• 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 Question -

Do you trust the federal government to do what's in your best interest

  • Total voters
    63
X Factor said:
Well, I don't need a business to "care" for me. As far as the govt, I'd rather be left alone than cared for.
Click to expand...

I think we all feel that way until suddenly we have a health crisis and are disabled. Then government disability can be the difference between starving on the street and treading water until the emergency has passed. The same with unemployment insurance. We'd all like to believe that we'll always be able to work and support our families, but what we'd like and what we are likely to experience at some point during our lifetimes are not the same thing.

Government does have an obligation, in my opinion, to care and assist for those who cannot care for themselves due to circumstances beyond their control. Naturally government only does so because if it doesn't, enough people might get mad and vote some of its components out of office! Government is pragmatic, not altruistic. The main reason government operates on the basis of what it believes is best for the country is because if the country fails, government will find itself out of a job.

It's all about self-preservation.
 
Last edited:
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Here's the difference. You are the one who decides whether or not you will be 'doing business' with a privately owned entity, correct? Therefore the power to decide what is best for you - is up to you. Profiting from someone is only effective if that someone is willing to pay for said product or service.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. As a privately owned business, who's focus is profit, a business may do whatever it takes to make that profit, and not disclose what they are doing. This is why I am a strong proponent of industry regulation. Also, there are certainly plenty of situations where I do not have choice, business-wise, or cannot provide a commodity for myself. I can't cook up some aspirin on a moment's notice if I need it.



They don't make a profit per se, but they do make decisions that impact all of us financially. Again, we don't have a choice in whether or not to 'do business' with the 'institution' of the federal government, now do we.
Click to expand...

We do have a choice of how the institution of the federal government with wich we "do business" looks like. Elections.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not necessarily. As a privately owned business, who's focus is profit, a business may do whatever it takes to make that profit, and not disclose what they are doing. This is why I am a strong proponent of industry regulation. Also, there are certainly plenty of situations where I do not have choice, business-wise, or cannot provide a commodity for myself. I can't cook up some aspirin on a moment's notice if I need it.
Click to expand...

It is also important to realize that "doing business" is not the only way we interact with businesses. The reason California has such strict pollution laws is because of the severe problems the state had with smog. You could not do business with those smog producers, but you where still greatly impacted by them
 
X Factor said:
The relationship I have with private business is a more equal one.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. That's an illusion. The business's focus is on maximizing their profit regardless of your needs. Very disproportionate.

It's usually mutually beneficial.
Click to expand...

That's true to some extent, but the mutuality is not equivelent at all.

They want my money and I want their product.
Click to expand...

And, no matter how much you want or need their product, if you cannot meet their price, you don't get it. See? Disproportionate.

I don't care if they have my best interest at heart. I'll take care of that.
Click to expand...

Sure you have choices. But if you are aware that they do not have the best interest at heart, why should you trust them. You believe that the government doesn't and you don't trust them.

The problem with the government is when they decide someone else's best interest matters more than mine.
Click to expand...

The government's job isn't to consider your best interests as an individual. That is not the government's purpose.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The government's job isn't to consider your best interests as an individual. That is not the government's purpose.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the problem with the poll. We don't trust the government to look out for our best interest, but then again, it's not the governments job to and is not what the government does.
 
I would say that the government has a collective responsibility, not a responsibility to any particular individual. And I would just like to add that the poll doesn't have enough options for such a complex issue.
 
Looking after my best interests, beyond TJ's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, is not the federal government's job. It's my own.

It's not that I don't trust it to, I don't want it to.
 
I don't trust anyone to do anything in my best interests besides me and my wife.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Do you trust the federal government (in its entirety) to do what's in your best interest?

Why or why not.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Charlie Reese's editorial about the 545 people who run this country is probably old news to most posters, but if you haven't read it, you should: The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

I think most of these 545 people come to the task of running the Federal government (and thus our lives) with the best of intentions. I think a fair amount of them are Mr Smith's going to Washington. But power corrupts.

Soon those people are bombarded with "Let's play ball!" and so insulated from reality that they lose sight of the fact that they work for us. We don't work for them. It doesn't take long for them to turn their focus away from what's best for the country to "What's the best way for me to get re-elected."

And the sell-out begins.
 
Redress said:
Really? Ever fight with an insurance company for payment on coverage? That put me at more risk than the government ever will.
Click to expand...
Honestly can't say I ever have, but I understand what you're trying to say here. Not to turn this into the health care debate, but you know what insurance entity denies more claims than any other? Medicare.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it's not. That's an illusion. The business's focus is on maximizing their profit regardless of your needs. Very disproportionate. That's true to some extent, but the mutuality is not equivelent at all.

And, no matter how much you want or need their product, if you cannot meet their price, you don't get it. See? Disproportionate.

Sure you have choices. But if you are aware that they do not have the best interest at heart, why should you trust them. You believe that the government doesn't and you don't trust them.
Click to expand...

Private life Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules." Lobbying is a private enterprise. ;-)

Government Golden Rule: "He who robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support."
 
I have changed my tune a bit on this one. A few years ago my mantra was "government is a necessary evil."

I would now support this statement instead: "Just enough government is a positive good for society."

Not so much government that everything is regulated to death; not so much government that you need a permit for every darn thing. But enough to keep things orderly, to keep a rein on the worst excesses of the private sector, to secure the borders and the nation, to keep serious crime to a reasonable minimum, to give those who get knocked down by sudden changes in the free market a helping hand back up, to require sellars to provide relevant information about their product and its ingredients and risks... yes, we need that.
 
To the big govt types, tell me this is reasonable;

Lawmakers in at least two US states are looking to pull the plug on texting pedestrians and iPod-obsessed runners, claiming their diverted attention borders on disaster.
After targeting drivers who paid more attention to their phone calls and text messages than the road, officials in Arkansas and New York are now looking to crack down on pedestrians equally distracted by their own electronic gadgets.
Click to expand...
The Press Association: Distracted runners face iPod ban

I know that's not the federal government...yet.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
To the big govt types, tell me this is reasonable;


The Press Association: Distracted runners face iPod ban

I know that's not the federal government...yet.
Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make?

Is it that the government isn't perfect? Well duh, it's a human endeavor.

Is it some other less than clear thing?

Is it that you can attach irrelevant and inaccurate labels to those you disagree with to attempt to dismiss them? Well duh.
 
Considering the size and breath of the Government, there is not one answer for this question. Some things I trust to do my best interest (NSF, NIH, etc). Some I don't (The Congress).
 
Redress said:
What point are you trying to make?

Is it that the government isn't perfect? Well duh, it's a human endeavor.
Click to expand...
The point is that the article shows the dangers of a govt that thinks we need to be protected from ourselves. You don't think the legislation is a good idea? It's being done in the name of "safety".

Is it some other less than clear thing?

Is it that you can attach irrelevant and inaccurate labels to those you disagree with to attempt to dismiss them? Well duh.
Click to expand...
What label? What are you talking about?
 
X Factor said:
The point is that the article shows the dangers of a govt that thinks we need to be protected from ourselves. You don't think the legislation is a good idea? It's being done in the name of "safety".
Click to expand...

And once again you are trying to force others into a position that you can actually argue against. I consider to my mind that the law goes too far, but that is in this case up to the people of the state, whose elected officials are considering the law. If they think the law is going to far, they have the option of voting the people who made the law out of office next election.

What label? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

"the big govt types"-you did say this, right? It is a label, right? Since the answer is yes to both, why did you ask that question?
 
No, I do not trust the government to act in my best interests. Which is why I want to replace it with a government I can trust.

And the only government I can trust is one I can control.
 
Redress said:
And once again you are trying to force others into a position that you can actually argue against. I consider to my mind that the law goes too far, but that is in this case up to the people of the state, whose elected officials are considering the law. If they think the law is going to far, they have the option of voting the people who made the law out of office next election.
Click to expand...
If I was trying to force you (or others) into a certain position, I would not have asked what you thought of the legislation. I do think it is a good example, though, of the govt thinking it's acting in our best interest - despite us.


"the big govt types"-you did say this, right? It is a label, right? Since the answer is yes to both, why did you ask that question?
Click to expand...
Redress, that was just a short hand (and somewhat lazy) way to get across who I was asking the question to. I just meant those who have more trust in the fed govt than I do.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Do you trust the federal government (in its entirety) to do what's in your best interest?

Why or why not.
Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. the federal government and the politicians that run it exist for personal and political power, not to do the 'will of the people.' I dont know if it has EVER been the case since the early 1800s.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I dont trust the federal government to do anything or be anything that is not politically motivated and inherently corrupt.
 
X Factor said:
If I was trying to force you (or others) into a certain position, I would not have asked what you thought of the legislation. I do think it is a good example, though, of the govt thinking it's acting in our best interest - despite us.
Click to expand...

You are making an assumption that it is "despite us". If that is what the people of the state want, it is in fact not "despite us". If they do not want it, they have ways to handle that as well. Your example was weak on so many laevels.

Redress, that was just a short hand (and somewhat lazy) way to get across who I was asking the question to. I just meant those who have more trust in the fed govt than I do.
Click to expand...

Both of us in this thread? Saying "CC, Redress" would have been as easy.
 
I feel that OUR government does what is best for the people in general and with President Obama and the Democrats in our Senate in control..... best for the masses.
I fear that if bad events unfold in the early teens, the masses will suffer and the wealthy will be better off than ever....Similar to the Russian Empire of 100 years ago ????
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it's not. That's an illusion. The business's focus is on maximizing their profit regardless of your needs. Very disproportionate.
Click to expand...
I know business sole function is to make money. Profit is what motivates them to create the things I need and want. If I don't want want they're selling, they don't get my business. It's a voluntary relationship which is not so with the government.


That's true to some extent, but the mutuality is not equivelent at all.
Click to expand...
Of course they have more money than I do, but, again, they cannot force me to do or buy anything. If their business practices are so bad, they'll alienate enough people and we'll all go to a competitor. That's the power we, as consumers, have.



And, no matter how much you want or need their product, if you cannot meet their price, you don't get it. See? Disproportionate.
Click to expand...
If I want something I can't afford, it's on me to find a way to buy it or just live without it. Companies owe me nothing.



Sure you have choices. But if you are aware that they do not have the best interest at heart, why should you trust them.
Click to expand...
At first I was going to say that I don't need to trust business. As I thought about it though, there are some businesses I do trust because, in my experience, that have treated me fairly and/or have delivered a good product. For example, I trust the Honda brand. I'm also a fan of Nikes. Their shoes last forever. In return for their "trustworthiness" they get a loyal customer, not to mention free advertising when I recommend them to someone else. Parity.

You believe that the government doesn't and you don't trust them.
Click to expand...
I believe the government might think it's acting in my best interest, like for example, banning iPods for walkers/joggers. I want to be able to make those choices, I don't want them made for me.



The government's job isn't to consider your best interests as an individual. That is not the government's purpose.
Click to expand...
I agree. I just don't think the govt always see it that way, as in my example above.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
I feel that OUR government does what is best for the people in general and with President Obama and the Democrats in our Senate in control..... best for the masses.
I fear that if bad events unfold in the early teens, the masses will suffer and the wealthy will be better off than ever....Similar to the Russian Empire of 100 years ago ????
Click to expand...

14 TRILLION in debt. 9.6 current unemployment (with 'real' unemployment anywhere from 20-25%). Massive annual spending deficits. 7+ billion spent on federal elections during a presidential cycle (4+ billion during mid-term elections) for total congressional jobs that equal out to a salary of about 102 million. Progressively worse economy. I dont know...I see a lot of people invested in doing and saying whatever they need to say and do just to get reelected. I dont see a lot of things being done for the good of 'the people.'
 
The federal govt. is a tool for whomever controls it to use to reward friends and punish enemies. Look at the preference given the UAW over bondholders in the Chrysler bankruptcy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom