Should the government be more involved? AND WHY?

I for one am against the idea of government becoming too involved with people's lives. If they were to get more involved, it would make U.S. seem more Communist. I am somewhat a libertarian so that's kind of way I believe that. Plus I think that the reason why U.S. has gone through a depression and the number of unemployment is going up is because the government is getting too involved in social and economic things. For example, I heard from somewhere that Obama gave half a billion dollars to a business that was going broke because he invested on them. Because of that half a billion dollars, the amount of debt that U.S. owes is rising up.

No they shouldn't.
A: If the government is more involved that means they'll try and tell me what to do and how to live my life
B: If they ARE involved then that means they'll be wasting my tax money to interfere with my life

Yes, they should be more involved to solve the screw-ups of them being too involved. They broke one of the rules of the game: Never piss where you sleep, and now it's their job to clean it up. I think that everyone can agree that the our economic problems are related to the government, regardless on your viewpoint for the solution, the fact that one is is needed is a point that needs not be argued. I think that slow change is important though to stop any unexpected repercussions from happening. Yes, they should get involved, but only to settle what they started quickly, and then slowly pull out of our affairs without starting up anymore things.

Increased government involvement in your life is saying that you are incapable of controlling your own life and therefore must be coddled like a child.

increased government involvement leads to social engineering. Taxing of foods or services the government deems "undesirable". I don't know about you but, I don't like someone charging me more for a soda or other junk foods because some people don't know moderation.

Increased involvement means more government employees to do the work. More government employees means more/higher taxes.

Higher taxes mean a higher portion of your life is spent working for someone else as opposed for yourself. If your taxes are at 50% then you are effectively owned 50% by the government that is taxing you. That tax money could be spent on things you need. To repair your car, to buy medical insurance, pay bills, fund your retirement, etc

Larger (federal) government involvement means larger bureaucracies that are less efficient that local organizations or offices.

Example: Imagine your a soldier fighting in an urban setting. Now imagine that a firefight has broken out and your life is now in danger. Who would you rather issue orders to you. A four star general back in the states looking at reports or the captain of your squad? That is the difference between central planning and local governments.

Larger government involvement means more interference in the pursuit of happiness.

Larger government involvement means more regulation which hurts smaller businesses by increasing their costs. Corporations don't mind these regulations because they can "eat" the losses and keep going. Another example is the license to be a barber or interior decorator (yes, these laws exist). So if your mom or dad isn't licensed they are breaking the law.

Larger government involvement opens a door for large scale corporatism. Corporations like large government regulations because it warps the market in the corporations favor by reducing smaller competition that can't absorb the costs of regulations. Mattel is the reason why the salvation army or goodwill doesn't sell toys anymore. Mattel pushed for laws that required mandatory testing for lead paint on all toys sold in the U.S. Goodwill and salvation army can't afford to test every time they receive a toy as a donation.

Government is less efficient than smaller organizations (same logic applies to corporations). Corporations make up for inefficiencies in the operations by sheer bulk of sales. Government can not do that outside of taxing us more than it already dead.

Governments are wasteful often building useless projects (bridge to nowhere) or by using tax revenue to buy votes instead of using the money wisely.

Larger government politicians frequently use class warfare rhetoric to pit us against one another rather than address the actual issues. Ex: "Not paying their fair share" "The other guys want to push grandma over a cliff" " The other guys want children and elderly to die in the streets because they don't want to pay higher taxes".

This is a difficult subject. In my point of view government should stay out of an individuals life as much as possible. However there are many occasions in which it should step in.

Most people are stupid, greedy, selfish and largely unaware of things.

I would say yes governments are needed, however not like the one they have currently.

Should the government be using tax money to further increase economic growth for the country as a whole, or should it be using it's money in improving peoples standards of living?

I think that is a more realistic question.

Since the question is if the U.S. government should be more involved I'll have to say yes. I think that socialism is great, to a certain extent, but I don't think it suits America - or that it'll even work there. Besides, the entire world is more or less socialist/has an "involving government" right now, so it should be the USA's role to even it all out, imo.

For me the final decision comes down to the fact that you specifically mention the U.S. government, and as such, I assume that you are referring to the federal government. I do not believe that the federal government should be able to have more involvement either socially or economically in our lives. Federal economic involvement is necessary at times, but I personally believe that the level of federal involvement in the economy is already too much as it is.

Social involvement at the federal level is also somewhat necessary, but the level of involvement that exists now, is sufficient for my personal preferences already. I do not think the federal government should be involved in my social life. I would be more accepting if it were state or local government that was more involved socially, since in that case, if you don't like the amount of state or local government involvement in your life socially, then it is much easier to move to a different state or county, etc. If it is the federal government, then you would have to move to another country altogether.

I would have more to say on this issue, however, before I say more, I would like to do some reading on a few ideas and laws and some political theory. Please bear with me until I do so.

Any form of government is ruined by "bad" citizens.

Not being small doesn't always have to mean intrusive and corrupt.

Ah, another libertarian bait question by Kenny530.
...and FPOD delivers the libertarian mantra. All that's missing is speaking of "welfare parasites" who pull down the honest entrepreneur, the "true engine of commerce" and you'd have a perfect gospel of Ayn Rand on your hands.

In one word: madness.

In America inequality is so great, any talk that tries to put more power into the hands of the elite would just lead to more plutocracy.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


WARNING! That's the lower *80%* on the last slice. Do you know what portion the lowest 40% would make? 0.1%... they wouldn't even show up. Close to 1/2 of the country owns virtually no wealth. It's not so much working poor, as working slaves.

Since when are regulations bad? Why are state programs and institutes by necessity bad? I for one like using good, reliable roads, eating germ free food and knowing that products won't endanger my life... if up to corporations, it's dubious whether I'd have any of that.

However I don't have to extrapolate. We know, *exactly* what happens when there's no regulation. This is what has happened in finance:



All of this came about, because the SEC and other regulatory organizations were stuffed with financial lobbyists, because derivative trading was *not* regulated.

...and the libertarian solution is even *less* regulation?

It's like a dream come true for the Koch brothers and the other real parasites . average Joe not only does everything in his power to kill the one thing that could protect him, but meanwhile they're also believing in the crap that makes their master richer.

Yes, parasites who're quick to suck on subsidy teats, but would kill Joe Average if he had the bucks to do the same if it cost them a penny.

Flaser, your post is so full of ignorance I don't know if you're even being serious or you've taken a shine to bad trolling.



Ah, another pretentious post by Flaser. All that is missing is the "evil rich" who don't pay their fair share, the "true social justice" and you have a perfect gospel of Marx on your hands.

In one word: Delusional



You criticize me for empowering the plutocracy and yet you rally for larger government involvement in our lives effectively placing our lives in the hands of the plutocracy. My what a blatant hypocrite you are Flaser.

More government control equates to being less of a master of your own life and being a slave to someone else.

Link.

Oh those evil rich people. 10% of the top income earners in the country pay 70% of the tax revenue from income taxes. While the bottom 50% pay next to nothing. Half of the country pays for the other half. You cry about inequality and yet you ignore that inequality. Another example of your hypocrisy.




When regulations harm small businesses while leaving the corporations relatively unharmed. I've repeatedly pointed to Mattel and a prime example, yet I hear not argument from your side condemning such actions. No, you continue your crusade that people are no capable of managing their own lives. It if the job of the all powerful government to tell the unwashed masses what they are supposed to do with their miserable little lives.

Less government involvement in the market tears down the corporate bordello that has been built up over the years by the "R" and "D" montebanks. Corporations love larger government because it hands the masses over to them on a silver platter. By corrupting a few regulators an entire industry is their playground. Government regulators from the Education, Finance, EPA, and the FDA have been corrupted by corporate money. Yet, you still pursue this crusade to hand control of our lives over to these corrupt bastards. Forget hypocrisy, are you even sane?




If it was up to the corporations, they'd pile on the regulations to drive out weaker competition leaving the largest corporations in power with nobody to threaten their dominance. I enjoy eating germ free food as well, yet our FDA regulator are in the pocket of the meat industry. So how does more government control prevent this corruption?



Regulatory organizations...not regulated. Make up your mind. Was it regulated or was it not regulated? Either the regulators were corrupted by outside money or the industry wasn't regulated anyways.

You propose that we remove power from the hands of the consumer and put that power in the hands of those susceptible to corruption.



You're likewise as guilty for handing your life over to the political elite. You continue to press for more government involvement because you are content with being controlled. Your content with being a prole because you never knew existence outside of being a prole. Don't condemn me and others to your existence because you're scared of life beyond that of a prole.

Here is an image that represents what I feel, is your understanding of libertarianism.

Dear FPOD! Your so called "rebuttals" have been getting a bit stale as of late:

1. Quoting statistics from a libertarian organization.

2. Calling me pretentious, misguided or just all in all wrong.

3. An attack on my person, likening me to a retard.

Before exchanging another broadside, I'd thought I'd go look for some hard data, from independent sources without an agenda. (Your source does not qualify, for it was made with the intention of promoting a flat tax rate).

However your blatant disregard toward anything I write combined with your smug assurance that your fairy tale philosophy must be right has aggravated me to the degree that you have this post.

So without sufficient research here is my response:

1. Your statistic that measures *absolute* payments toward taxes and is therefore meaningless. Let's have an example to demonstrate: I have a 100 sheep. You have 10. We live in the middle ages. We pay in tax 10% to the "holy temple". I pay 10 sheep. You pay a single one. Whoa! I just paid 90% of the tax! How unjust is that?

2. Could you quote a study how regulations hurt small businesses? Last I recalled it actually *helped* them. Without regulations, you'd still only have a single tel-co company (AT&T) and you couldn't start your own ISP as they'd own the whole network lock, stock & barrel.

You claim that big government organizations make it easier for big business to make things go their way... so the good response is to get rid of all regulation? This is a classical libertarian leap in logic, pointing out an existing, real-world problem than offering a fairy tale solution without any basis on reality... and if I point out a the thousands of times, when deregulation has hurt the public, you'll just go "revolutionary" on me, claiming that the "real" libertarian principles couldn't come to play, since the country in question hasn't yet implemented the big deregulated libertarian utopia.

3. ...and your fixation on "regulation = BAD", "deregulation = GOOD" is pathologic as shown by this comment:



The problem with Wall Street finance is that the SEC (& a whole range of other regulatory agencies) have failed to do their purpose: regulate.

In other words the whole problem stemmed from the fact, that in practice there was no regualation.

...going to a pure "arachno-capitalistic" basis, would help this how? How can Average Joe on the street ensure that a finance company won't screw him over by selling his pension fund crap? How can he insure that credit rating agencies won't rate this shit as the best thing ever?

Going back a step ow can Joe Average ensure that his telco company won't unfairly price his service? Go to another company? Who? In an unregulated world, AT&T + Verizon can deny forwarding calls from any other company. Only a startup with massive capital - enough capital to lay their parallel network everywhere! - could stand a chance.

Let's take another step, and say you want to open a small store of your own. How do you compete with Walmart, who buys the majority of foodstuff from producers? Walmart can stop buying anything from a producer if they directly sell to you. Agriculture is an area where you can make massive increases in productivity by going big... unless your "store chain" is big enough buy up the majority of the products of a producer Walmart can deny you stuff to sell as a producer without an outlet to Walmart is "dead".

Government involvment comes in basically two forms essentially.

Government Regulation and Government Control.

As long as the people doing the regulation and control are at least relatively arbitrary it ends up depending on how the regulation and control is implemented.

Drugs is a good example. Illegal drugs is a good example of Government Control. It is also a good example of poorly implemented Control in a lot of circumstances. Especially in the case of Marijuana.

So rather than less involvment or more involvment, it would be much better to first refine the current involvment so it better suits the situation, a task that most politicians avoid like the plague because

1. It's easier to just implement or take away current involvment.

2. Effects would be long term when refining while implement or removing produced short term results.

I dismiss anything you write because it's old hat. Human history has showed us how poor centralized government has worked. Human history has also shown us how terrible the consequences are for people who hand over power to their government.

As for the likening you to a retard. I was not the one who made the image and you were not worth the time or effort to edit the "retard" out of the image to placate you sensitivities.

Moving on

You have habitually insulted my political philosophy likening it to fairy tales and whatever else you could dredge up from the depths of your psyche at the time. Originally, I maintained a civility and even somewhat of a respect towards you and your positions, often taking them into deep consideration, much more effort than most would attribute to an internet post, let alone on on a hentai forum. Continually, you would berate my philosophy since it was not in lockstep with your own, never have I witnessed you consider my positions or ask for elaboration. The continual disrespect towards me when has frankly worn my patience thin and raised my ire.

I gave you civility and respect even in our most heated discussions. You sir have failed to reciprocate that civility and respect.

If you wish to receive civility and respect from me in the future I suggest you behave yourself and I will do likewise.

*The tone below this point is calm*

1. [/quote]New York Times Blog.

1A. IRS Statistics 1995 to 2009

2. Office of advocacy

2.





The bold text is where you went off on a tangent. libertarianism and even Libertarianism does not promote total deregulation. The existing rights are all the regulation we need. If a company sells me bad food, I can return it for an exchange or refund. If they deny this, I can sue them for breach of contract. If I am injured by bad food, I am allowed to sue them to compensate for damages I have suffered.

Government regulation is not required when we simply enforce the "regulations" that already exist by extension of our natural rights. When libertarians look at "regulation" we point to ESRB and similar organizations where industries police themselves. The Federal Government has not been required to get involved in the video game industry due to the effectiveness of the ESRB. Organizations such as this is who we want regulating the industries in question. You could say that they are as susceptible to corruption as any government bureaucrat but, that organization is much more accountable than the appointed bureaucrat. If the image of the industry suffers due to the ineffectiveness of the ESRB regulators then the industry itself will push for their removal since the tainted ESRB will damage their revenues. If the entire industry is corrupted then no amount of government regulation would set it straight.

3

Same way we make sure Average Joe doesn't get screwed now by Government enforcing contracts made between parties. I pose the question to you, how can the Government regulate that derivatives, stocks or whatever investment won't turn sour?

Short answer: It can't, the government can not control people enough to make investments 100% safe. It can however enforce the contracts made to Average Joe. So if Flaser Investment sells Average Joe bad investments by misrepresenting their value and the assets tank. Then the Government would enforce Average Joe's contract with you by "slapping your shit". I am perfectly fine with that situation. In fact, I would push for more punishment by having the people knowingly involved be incarcerated for fraud.

I won't touch on AT&T again. I already explained that AT&T state backed monopoly hurt consumers by limiting choices by deregulating the industry it vastly improved. If you are no convinced I suggest you find a book on the event then spend some time on the couch with a pleasing beverage and some snack cakes.



My household does not shop at except when circumstances force us to compromise. We buy our meat and produce from the farmers market. We buy certain snack foods such as peanut butter and tortilla chips from "Trader Joes" then we purchase whatever else we need at whoever has the best deal.

By the logic you present here, Wal-mart should own everything by now. The tire shop down the road owned by an Jamaican father and his son should have gone out of business. Instead they offer tires at lower prices than Wal-mart. By the same logic the local farmers markets should have gone out of business due to wal-mart but, instead they offer a wider selection, quality of produce and meats at lower prices. Same extends to credit unions, how can they compete with the..as Clark Howard would put it "Monster Megabanks"?

Deregulating these little guys will increase their productivity. Corporations promote regulations as a way to suppress the little guys (their main competition). As I mentioned previously Mattel was the biggest supporter of lead testing on all toys sold in the U.S. Which eliminated organizations such as Salvation army, Good Will and various thrift/mom an pop stores from selling toys.

I won't deny that the big boys can twist some arms economically speaking. When I was younger I worked at a company that manufactured a product that was sold at Walmart. The higher ups tried to push for a 5 cent increase in price for their product. Wal-mart retaliated by dropping their product and the company suffered. They were forced into laying off 20+ laborers our of a company of maybe 50-60 people if you count everyone from the office, to production, to delivery. The company eventually recovered though. They didn't go out of business due to wal-mart dropping them.

FPOD I don't know whether to be amazed or annoyed:

You quoted yet more statistics that show *gross* payment, not payment as % of one's income. When the top 10% owns in wealth more than the rest of society combined, it's no wonder they have to pay more... in fact they'd have to pay more even if the tax-rate was flat.

...yet they still pay less than Average Joe the blue-collar worker or Joe Average the white collar wage slave. There is no tax on interest, dividend and capital gains.

In other words, even though they "pay more", what they pay is still not measurable to what the average American has to shell out as a percentage of their wage. The key difference is that while the rich may be annoyed, the poor are barely getting by... or not at all. The USA is experiencing a record number of foreclosures.

For the hell of it, I could quote your very own source:
"You’ll see that one major reason why the share of taxes paid by the richest Americans has risen is that the richest Americans have experienced much greater income growth."

As for the AT&T, or "Ma Bell" story:
The most ridiculous twist on the truth I've ever seen. Bell Systems was *always* a private company. In fact it was after a range of *government* law suits, based on anti-trust laws - government *regulation* - that it was finally broken up.

Between 1956 and 1984 government *didn't* mandate any "privilege" for "Ma Bell" in fact it was restricted to 85% of the United States' national telephone network.

...so your argument is the very opposite of what has happened:

Government regulation finally broke up a monopoly and has allowed various startups to liven up the tel-co industry.

The regulation you quote, were *company*, not state or federal mandates.

...as for "self-regulation":

-The very same regulation that has been "in effect" in Wall Street? Good job, hasn't worked out so great.
-How about the MPAA?


-How about the Comics Code Authority? Which is universally acknowledged as a repressive regime?

Both those have been tools for censorship, enforcing the wishes of select interest groups, instead the country as a whole.

IRS 2011 pdf

If you don't feel like reading the entire publication this site has it in
plain text.

Larger lump sum and a larger percent of their income.

Too late for that already. People are already relying too much on the government now. Some people are even relying on welfare checks to survive in this kind of economy now.

You mean the the depression that is occuring because the housing market wasn't regulated and the companies were doing a lot of practices they had no right to do but still did because no one was telling them not to?

The same depression you're whining that more people are having to struggle to raise their families so their kids don't have to end up on the streets by taking a minimal amount of welfare even though a lot of the CEO's heavily responsible for the depression itself ran off with ungodly amounts of money, a sizable chunk basically coming from tax payer money used to keep the companies afloat.

Yeah, fuck those welfare people and not the rich bastards.

Flaser, don't bother trying to convince others of an opposing argument. Once people are set in their beliefs and agendas, it takes nothing but the most destructive of forces to make them open their eyee and change their ways. I agree that people have relied to much on government for practices that are their own fault, I.E. bad parenting (no parenting) or healthcare in which most diseases hold an important prevention variable. Such as healthy diet, excersise, stress maintenance.

Otherwise, I'm going to have to agree with Flaser that we need far more regulations by the government, in most every field. Also, lmfao at any politics I read about.

I'm not sure we need to mandate more regulation, but making sure the various federal organizations actually do their part would be a start. Like SEC finally sending a lot of brokers to jail for fraud instead destroying evidence.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

...right now the various federal organizations are suffering from systematic corruption and co-option by corporations. Cleaning house, reinstating the strict policies these organizations were founded with and screening employees for industry ties would be the bare minimum to actually get the regulations enforced.