at people without having any overall plan how it's supposed to help. The first round of stimulus may have made the banking system even worse off than it was. The government is not actually solving the underlying problems that made the economy fail in the first place, they're just putting bandages over the sucking chest wound and hoping if you can't see it, it can't hurt you.

Add to that the fact that no government program, once in place, ever goes away. The government never gets smaller, it's like a cancer that grows and grows. Give it a growth medium, it expands as far as you'll allow it, then it finds ways to sustain it's existence far beyond any reasonable usefulness.
 
It's the governments fault the bad lending practices where started in the first place. US government policy, by encouraging banks to lend to people with poor credit records, was a contributory factor in undermining US banks. You cannot deny it was the leading contributor.

Clinton dismantled regulatory control over the banking industry. The government also strongly encouraged government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to get people into homes that they were not qualified for and could not afford. Once the legal restrictions to predatory lending and flim-flam mortgages were gone, dishonest lenders took the ball and ran with it and even Bush, who was warned of the potential consequences of what was going on, didn't make any attempts to re-regulate the industry or reign in the insanity. It made the economy look good, which was all he cared about. I pointed out the dangers of the sub-prime mortgage market back at least as far as 2003, it's not like it should have come as a surprise to anyone.
 
With a program for this, an entitlement for that, an allocation for the other thing I really have to throw this question out there, and I would like you folks (especially on the Left) to answer honestly.

Does anyone really think that Governmenet, especially Big Government is the answer to America's problems?

Government is rarely the answer. It is usually the problem.
 
Really? I think you underestimate what all the government actually does. I would point to our infrastructure again as an example. I would point to the first gulf war. I would point to vast steps forward on gay marriage. I would point to Afghanistan, which is hard going, but we are at least doing better than the Soviets did there.

I can go on, but I think you get the point.

I agree that the government has a key role in many things. The problem that I see is the amount of resources it takes our federal government to achieve such things. This is one reason I am so against the federal government. Local government can serve the same function but at a much smaller and better organized scale. On smaller scales you are more likely to achieve the same goals with less corruption and bureaucracy not to mention those most affected by the role of the government have more input into how it is run.
 
Does anyone really think that Governmenet, especially Big Government is the answer to America's problems?

No. But as long as the U.S. retains a capitalist economic structure, a significant government presence will be necessary. The only preferable alternative that could be implemented within Constitutional and general legislative boundaries established is some form of republican market socialism. While that would significantly reduce government presence, perhaps to minarchist functions, there are too many with an interest in the collusion between capitalism and the state for this to become feasible anytime soon.
 
No. I believe to stabilize our economy, we need to get a good balance between regulation and the Laissez-faire economic philosophy. Markets left to their own devices will never do great benefits for the people when there is a large gap between the social and private cost to an action. EG: driving a hummer (poses a threat to drivers in smaller cars and get's terrible fuel mileage leading to global warming, smog, etc.). In that respect, the government shouldn't be doing less. At the same time, we don't want to over regulate anything to the degree of an economic downturn. North Korea/Cuba have this type of policy. The economies of these countries are downright horrid.
 
No. I believe to stabilize our economy, we need to get a good balance between regulation and the Laissez-faire economic philosophy. Markets left to their own devices will never do great benefits for the people when there is a large gap between the social and private cost to an action. EG: driving a hummer (poses a threat to drivers in smaller cars and get's terrible fuel mileage leading to global warming, smog, etc.). In that respect, the government shouldn't be doing less. At the same time, we don't want to over regulate anything to the degree of an economic downturn. North Korea/Cuba have this type of policy. The economies of these countries are downright horrid.
This position is the antitheses of what America and Americans have always believed. Personal freedom and Liberty! if I wanted to drive around in what is essentially a tank, then who's to say I cannot??
 
I have a question for you: do you think overgeneralized jingoistic statements are the solution to Americans problem? There may be many instances where government intervention is the problem, but its not always the case.

America's problems are best solved like any problem: you analyze what is wrong and come up with solution that best fits the specific situation. If you are more interested in satisfying your pre-existing beliefs than fixing the problem, you aren't going to do well.
However you also must focus on the big picture as well. If you only focus on specifics you often loose a lot of perspective.
 
No. But as long as the U.S. retains a capitalist economic structure, a significant government presence will be necessary. The only preferable alternative that could be implemented within Constitutional and general legislative boundaries established is some form of republican market socialism. While that would significantly reduce government presence, perhaps to minarchist functions, there are too many with an interest in the collusion between capitalism and the state for this to become feasible anytime soon.
Don't forget us Distributists and agrarians. America was pretty much distributive when it was founded and Jefferson's ideals were very much agrarian-distributist as well. Obviously we're not a million miles away from the solution you talk about above and I certainly agree it could greatly reduce the need for gov't. I totally agree that corporate-capitalism requires a lot of gov't intervention to maintain it. It always has.
 
This position is the antitheses of what America and Americans have always believed. Personal freedom and Liberty! if I wanted to drive around in what is essentially a tank, then who's to say I cannot??

The 2nd amendment does not cover armored fighting vehicles at all because driving in each state is a privilege and not a right. If the tank was fully armed it falls outside the 2nd amendment as it again only covers personal firearms and not tanks etc. I mean it can be debated, but it is generally accepted as such.
 
Last edited:
This position is the antitheses of what America and Americans have always believed. Personal freedom and Liberty! if I wanted to drive around in what is essentially a tank, then who's to say I cannot??

It's up to you. I don't advocate your decision to drive the "tank" nor do I advocate banning a "tank". What I do advocate is raising the taxes on said "tank" to level the personal costs of the vehicle with the social costs of driving the vehicle (to everybody else). If a large vehicle or "tank" smashes into a hatchback and kills a family a four, what is account for besides bad driving? Nobody weighs the cost that maybe if the large vehicle was much smaller, the family might have survived the crash. Also, maybe the driver of the jeep/hummer/tank/whatever wouldn't have flown through the windshield and received a head injury. With leveling the social and private costs, there are incentives to drive in a car that isn't socially damaging.

EDIT: We are talking about a hypothetical tank, right?
 
Last edited:
I agree that the government has a key role in many things. The problem that I see is the amount of resources it takes our federal government to achieve such things. This is one reason I am so against the federal government. Local government can serve the same function but at a much smaller and better organized scale. On smaller scales you are more likely to achieve the same goals with less corruption and bureaucracy not to mention those most affected by the role of the government have more input into how it is run.
Your a man after my own heart. It is known as the principle of subsidiarity; or the idea that the lowest level of organisations possible should be responsible for a function. It is something our modern gov'ts have completely lost sight of. Hence you get the Obama healthcare plan which has no respect for it whatsoever.
 
The government has legitimate functions. but the government has expanded far beyond the scope of reason. It takes about a third of the nation's GDP and half of our incomes, mostly to squander it on bridges to nowhere, entitlements that no one is actually entitled to, and pretending that it's my mother. The government should keep us from injuring each other and not much else.

Well said, I'm really really sick of the government pretending it's my mother.
 
Don't forget us Distributists and agrarians. America was pretty much distributive when it was founded and Jefferson's ideals were very much agrarian-distributist as well. Obviously we're not a million miles away from the solution you talk about above and I certainly agree it could greatly reduce the need for gov't. I totally agree that corporate-capitalism requires a lot of gov't intervention to maintain it. It always has.

If you advocate reversion to agrarian organization, perhaps. But no replication of exchange markets of independent artisans and traders (with minimal wage labor), would be feasible in industrialized society, I'd say. But I don't advocate republican market socialism as an ultimate end at any rate; in a politically stable Western country, it is and must be a transitional phase.
 
If you advocate reversion to agrarian organization, perhaps.
Well like most distributists and Kropotkinian anarchists I advocate a better integration of urban and rural society and a remembrance of the importance of agriculture and yeomanry in a healthy society.

But no replication of exchange markets of independent artisans and traders (with minimal wage labor), would be feasible in industrialized society, I'd say. But I don't advocate republican market socialism as an ultimate end at any rate; in a politically stable Western country, it is and must be a transitional phase.
I'd say it would very much be feasible. You'd have bigger firms of modified wage labour and co-operatives but there could easily be a lot bigger section represented by family and very small firms. In fact today a large section of the economy is such. Kropotkin himself wrote extensively on the possibilities of small-scale industry as have many others from Lewis Mumford to Kevin Carson. It would be a very changed economy but it is definitely possible.

Oh and if anyone wants to object with rubbish about starvation I suggest they look into John Jeavons.
 
The true answer is just the opposite -- LIMITED government.
 
Back
Top Bottom