The objective of the economy/government

[GORPLEnORALUE]

There are probably other posts that have dealt with this same topic, but I couldn't find them via search, and I'm guessing there are people who didn't get to weigh in then who'd like to now, and others who are up for another round...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

One of the most significant roles of the economy and the government is:

To make it as likely as possible that:

Anyone who is willing to work hard will be rewarded with, for themselves and their family: sufficient, warm shelter; healthy food; affordable quality healthcare; time to spend tending to their household; leisure time to be spent with friends or loved ones, or on individual pursuits; and a healthy environment;

The disabled are provided the same;

Those who do work hard receive a greater reward than those who are unable to do so, whether due to inability due to disability or to the scarcity of work;

and That the elderly (i.e. 65+) are rewarded with all of the outcomes listed in the first full paragraph.
---

I just want to make clear that I am not making any claims about how this is to be acheived.

Thoughts?

 

[Oldstyle]

Call me a pessimist, Gorple...but I think the government tends to make a huge mess out of most of the things they try to "fix". I don't think you can legislate economic equality without punishing the ambitious and rewarding the lazy and every time the goverment tries to do so it ends up being a total fiasco.

Government's function should be to provide security from outside aggression and enough regulations to keep the idiots among us from killing others when they're too selfish to do the right thing. Where we get into trouble is when the zealots want to use regulations to try and get rid of stupidity. Stupidity is generally dealt with by the whole "survival of the fittest" law of nature and needs no help from anyone.

 

[The Infidel]

There are probably other posts that have dealt with this same topic, but I couldn't find them via search, and I'm guessing there are people who didn't get to weigh in then who'd like to now, and others who are up for another round...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

One of the most significant roles of the economy and the government is:

To make it as likely as possible that:

Anyone who is willing to work hard will be rewarded with, for themselves and their family: sufficient, warm shelter; healthy food; affordable quality healthcare; time to spend tending to their household; leisure time to be spent with friends or loved ones, or on individual pursuits; and a healthy environment;

The disabled are provided the same;

Those who do work hard receive a greater reward than those who are unable to do so, whether due to inability due to disability or to the scarcity of work;

and That the elderly (i.e. 65+) are rewarded with all of the outcomes listed in the first full paragraph.
---

I just want to make clear that I am not making any claims about how this is to be acheived.

Thoughts?

Its not the gov't 'job' to do any of that... that is to be done by the private sector (i.e. me, myself, & I)

Its the gov't's job to get the Hell out of my way so I can do all those things for me and my family.
If they do things right (gov't) they will reap the benefits of my labor thru 'fair taxes'.

As is sits now... the gov't is one of the biggest impairments to being able to provide for my family.

Maybe they could start by protecting our borders a little better.... and learn how to live within their means. We are in debt past our eyeballs bc they are all dumbasses in DC.

Sorry, Im in a surly mood tonight

 

[Clementine]

Call me a pessimist, Gorple...but I think the government tends to make a huge mess out of most of the things they try to "fix". I don't think you can legislate economic equality without punishing the ambitious and rewarding the lazy and every time the goverment tries to do so it ends up being a total fiasco.

Government's function should be to provide security from outside aggression and enough regulations to keep the idiots among us from killing others when they're too selfish to do the right thing. Where we get into trouble is when the zealots want to use regulations to try and get rid of stupidity. Stupidity is generally dealt with by the whole "survival of the fittest" law of nature and needs no help from anyone.

I completely agree.

Imagine if the government decided to confiscate all the money in the country and redistribute it so each person had an equal share in order to give us all a fair shot.

In one year, we'd be right back to having different economic classes because some people would work harder, save money or invest it wisely. Others would waste their money, end up in debt and have nothing to show for the money they started with. Even if you cut the elderly and disabled out of the equation and only counted the able bodied people, there will never be true equality.

We have equal opportunity and the government does not give that to us, but they do try to interfere and tilt the playing field.

I think we should take care of those who can't take care of themselves, but that rule has been used against us time and time again by those who have as many helpless children as possible. Children are a ticket to welfare, whether you are a drug addict, irresponsible person, downtrodden or illegal. I know some women get divorced and need help getting back on their feet, but how many teens start off on welfare and never get off it? I know families who have had generations on welfare. Illegals sneak in to have babies, then apply for welfare. We practically invite everyone to take advantage of the tax payers because politicians have created program on top of program to ensure that as many people as possible are completely dependent on them.

 

[Chris]

The happiest place on earth

Disney World claims the distinction of being "the happiest place on earth," but if you're really in search of human bliss, you'd be surprised where you'll find it.

Is there a place where people facing the daily grind of life are somehow nudged by their surroundings or their values or their government into being the happiest people on the planet?

You might expect that place would be a tropical paradise with warm sand and soft breezes. Or a Mediterranean village with sun-kissed vineyards. Or the United States -- land of the free and home of the brave. But if you use social science techniques, you'll find some surprises. A paradise like Fiji comes in more than 50 spots below Iceland in happiness rankings. For all its style and cuisine, France and Italy rank well below Canada. And while the United States may be the richest and most powerful country, when it comes to happiness, it is only No. 23.

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?

Denmark is a place where stoic locals wear sensible shoes and snack on herring sandwiches. Sure, they produce the occasional supermodel, but its most famous countryman may be the late entertainer Victor Borge.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.

Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.

Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

 

[Douger]

The country also doesn't need to be rich.
Costa Rica tops Happy Planet Index | News | Happy Planet Index

 

[Mr.Nick]

There are probably other posts that have dealt with this same topic, but I couldn't find them via search, and I'm guessing there are people who didn't get to weigh in then who'd like to now, and others who are up for another round...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

One of the most significant roles of the economy and the government is:

To make it as likely as possible that:

Anyone who is willing to work hard will be rewarded with, for themselves and their family: sufficient, warm shelter; healthy food; affordable quality healthcare; time to spend tending to their household; leisure time to be spent with friends or loved ones, or on individual pursuits; and a healthy environment;

The disabled are provided the same;

Those who do work hard receive a greater reward than those who are unable to do so, whether due to inability due to disability or to the scarcity of work;

and That the elderly (i.e. 65+) are rewarded with all of the outcomes listed in the first full paragraph.
---

I just want to make clear that I am not making any claims about how this is to be acheived.

Thoughts?

Government shouldn't be playing a role in our economy. This isn't a socialist model and quite frankly mixed economies fail due to government sticking their dicks where they don't belong..

Our economy only sucks because of attempted government dictation..

 

[editec]

The point of a representational democractic republic is to maintain order and provide equal opportunity within the means of the civilization from which that government was formed.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The point of a representational democractic republic is to maintain order and provide equal opportunity within the means of the civilization from which that government was formed.

So that's why we don't have a Bill of Rights.....

Fuck it - may as well become communists now...

 

[midcan5]

The OP assumes too much so I'd have a hard time knowing where to even start. What really is government? Today many place it somewhere out there because they assume the present is the way it is. But it can be all sorts of ways and just because we live in a relatively stable constitutional democratic republic doesn't mean that has to be. So all the 'government is the problem' ideas start from the end and forget the middle, and the beginnings, and the possibilities. Here's another way to view the question, given this, then this, can it be otherwise?

"Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

 

[ba1614]

You can't guarantee prosperity, some people have bad luck, or make unwise decisions that don't work out. It's the way it's been since the beginning of time.

But if you work hard and do right, you will have a much better chance of being prosperous than you will by sticking your hand out to uncle Sam.

I do feel we should look after those who truly need it. That does not include chronic baby factories, or healthy individuals whose only ailment is lack of motivation.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The OP assumes too much so I'd have a hard time knowing where to even start. What really is government? Today many place it somewhere out there because they assume the present is the way it is. But it can be all sorts of ways and just because we live in a relatively stable constitutional democratic republic doesn't mean that has to be. So all the 'government is the problem' ideas start from the end and forget the middle, and the beginnings, and the possibilities. Here's another way to view the question, given this, then this, can it be otherwise?

"Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

The problem with our government is not its structure but rather the people we elect on both the right and the left...

Voters continually elect elitist pricks who are unqualified to represent the people.

Besides, these days most voters vote for whats in THEIR best interests NOT whats in the best interest for this nation as a whole...

Here is a perfect example of my assertion..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr.Nick]

You can't guarantee prosperity, some people have bad luck, or make unwise decisions that don't work out. It's the way it's been since the beginning of time.

But if you work hard and do right, you will have a much better chance of being prosperous than you will by sticking your hand out to uncle Sam.

I do feel we should look after those who truly need it. That does not include chronic baby factories, or healthy individuals whose only ailment is lack of motivation.

I totally agree.. However our politicians who allegedly represent us use tax dollars to buy votes - more specifically progressive politicians...

Of course republicans have their own dirty too, however I recognize the difference between a RHINO and a real republican, libertarian or whatnot..

I have absolutely no problem with our government helping the truly needy, however using tax dollars to entice a specific base to vote for you is wrong.

If you're 25 years old you should be working, you shouldn't have to depend on welfare to get you through life, however democrats have no problem handing money out to perfectly healthy 25-year-olds with 15 kids just as long as they vote democrat and of course if that 25-year-old wants to keep her benefits she better vote democrat..

Our government is just dysfunctional...

 

[WatertheTree]

There are probably other posts that have dealt with this same topic, but I couldn't find them via search, and I'm guessing there are people who didn't get to weigh in then who'd like to now, and others who are up for another round...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

One of the most significant roles of the economy and the government is:

To make it as likely as possible that:

Anyone who is willing to work hard will be rewarded with, for themselves and their family: sufficient, warm shelter; healthy food; affordable quality healthcare; time to spend tending to their household; leisure time to be spent with friends or loved ones, or on individual pursuits; and a healthy environment;

The disabled are provided the same;

Those who do work hard receive a greater reward than those who are unable to do so, whether due to inability due to disability or to the scarcity of work;

and That the elderly (i.e. 65+) are rewarded with all of the outcomes listed in the first full paragraph.
---

I just want to make clear that I am not making any claims about how this is to be acheived.

Thoughts?

No, I do not agree that that is the responsibility of government. That is the responsibility of human beings not of government. Government only gets in the way of people solving problems.

Disabled I do agree deserve this. Hence the term disabled. They are unable to carry there own water, and as we are a civilized people will carry it for them. If they can still contribute then they should, even if its just reading to children at a library or stamping hands at a state fair.

Elderly would fall into the category of disabled when they are unable to provide for themselves.

I do not think the state has any business meddling with health care at all, or it should all be socialized. Take your pick. Mixing doesnt work. Either socialize it down to the buildings and doctors or give it the free market.

 

[WatertheTree]

You can't guarantee prosperity, some people have bad luck, or make unwise decisions that don't work out. It's the way it's been since the beginning of time.

But if you work hard and do right, you will have a much better chance of being prosperous than you will by sticking your hand out to uncle Sam.

I do feel we should look after those who truly need it. That does not include chronic baby factories, or healthy individuals whose only ailment is lack of motivation.

I totally agree.. However our politicians who allegedly represent us use tax dollars to buy votes - more specifically progressive politicians...

Of course republicans have their own dirty too, however I recognize the difference between a RHINO and a real republican, libertarian or whatnot..

I have absolutely no problem with our government helping the truly needy, however using tax dollars to entice a specific base to vote for you is wrong.

If you're 25 years old you should be working, you shouldn't have to depend on welfare to get you through life, however democrats have no problem handing money out to perfectly healthy 25-year-olds with 15 kids just as long as they vote democrat and of course if that 25-year-old wants to keep her benefits she better vote democrat..

Our government is just dysfunctional...

Or maybe your just dysfunctional. Its easy to label all that shit as liberal/progressive but its corporate liberalism that got us here. Unfunded prescription drug program, unfunded tax cuts, bailouts, no bid contracts, all happened under the Bush regime.

Dont expect a response to your reply. We have been through this enough to know for a verifiable fact that your a dumbfuck. I just wanted to pop in and remind you of that today.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You can't guarantee prosperity, some people have bad luck, or make unwise decisions that don't work out. It's the way it's been since the beginning of time.

But if you work hard and do right, you will have a much better chance of being prosperous than you will by sticking your hand out to uncle Sam.

I do feel we should look after those who truly need it. That does not include chronic baby factories, or healthy individuals whose only ailment is lack of motivation.

I totally agree.. However our politicians who allegedly represent us use tax dollars to buy votes - more specifically progressive politicians...

Of course republicans have their own dirty too, however I recognize the difference between a RHINO and a real republican, libertarian or whatnot..

I have absolutely no problem with our government helping the truly needy, however using tax dollars to entice a specific base to vote for you is wrong.

If you're 25 years old you should be working, you shouldn't have to depend on welfare to get you through life, however democrats have no problem handing money out to perfectly healthy 25-year-olds with 15 kids just as long as they vote democrat and of course if that 25-year-old wants to keep her benefits she better vote democrat..

Our government is just dysfunctional...

Or maybe your just dysfunctional. Its easy to label all that shit as liberal/progressive but its corporate liberalism that got us here. Unfunded prescription drug program, unfunded tax cuts, bailouts, no bid contracts, all happened under the Bush regime.

Dont expect a response to your reply. We have been through this enough to know for a verifiable fact that your a dumbfuck. I just wanted to pop in and remind you of that today.

I love how bitches with 4th grade educations are shitting kids and look to our government to support them..

Of course in your LITTLE WORLD only the needy get fed...

In my world there is epic welfare fraud, and I have seen it..

Yeah minorities are proud to have 10 kids they can't support and they will CONTINUE to vote for Obama because activist organizations give them a free tote bag if they do..

Not only do they get free shit they're escorted to vote for the fucking democrats and told who to vote for...

The old saying is: "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."

You could buy a democrat vote with a ham sandwich....