The Primary Function of Gov't

[jillian]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

The function of government is something that has been debated for centuries by Hobbs, Locke, Mill, and a myriad of other political philosophers. Government has many functions. Our own says that it is the protection and defense of the country. But the Constitution also provides that congress may act for the general welfare of its people and may regulate commerce among the several states. What constitutes proper general welfare and commerce clause activity has been addressed by the high court since its inception and is whatever is defined by the court until it changes its definition.

We have always run on debt since the american revolution. you can like that... or not. and there is a way to balance the budget as it was balanced when clinton was president... reinstate the bush tax cuts and get rid of waste.. military or otherwise. ending the wars of choice will help, too.

i hope that helps.

when you say reinstate the Bush tax cuts...do you mean across the board...or just for those who earn 250K a year and more?

across the board.

 

[Wiseacre]

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue.

Incorrect. It was always a responsibility of the states. It wasn't something the federal government got involved in until the Great Depression, when the states were overwhelmed by the huge need for unemployment relief, bankrupting their resources. But at no time in our history was it "totally out of the government's purview." It just wasn't a FEDERAL responsibility.

So where does it say that the states' primary function is to take care of it's citizens? Or their responsibility?

The thing about promote the general welfare should not translate into "taking care of it's people". I think the key word there is "promote", that doesn't mean to guarantee equal outcomes, redistribute wealth, or to provide an economic safety net. Instead, it should mean do what's necessary to increase opportunities, improve the business environment, and generally avoid making it more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living. It should mean working with rather than against the business community, which we haven't been too good at lately.

 

[The T]

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue.

Incorrect. It was always a responsibility of the states. It wasn't something the federal government got involved in until the Great Depression, when the states were overwhelmed by the huge need for unemployment relief, bankrupting their resources. But at no time in our history was it "totally out of the government's purview." It just wasn't a FEDERAL responsibility.

So where does it say that the states' primary function is to take care of it's citizens? Or their responsibility?

The thing about promote the general welfare should not translate into "taking care of it's people". I think the key word there is "promote", that doesn't mean to guarantee equal outcomes, redistribute wealth, or to provide an economic safety net. Instead, it should mean do what's necessary to increase opportunities, improve the business environment, and generally avoid making it more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living. It should mean working with rather than against the business community, which we haven't been too good at lately.

Promoting the General Welfare was that Government was to support the liberty of the people to succeed or fail on thier own accord...create and maintain the conditions to where that liberty could be exercised freely.

We are so way past that. We are a nanny state full of whiners and complainers that wish legal thievery and equal outcomes. (Socialist State).

The Founders were about NONE of what we have become.

WE can thank the progressives from 1913 foward.

 

[Dragon]

So where does it say that the states' primary function is to take care of it's citizens? Or their responsibility?

What is "it"? Are you referring to the U.S. Constitution? If so, the Constitution doesn't establish the state governments or state what their powers are. All I'm saying is that help for the poor was a state government responsibility from the beginning of the nation. It's only federal involvement in this that's relatively new. The potential for it was there in the Constitution from the beginning, but it was never resorted to until the Depression wiped out state resources.

The thing about promote the general welfare should not translate into "taking care of it's people". I think the key word there is "promote", that doesn't mean to guarantee equal outcomes, redistribute wealth, or to provide an economic safety net. Instead, it should mean do what's necessary to increase opportunities, improve the business environment, and generally avoid making it more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living. It should mean working with rather than against the business community, which we haven't been too good at lately.

There are times when the business community, or at least those at the top of it, need to be worked against. It's completely false to suggest that we all have the same motivations or desires; class conflict is real and the government exists, or should, to promote the well-being of everyone, not merely of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else.

The main thing making it "more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living" is maldistribution of wealth, and government policy that favors the very rich and hurts the rest of us. It's time we took the government back from the rich. It's supposed to be ours, not theirs.

 

[Kuros]

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue.

Incorrect. It was always a responsibility of the states. It wasn't something the federal government got involved in until the Great Depression, when the states were overwhelmed by the huge need for unemployment relief, bankrupting their resources. But at no time in our history was it "totally out of the government's purview." It just wasn't a FEDERAL responsibility.

^
Correct

 

[Greenbeard]

I think the key word there is "promote"

"Promote" and "provide for" are both used. Though I don't know if that level of parsing is particularly useful.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue.

Incorrect. It was always a responsibility of the states. It wasn't something the federal government got involved in until the Great Depression, when the states were overwhelmed by the huge need for unemployment relief, bankrupting their resources. But at no time in our history was it "totally out of the government's purview." It just wasn't a FEDERAL responsibility.

So where does it say that the states' primary function is to take care of it's citizens? Or their responsibility?

The thing about promote the general welfare should not translate into "taking care of it's people". I think the key word there is "promote", that doesn't mean to guarantee equal outcomes, redistribute wealth, or to provide an economic safety net. Instead, it should mean do what's necessary to increase opportunities, improve the business environment, and generally avoid making it more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living. It should mean working with rather than against the business community, which we haven't been too good at lately.

Narrowing it down for those still working on their GEDs (just teasing guys)

An interstate highway system and U.S. highways connecting it as necessary absolutely promotes the general welfare as well as helps provide for the common defense. In the event it was needed for national defense, it would allow quick movement of troops, machines, and supplies as necessary while providing thousands of landing strips all across the nation.

And when it isn't needed for national defense, it is available to all Americans who, in one way or another, without respect for race, ethnicity, sex, political affiliation, location, or socioeconomic standing benefit from that highway system. THAT is promoting the general welfare.

A stretch of highway between Topeka and Pittsburg Kansas, however, benefits only people who choose to travel from Topkea to Pittsburg or vice versa and does not promote the general welfare. That should not be a federal function.

And when the contract to build it is given to a union buddy because he contributed to certain campaigns or because some Congressman or Senator was able to deliver a key vote, that not only does not promote the general welfare but it should be a criminal offense subject to expulsion from Congress, heavy fine, and/or imprisonment.

 

[The T]

Incorrect. It was always a responsibility of the states. It wasn't something the federal government got involved in until the Great Depression, when the states were overwhelmed by the huge need for unemployment relief, bankrupting their resources. But at no time in our history was it "totally out of the government's purview." It just wasn't a FEDERAL responsibility.

So where does it say that the states' primary function is to take care of it's citizens? Or their responsibility?

The thing about promote the general welfare should not translate into "taking care of it's people". I think the key word there is "promote", that doesn't mean to guarantee equal outcomes, redistribute wealth, or to provide an economic safety net. Instead, it should mean do what's necessary to increase opportunities, improve the business environment, and generally avoid making it more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living. It should mean working with rather than against the business community, which we haven't been too good at lately.

Narrowing it down for those still working on their GEDs (just teasing guys)

An interstate highway system and U.S. highways connecting it as necessary absolutely promotes the general welfare as well as helps provide for the common defense. In the event it was needed for national defense, it would allow quick movement of troops, machines, and supplies as necessary while providing thousands of landing strips all across the nation.

And when it isn't needed for national defense, it is available to all Americans who, in one way or another, without respect for race, ethnicity, sex, political affiliation, location, or socioeconomic standing benefit from that highway system. THAT is promoting the general welfare.

A stretch of highway between Topeka and Pittsburg Kansas, however, benefits only people who choose to travel from Topkea to Pittsburg or vice versa and does not promote the general welfare. That should not be a federal function.

And when the contract to build it is given to a union buddy because he contributed to certain campaigns or because some Congressman or Senator was able to deliver a key vote, that not only does not promote the general welfare but it should be a criminal offense subject to expulsion from Congress, heavy fine, and/or imprisonment.

^^This^^

 

[The T]

I think the key word there is "promote"

"Promote" and "provide for" are both used. Though I don't know if that level of parsing is particularly useful.

Usuful for what? Twisting from Statists?

 

[whitehall]

The preamble of the US Constitution states the duty of the federal government in two sentences and nowhere are the words "to take care of". "To provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare". You will note ihe uses of the words "provide" and "promote". Today's nanny state democrats seem to think the words should be reversed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

To be functional, it would have to adhere to the constructs of the US constitution. Ours is more dysfunctional now.

 

[The T]

The preamble of the US Constitution states the duty of the federal government in two sentences and nowhere are the words "to take care of". "To provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare". You will note ihe uses of the words "provide" and "promote". Today's nanny state democrats seem to think the words should be reversed.

And do everything they can to make it so...legally.

 

[Foxfyre]

To be functional, it would have to adhere to the constructs of the US constitution. Ours is more dysfunctional now.

The U.S. Constitution that the Founders gave us was revolutionary and unique among the historical governments of the world back as far as recorded history can take us. Nothing like it had ever been even conceived before, much less tried.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are complacent and not paying attention, too many of our young have never been taught American history except through the prism of leftist ideology and our statists are thoroughly enamored with the Canadian and European models of government and desperately want to transform our own into models of those. They are doing their damndest to transform the court system and all levels of government to accomplish just that.

Should they succeed, we will lose the United States of America as the nation the Founders gave it and it will become a shell of its former self. The statists won't like what they tear down and may then realize what a precious thing they destroyed, but they are unlikely to be able to reverse it once it is done.

 

[The T]

To be functional, it would have to adhere to the constructs of the US constitution. Ours is more dysfunctional now.

The U.S. Constitution that the Founders gave us was revolutionary and unique among the historical governments of the world back as far as recorded history can take us. Nothing like it had ever been even conceived before, much less tried.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are complacent and not paying attention, too many of our young have never been taught American history except through the prism of leftist ideology and our statists are thoroughly enamored with the Canadian and European models of government and desperately want to transform our own into models of those. They are doing their damndest to transform the court system and all levels of government to accomplish just that.

Should they succeed, we will lose the United States of America as the nation the Founders gave it and it will become a shell of its former self. The statists won't like what they tear down and may then realize what a precious thing they destroyed, but they are unlikely to be able to reverse it once it is done.

Other than this statement from the DOI:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, makes it very clear what the primary function of the federal government is.

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

 

[Foxfyre]

To be functional, it would have to adhere to the constructs of the US constitution. Ours is more dysfunctional now.

The U.S. Constitution that the Founders gave us was revolutionary and unique among the historical governments of the world back as far as recorded history can take us. Nothing like it had ever been even conceived before, much less tried.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are complacent and not paying attention, too many of our young have never been taught American history except through the prism of leftist ideology and our statists are thoroughly enamored with the Canadian and European models of government and desperately want to transform our own into models of those. They are doing their damndest to transform the court system and all levels of government to accomplish just that.

Should they succeed, we will lose the United States of America as the nation the Founders gave it and it will become a shell of its former self. The statists won't like what they tear down and may then realize what a precious thing they destroyed, but they are unlikely to be able to reverse it once it is done.

Other than this statement from the DOI:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

The Founders however were from a revolutionary minded, ruggedly independent, and freedom loving people who were going up against a government that had few friends and had to import its entire army across a big ocean in sailing ships. Evenso, even with the help of a few British enemies, the conflict was long, brutal, and bloody with the Revolutionary Army prevailing probably because Britain decided the war just wasn't worth fighting anymore and quit after Cornwallis surrendered. The British, not being a particularly brutal or savage people, simply gave up to a people who desperately wanted to be free to govern themselves.

The next revolution will be up against a totalitarian government that commands a very large, well equipped army. It will depend on whether the army goes with the government or with the people in order for a successful revolution to be possible. Otherwise we will have to wait for the totalitarian government to collapse under its own weight as happened in the USSR, etc.

 

[FactFinder]

The Primary Function of Gov't Make sure we are okay. Okay varies by the circumstances.

 

[Avatar4321]

primary function? Kill people and break things.

 

[The T]

The U.S. Constitution that the Founders gave us was revolutionary and unique among the historical governments of the world back as far as recorded history can take us. Nothing like it had ever been even conceived before, much less tried.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are complacent and not paying attention, too many of our young have never been taught American history except through the prism of leftist ideology and our statists are thoroughly enamored with the Canadian and European models of government and desperately want to transform our own into models of those. They are doing their damndest to transform the court system and all levels of government to accomplish just that.

Should they succeed, we will lose the United States of America as the nation the Founders gave it and it will become a shell of its former self. The statists won't like what they tear down and may then realize what a precious thing they destroyed, but they are unlikely to be able to reverse it once it is done.

Other than this statement from the DOI:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

The Founders however were from a revolutionary minded, ruggedly independent, and freedom loving people who were going up against a government that had few friends and had to import its entire army across a big ocean in sailing ships. Evenso, even with the help of a few British enemies, the conflict was long, brutal, and bloody with the Revolutionary Army prevailing probably because Britain decided the war just wasn't worth fighting anymore and quit after Cornwallis surrendered. The British, not being a particularly brutal or savage people, simply gave up to a people who desperately wanted to be free to govern themselves.

The next revolution will be up against a totalitarian government that commands a very large, well equipped army. It will depend on whether the army goes with the government or with the people in order for a successful revolution to be possible. Otherwise we will have to wait for the totalitarian government to collapse under its own weight as happened in the USSR, etc.

Very true...but to that end? This Government has ceased living under and governing BY the Constitution...and many have told me that the DOI carries no weight...which is fallacy.

BOTH are enexorably tied together. The Constitution was the next step...as the DOI is equally valid as the Constitution, and carrieds as much weight.

As the Americans then fought against tyrants on a distant shore...WE are fighting the same sort of tyranny within our midsts, and reserve the right to abolish it, just as the Founders did over 200 years ago.

 

[Sallow]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

The function of government is something that has been debated for centuries by Hobbs, Locke, Mill, and a myriad of other political philosophers. Government has many functions. Our own says that it is the protection and defense of the country. But the Constitution also provides that congress may act for the general welfare of its people and may regulate commerce among the several states. What constitutes proper general welfare and commerce clause activity has been addressed by the high court since its inception and is whatever is defined by the court until it changes its definition.

We have always run on debt since the american revolution. you can like that... or not. and there is a way to balance the budget as it was balanced when clinton was president... reinstate the bush tax cuts and get rid of waste.. military or otherwise. ending the wars of choice will help, too.

i hope that helps.

This is hilarious. I find it funny that people so acute on history seem to miss so much of it. Once the military became a permanent fixture, it did things. Heck..you see John Wayne in alot of flicks detailing just that. They put up forts in frontiers that fended off indians, clear cut forests, built bridges, roads and even acted as the "law" in the area. Government has been constantly involved in either funding innovation or outright inventing things. At it's base, and for the most part, government IS US. We determine the type of government we live under by how much we involve ourselves with it.