What does a successful government look like?

[GMDino]

(03-05-2016, 12:46 PM)Vlad Wrote: You're trying to pick a fight where there is none.

Men, people, citizens, whatever you want to call them, who held other men, people, in bondage contradicts or goes against the belief expressed in the Decl. of Indep. that all men are created equal.
Was that better?

It's safe to assume Pat knew what I was talking about. I require more clarity on why he thinks the establishment of a perfect government led to the Civil War.

No fight.  Just pointing out that the "perfect government" was not perfect to all people.  

It grew to be when people fought and argued for changes.

That's all.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-05-2016, 12:04 PM)Vlad Wrote: The colonies evolving into individual states, with their own leaders (governors), legislators, laws and even their own military, and the concept of states rights.
The idea of a bunch of small countries (states) being united...and free from authoritarian rule.

Interesting that you bring this up.  Everyone loves to talk about Europe as a positive step toward the liberal utopia....but if you take a step back the EU operates closer to what was envisioned by the founding fathers than what we have in the US today.

The EU is basically a loose economic federation of independent states, many of which are comparable in diversity and population to many US states.

With the rise of the career politician, we have an explosion in the size of government?  Gee, I wonder if that might be related.

[StLucieBengal]

Great thread Matt and interesting .

For me the ideal government would be strong military defense. Low regulation, low taxes, and high freedom. I'm ok with some people failing because I believe communities will rally to help one another as needed. And if states want to fund safety nets for people then let them do that at the state level.

I also think the full time politician isn't necessary. No need for representatives to be in DC practically full time.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2016, 04:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Interesting that you bring this up.  Everyone loves to talk about Europe as a positive step toward the liberal utopia....but if you take a step back the EU operates closer to what was envisioned by the founding fathers than what we have in the US today.

The EU is basically a loose economic federation of independent states, many of which are comparable in diversity and population to many US states.

With the rise of the career politician, we have an explosion in the size of government?  Gee, I wonder if that might be related.

this is why the EU is failing. They are trying to do this but still be total seperate countries. The Germans make a decent point of becoming An EU nation and having their own army. But that requires each nation giving up their individualism. Which is what the goal was I believe. I just don't see the people allowing that now.

Heck the Brits did a poll about a week ago on Vote in or out and lime 89% choose vote out of the EU.

That's with Cameron stumping hard to stay.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What does a successful government look like?

I would think any government that keeps you safe but you don't know it's there.

[BmorePat87]

(03-05-2016, 04:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Interesting that you bring this up.  Everyone loves to talk about Europe as a positive step toward the liberal utopia....but if you take a step back the EU operates closer to what was envisioned by the founding fathers than what we have in the US today.

The EU is basically a loose economic federation of independent states, many of which are comparable in diversity and population to many US states.

With the rise of the career politician, we have an explosion in the size of government?  Gee, I wonder if that might be related.

Based on the changes following the Articles, I'd have to disagree. We tried the loose alliance model and it was a failure. The Constitution was designed to create a strong central government that united the individual states and provided uniform laws and policies. 

[*Nately120*]

(03-05-2016, 04:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Great thread Matt and interesting .

For me the ideal government would be strong military defense.   Low regulation, low taxes, and high freedom.   I'm ok with some people failing because I believe communities will rally to help one another as needed.     And if states want to fund safety nets for people then let them do that at the state level.    

I also think the full time politician isn't necessary.    No need for representatives to be in DC practically full time.

A few questions/comments:

For me the ideal government would be strong military defense. 
- depends on what you mean by "defense" because our military is viewed as "defense" when it's mostly offensive in nature

Low regulation, low taxes, and high freedom.
- makes sense, unless your strong military is expensive.  If you want "defense" you have to pay for it

I'm ok with some people failing because I believe communities will rally to help one another as needed.
- meh, I agree the safety nets could be more efficient, but I don't see myself voluntarily helping "welfare queens" on my own dime unless the government forces me to

And if states want to fund safety nets for people then let them do that at the state level.    
- there is a catch-all safety net for the low educated and poor at the state level and it's called Disability.  Handouts on the national level have become so taboo that there is pressure to sweep those statistics under the rug and place them on state disability in order to present prettier numbers

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2016, 06:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A few questions/comments:

For me the ideal government would be strong military defense. 
- depends on what you mean by "defense" because our military is viewed as "defense" when it's mostly offensive in nature

Low regulation, low taxes, and high freedom.
- makes sense, unless your strong military is expensive.  If you want "defense" you have to pay for it

I'm ok with some people failing because I believe communities will rally to help one another as needed.
- meh, I agree the safety nets could be more efficient, but I don't see myself voluntarily helping "welfare queens" on my own dime unless the government forces me to

And if states want to fund safety nets for people then let them do that at the state level.    
- there is a catch-all safety net for the low educated and poor at the state level and it's called Disability.  Handouts on the national level have become so taboo that there is pressure to sweep those statistics under the rug and place them on state disability in order to present prettier numbers

1. I prefer a military that's almost always in defense mode. If I had my way we wouldn't be as active around the world with the military.

2. Military defense is easily paid for when you don't have all the federal social nets to fund.

3. That's your choice to not help poor people. That's an ideal version of full freedom. Like I said, in my way some will fail but that's not alway a bad thing.

4. I would have zero safety nets if I had my way. But I think each state should be able to choose for themselves.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-05-2016, 06:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Based on the changes following the Articles, I'd have to disagree. We tried the loose alliance model and it was a failure. The Constitution was designed to create a strong central government that united the individual states and provided uniform laws and policies. 

There are things that should be centralized (like one currency), but there should be limits and it should be relatively stable because the big things - things you need a strong central govt for - change very slowly if at all.

But, sure, you get gray areas when you leave social programs up to states, which might result in a state exporting it's poverty.  Or you don't have uniform regulations, and then a state might be exporting its pollution.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-05-2016, 04:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: this is why the EU is failing.   They are trying to do this but still be total seperate countries.    The Germans make a decent point of becoming An EU nation and having their own army.   But that requires each nation giving up their individualism.   Which is what the goal was I believe.   I just don't see the people allowing that now. 

They don't have to give up individualism at all.  All they really gave up was some budget autonomy and the ability to print money (and the two are related).  That is not very different from how our states function, and in fact the EU countries retain far more autonomy and independence than our states.

The problem with the EU is they are running out of other people's money for their entitlement programs.  Canada was there on the brink not long ago, but they exercised some fiscal discipline and were boosted tremendously by the commodities boom.

I think it's could end-up much worse in the US, because we want all the social programs but don't want to pay for it.  People don't realize how high the average bloke in Europe's taxes are - FICA equivalent of close to 22% on average (50% higher than ours), and a VAT trending into the low 20's (double our highest state sales tax rates). 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2016, 07:35 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: They don't have to give up individualism at all.  All they really gave up was some budget autonomy and the ability to print money (and the two are related).  That is not very different from how our states function, and in fact the EU countries retain far more autonomy and independence than our states.

The problem with the EU is they are running out of other people's money for their entitlement programs.  Canada was there on the brink not long ago, but they exercised some fiscal discipline and were boosted tremendously by the commodities boom.

I think it's could end-up much worse in the US, because we want all the social programs but don't want to pay for it.  People don't realize how high the average bloke in Europe's taxes are - FICA equivalent of close to 22% on average (50% higher than ours), and a VAT trending into the low 20's (double our highest state sales tax rates). 

What will do the EU in is the border control. no one can exercise fiscal responsibility in that union either . The closest ones to try are the Brits.

[Belsnickel]

So I have to admit that I often have a hard time with this question. I do still maintain that quality of life in a country is a huge indicator, to me, of how successful a government is. But, since those indices and the measures used for them are very subjective, it is hard to really use that in a firm way. But, to me, high quality of life, low government debt to GDP ratio. These things often don't go hand in hand, but several countries are on the track to reducing the debt ratio.

Some other things:

A military focused on defense is best. Whenever the issue of the 2nd comes up, I often like to talk about the intention of our founders with regards to the army. There was no intent for a standing army. Standing navy? Yes. I could make the argument for a standing air force given the nature of modern society. But the army was intended to be a part-time force, reservists.

Ideally, I would like much more autonomy left up to the states. Practically, in today's world this country is much smaller than its geography would have you believe. It's as hard to determine where to draw that line of perfect balance as it is to draw the line for economic harmony.

While I am in favor of a better infrastructure, I lack the pipe dreams of the European model. We are too spread out.

Lastly, a social welfare system that focuses on bettering the citizens, not supporting them. Even most disabled people are capable of some sort of employment, and education, training, job placement, that should be the focus. Supplemental income to help, yes, but they need to be weaned off and progress made towards independence.

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2016, 09:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What will do the EU in is the border control. no one can exercise fiscal responsibility in that union either . The closest ones to try are the Brits.

Several EU countries are on the road to reduce their debt. Of course, things can change that, but fiscal responsibility in some of those countries is more evident than it is here.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-05-2016, 09:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Several EU countries are on the road to reduce their debt. Of course, things can change that, but fiscal responsibility in some of those countries is more evident than it is here.

Mainly because they are being forced to under the Euro policy.  That's a driving factor behind some wanting to pull out, and why the EU has always been on tenuous footing as an economic union.

[McC]

(03-05-2016, 12:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: At this point, I would like to see our politicians work together for the good of the citizens they represent instead of a constant cycle of partisan politics whose goal is re-election, gaing a majority in both houses of Congress, and the Oval Office.  I like our government in principle, but it's the dickheads running it that are a major problem.  I don't think any reasonable person would want to be a politician in this political environment.  I think one has to be touched in the head to want the job.  Look at the current crop of Presidential candidates.  They're worse than the cast of Jersey Shore.  It's not just the politicians fault because we have become a populace that consumes Jersey Shore.  The same people who are pissed off for participation awards and the 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality are the same ones that get pissed off if you don't accept American exceptionalism without evidence.  But, I've been to countries which are so much worse.

It takes a certain type of personality to run for high office, to be willing to go thorough all that.  Seems like this type of personality comes with a huge ego and all the other things that come with it. 

Power corrupts.   And even in the rare cases where an individual starts down that road with the best of intentions, the system in place quickly whips that out of you.

There was a Rep. from Cincinnati who spent a long time in Congress.  He eventually retired.  His son, who was a news anchor for a local Cincy tv station ran for his dad's seat and won.  After less than a year, he resigned because he couldn't stand what goes on in Congress.  It is not for everybody.

It's a combination of the two things--the system being what it has become and the type of individuals who pursue the career.

[BmorePat87]

(03-05-2016, 07:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There are things that should be centralized (like one currency), but there should be limits and it should be relatively stable because the big things - things you need a strong central govt for - change very slowly if at all.

But, sure, you get gray areas when you leave social programs up to states, which might result in a state exporting it's poverty.  Or you don't have uniform regulations, and then a state might be exporting its pollution.

I certainly agree that a smaller central is better in our unique nation, I just don't think the evidence suggests they wanted the kind of central government you have in a federation. 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2016, 09:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Several EU countries are on the road to reduce their debt. Of course, things can change that, but fiscal responsibility in some of those countries is more evident than it is here.

open borders are crippling them.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-06-2016, 03:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: open borders are crippling them.

They were going over the cliff with or without open borders.

To your point, the US has an advantage geographically...plus, Congress and the POTUS has been pissing on the Constitution for 14+ years.

[fredtoast]

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.

[Vlad]

(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.

Promote, not provide.

There has need been debate on what this actually means since Hamilton and Madison argued it.