What does a successful government look like?

[fredtoast]

(03-06-2016, 04:35 PM)Vlad Wrote: Promote, not provide.

I said "promote".

[Vlad]

(03-06-2016, 05:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I said "promote".

I know you did.

Now look up the definition of promote ...to encourage, support.

But you want the government to provide for the general welfare right?

You also want the government to assure equal outcomes, when the governments role should be to assure equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Is that right Fred?

[fredtoast]

(03-06-2016, 05:21 PM)Vlad Wrote: But you want the government to provide for the general welfare right?

You also want the government to assure equal outcomes, when the governments role should be to assure equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Is that right Fred?

No. I never said either one of those things.

Seems you learned reading comprehension in the right wing echo chamber.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-06-2016, 02:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The job of the government is to keep the citizens safe and to promote the general welfare.

When our original Constitution was written the world was very different.  There were no big powerful corporations.  We had a very simplistic, mostly agrarian economy.  The United States was not the world's largest super power.

The ideal government today would not control all means of production.  We have to have a capitalist based economy.  But pure, unregulated capitalism is a very dangerous thing that values profit more then the environment and human life itself.  Even when looking at just the economic effects, unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies, price gouging, market manipulation, and sacrificing long-term viability for short-term profit.  So the biggest job of the government is to counterbalance the power of economic giants.  Government regulation is required to protect the the economy, the citizens, and the environment.

The government has to be responsible for a criminal justice system.  i think this is one area where the United States could use a huge reform.  We use the criminal justice system to do things like collect debts and punish people for using recreational drugs.

The government also has to get involves when huge problems arise that threaten the entire country like a natural disaster or a disease epidemic.  This is where we start to get into the areas that provoke to most debate.  Everyone knows that poverty produces crime and eventually civil unrest.  All government realize that they have to do something to help the disadvantaged.  The most heartless governments spend less on the poor and more on security.  The other end of the spectrum spend more on social programs in order to keep the peace.

The government should be active in educating the population because we need an educated work force to compete on an international level.  Again people argue about how much the government should supply, but almost everyone understands and accepts that the government will have to invest in education.  I have some very specific suggestions in this area, but that belongs in another thread.  The purchasing power of United States citizens is a major driving force of the world economy.  Few people realize that the average Americans consumes over fifty times as many goods and services than someone from China.  We have to have an educated workforce that can get jobs and afford to buy all that stuff.

The government has to provide a military defense.  When you are the world's largest economy you can use your military might to influence economic gains.  The military can be used to insure safe traffic lanes for international trade.  It can be used to "stabilize situations" that might effect a country that either bought our goods or supplied us with natural resources.  Currently the United States accounts for about forty percent of all the military spending on the planet.  Seems like we could step that back a bit.

A successful government does not favor one religion over the other in any way.  It remains completely neutral even if one religion dominates the society.  Here in the United States we have gone one step farther and made laws to forbid discrimination by businesses based on religion.  These laws are 100% neutral, but they are an example of the government expanding its power.  Since all people are equally protected you would think there would be no reason for anyone to complain, but.  .  .  

To me the most controversial element of our government is by far its involvement with the economy through the Federal Reserve system.  I understand the history behind it (not the conspiracy stuff), and I understand why it was created, but it is still a very shady area.

By gov I will assume you mean federal. If I am mistaken please correct me.

I don't see how we need the federal government involved In natural disasters or education. The reality is that education is a local issue. I would even give a little to the big government people and say it can be a state issue. But the reality is that it should be a local issue.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-07-2016, 09:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: By gov I will assume you mean federal.   If I am mistaken please correct me.    

I don't see how we need the federal government involved In natural disasters or education.    The reality is that education is a local issue.   I would even give a little to the big government people and say it can be a state issue.    But the reality is that it should be a local issue.

Education is a "local" issue?  Each local school district decides their own standards?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-07-2016, 10:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Education is a "local" issue?  Each local school district decides their own standards?

So you think the gov needs to be involved in education?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-07-2016, 10:20 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So you think the gov needs to be involved in education?

I think we need to have a minimum, unified standard.  If they want to exceed the standard, great.  Let's use high school graduation as an example.  If there are 10,000 high schools, there shouldn't be 10,000 different prerequisites to graduate.  If the schools could establish the basic standard among themselves and they had organizational oversight with the authority to enforce the basic standard then the government wouldn't need to get involved.

You made the point the Native Americans were defeated because they were a bunch of tribes which didn't cooperate and were at war with each other.  The US is competing in a global market place and for the most part, their work force is the product of our educational system.  If each of those 10,000 high schools represents an individual tribe which aren't cooperating, doing their own thing, each with different standards, then it becomes more difficult for the US to compete in a global market.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2016, 09:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: By gov I will assume you mean federal.   If I am mistaken please correct me.    

I don't see how we need the federal government involved In natural disasters or education.    The reality is that education is a local issue.   I would even give a little to the big government people and say it can be a state issue.    But the reality is that it should be a local issue.

The reality is that education is NOT a local issue.  What makes you say this?  The need for a well educated work force is important to every US citizen.  Also the need for people educated enough to get gainful employment and consume, consume, consume is critical to our economy.

Also please explain why the federal government should not assist in re;ief for natural disasters.  Even if you don't care about human death and suffering the impact on the economy would effect everyone across the country.