The Role of Govt: To work on our behalf; NOT to work "for us".

[bucs90]

I had a wonderful conversation with a former coworker today. Haven't heard from him in a while. We worked on a police patrol team together years ago in ATL. But...he's still in the job, I'm not. He stressed how frustrated he is that the last 5-10 years, cops are being called to discipline 10 year olds, get them off their Xboxes, tell neighbors to get their dog to stop barking, people calling cops literally to ask them to take their trash out because it's too hot or cold out. He made the quote of the century for me: "They gotta realize, we dont work FOR THEM, we work on their behalf...."

To the point, the convo kept going. His point? Govt works on our behalf. Not "FOR" us. In his point.....cops are there so we dont have to be vigilantes. So we dont have to chase down people who robbed, raped, stole from us. Or killed a loved one. Firemen do their job so we dont have to burn to death putting out our own fires. But they arent here to do shit that WE SHOULD BE DOING FOR OURSELVES.

And it hit me. I finally have a clear opinion on the role govt should have. We all pitch into a pot to provide men and women who work ON OUR BEHALF, not as our servants.

There are things in life govt should NOT be doing for us. That we should be doing on our own, not asking the govt to provide us with a "public servant" to do it for us.

So, for example:

- Cops SHOULD be called to catch those who stole something from us.
- Cops should NOT be called because the neighbors do it barking.

- Govt SHOULD be called when a bridge is about to collapse.
- Govt should NOT be called when we want a new park or cultural arts center.

- Firemen/EMS SHOULD be called when someones house is burning.
- Firemen/EMS should NOT be called when someone has a headache and wants free medication (happens all the time).

- Govt SHOULD be called when an elder woman is malnourished, abused and about to die of starvation.
- Govt should NOT be called when a younger woman wants free birth control pills.
- Govt should NOT be called when a person wants to sit at home, not work, while perfectly healthy, but still wants free money and food.

- Cops SHOULD be called when a suspicious man carrying a gun is near a school.
- Cops should NOT be called when a 2nd grader is acting "out of control" and none of the school staff feels like dealing with it.




I can go on and on. But it's clear to me. Government should ONLY be there to work on our behalf in situations where it is reasonable that the individual should not carry that burden alone, and the community would reasonably pitch in to solve the problem as a whole. Government should NOT be used or called on for stuff people should do themselves, as individuals, instead of demanding a government service or servant do it for them.

 

[bucs90]

And the govt is NOT intended for you to run to when:

- You are mad that McD's is out of chicken nuggets
- You are mad that your 12 year old wont get out of bed to go to school
- You want a worry free, artistic career rather than a real job, but need healthcare
- You are mad that other people drive cars that burn alot of gas
- You are mad that other people are richer than you

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

- Govt SHOULD be called when a bridge is about to collapse.
- Govt should NOT be called when we want a new park or cultural arts center.

Rightist idiocy, both are perfectly appropriate.

- Govt SHOULD be called when an elder woman is malnourished, abused and about to die of starvation.
- Govt should NOT be called when a younger woman wants free birth control pills.

More idiocy, no one ever said it should.

It is perfectly appropriate, however, for government to act in its regulatory capacity concerning issues of fair and consistent compensation, such as an employer paying for health insurance premiums.

- Govt should NOT be called when a person wants to sit at home, not work, while perfectly healthy, but still wants free money and food.

It’s the rightwing idiocy trifecta – again, no one ever said it should; it’s also perfectly appropriate for government to provide assistance to those in need. Those who are work-ready are required to seek employment as a condition of ongoing eligibility. Currently, with regard to states with high unemployment rates, a waiver for the food stamp program’s work requirement is in effect for those states, to be ended when unemployment drops below a certain level.

Your other ‘points’ are gross overgeneralizations, exhibiting your ignorance of basic public policy and sound principles of governance.

 

[g5000]

It is perfectly appropriate, however, for government to act in its regulatory capacity concerning issues of fair and consistent compensation, such as an employer paying for health insurance premiums.

Wow.

Just...wow.

Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

 

[bucs90]

- Govt SHOULD be called when a bridge is about to collapse.
- Govt should NOT be called when we want a new park or cultural arts center.

Rightist idiocy, both are perfectly appropriate.

- Govt SHOULD be called when an elder woman is malnourished, abused and about to die of starvation.
- Govt should NOT be called when a younger woman wants free birth control pills.

More idiocy, no one ever said it should.

It is perfectly appropriate, however, for government to act in its regulatory capacity concerning issues of fair and consistent compensation, such as an employer paying for health insurance premiums.

- Govt should NOT be called when a person wants to sit at home, not work, while perfectly healthy, but still wants free money and food.

It’s the rightwing idiocy trifecta – again, no one ever said it should; it’s also perfectly appropriate for government to provide assistance to those in need. Those who are work-ready are required to seek employment as a condition of ongoing eligibility. Currently, with regard to states with high unemployment rates, a waiver for the food stamp program’s work requirement is in effect for those states, to be ended when unemployment drops below a certain level.

Your other ‘points’ are gross overgeneralizations, exhibiting your ignorance of basic public policy and sound principles of governance.

So you think it is the governments role to build a park in a neighborhood? The people can't do that themselves?

So you say no one has ever run to the govt to demand their birth control be paid for..........just weeks after a woman whined in front of the Federal Govt that she shouldnt have to pay for her own birth control?

And...you say no one on welfare is abusing it, that they are all trying as hard as they can to get and keep a FORTY HOUR A WEEK JOB?? Because I know for a fact, in fact a friend of mine who owns a gas station proves it, that he has about 15 clerks on payroll, despite needing about 8, because they all refuse to work full-time because too many hours would eliminate their welfare, but too few wont meet their requirement, so they only want 1 or 2 shifts a week.

Yep, thats fair right?

It's not appropriate for govt to provide for those in "need". We ALL are in need, and most of us get off our asses, live within our means and provide for our own needs.

Govt should provide for those in CRISIS. Not in "need", and ABSOLUTELY not just for those in "WANT".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Seems to be a pointless distinction since it does neither, and is, in fact, incapable of doing either.

 

[bucs90]

Seems to be a pointless distinction since it does neither, and is, in fact, incapable of doing either.

I disagree a bit.

I think the military does a great job of protecting us from foreign enemies.
I think the police do a pretty good job of protecting us domestically, and firemen do a great job in assisting with that.
Our roads may suck a lot of times, but they are driveable and bridges rarely collapse.

Those are all things we as a people do better as a collective group.

The rest? We can, and SHOULD, do as individuals for ourselves, or......God forbid, this is a foreign concept for liberals: To do it FOR OUR NEIGHBOR out of good will.

 

[Greenbeard]

Those are all things we as a people do better as a collective group.

How exactly does building a public park not fall into this category?

 

[bucs90]

Those are all things we as a people do better as a collective group.

How exactly does building a public park not fall into this category?

Lots of kids beg to go to the McDonalds playground or the theme parks. Not the shitty government public parks which are usually empty except for hookers and drug dealers.

The governments sole purpose is to protect it's people from threats. Armed threats, and yes, threats like bad food, weather disasters, etc.

Their job is not to beautify a street or build playgrounds. Those are nice and all. But thats our job, not theirs. Unfortunately, we've become so comfortable with Big Daddy Govt that we get confused when someone says something is NOT the gov'ts job.

 

[candycorn]

Those are all things we as a people do better as a collective group.

How exactly does building a public park not fall into this category?

Lots of kids beg to go to the McDonalds playground or the theme parks. Not the shitty government public parks which are usually empty except for hookers and drug dealers.

The governments sole purpose is to protect it's people from threats. Armed threats, and yes, threats like bad food, weather disasters, etc.

Their job is not to beautify a street or build playgrounds. Those are nice and all. But thats our job, not theirs. Unfortunately, we've become so comfortable with Big Daddy Govt that we get confused when someone says something is NOT the gov'ts job.

So sidewalks aren't a Government concern?

Should we liquidate Yellowstone? Yosemite? The Grand Canyon?

 

[Greenbeard]

Their job is not to beautify a street or build playgrounds. Those are nice and all. But thats our job, not theirs.

I don't know what distinction you're drawing between "us" and "them," particularly since most of what you're talking about in this thread is happening at the local level. You defined government, correctly I believe, as collective action by a community in support of common goals that cannot be achieved by individuals acting alone.

In fact, you went so far as to make the point that public employees do not exist apart from or in opposition to the rest of the community, but rather act as particular delegates of that community in pursuit of the community's common goal(s): or, as you put it, "we dont work FOR THEM, we work on their behalf." Again, I agree.

But then you completely contradict those thoughts by assuming some distinction, even antagonism, between the people and the government, e.g. "So you think it is the governments role to build a park in a neighborhood? The people can't do that themselves?" and "But thats our job, not theirs."

The us vs. them mentality doesn't fit the theme you introduced in the OP in which government is a mechanism by which "the community would reasonably pitch in to solve the problem as a whole."

 

[candycorn]

Their job is not to beautify a street or build playgrounds. Those are nice and all. But thats our job, not theirs.

I don't know what distinction you're drawing between "us" and "them," particularly since most of what you're talking about in this thread is happening at the local level. You defined government, correctly I believe, as collective action by a community in support of common goals that cannot be achieved by individuals acting alone.

In fact, you went so far as to make the point that public employees do not exist apart from or in opposition to the rest of the community, but rather act as particular delegates of that community in pursuit of the community's common goal(s): or, as you put it, "we dont work FOR THEM, we work on their behalf." Again, I agree.

But then you completely contradict those thoughts by assuming some distinction, even antagonism, between the people and the government, e.g. "So you think it is the governments role to build a park in a neighborhood? The people can't do that themselves?" and "But thats our job, not theirs."

The us vs. them mentality doesn't fit the theme you introduced in the OP in which government is a mechanism by which "the community would reasonably pitch in to solve the problem as a whole."

The generalizations he makes are stupid.

Going along with it; in affluent neighborhoods, there may or may not be some who buy a plot of land and found a park, buy equipment, hire a crew to keep the park up etc. I pay a maintenance fee in my condo and for it we supposedly get the gym, the pool, parking security, etc... I personally think I should be able to opt out since I use another gym, don't swim, and park on the street more often than not. I'm not able to. I wonder how BUCS would diagnose that.

In less affluent neighborhoods, those who are financially challenege I suppose could also muster up the monies to fund the park too but it's incredibly unlikely.

So the affluent will have the nicer neighborhoods and the less affluent will not in this scenario. Eventually, the argument can be extended to roads, electricity, sewage, etc...

Very Republican; callus, suspicious, and wrong.

 

[waltky]

Granny says it's `bout time dem 1%'ers havin' to go to the pawn shop like the rest of us 99%'ers...

Pawn shops are going upscale for affluent clients
15 July`12 – Maybe it's the original artwork displayed around the office or the soft lighting, paneled walls, Persian rugs and leather furniture. The receptionist adds to the aura, too. So does the TV screen turned to a financial-news channel.

Whatever the reason, Biltmore Loan and Jewelry feels more like a stock brokerage or private-banking office than a pawn shop. Still, the Scottsdale company makes loans collateralized on personal belongings. It thus fits the legal definition of a pawn shop and is regulated as one, despite the upscale touches. "We want to give people a professional option with dignity," said David Goldstein, Biltmore's president and a veteran jewelry retailer. "We're private, quick and discreet."

Pawn-brokering might be associated more with dingy storefronts cluttered with junk and customers desperate to scrape up enough cash for groceries or rent. But the recession, credit crunch and slow economic recovery have hit Americans up and down the socio-economic ladder, and that has created an opportunity to serve a more high-end clientele for firms like Biltmore. "We're seeing an increase in these kind of stores in Beverly Hills and other affluent neighborhoods," said Emmett Murphy, a spokesman for the National Pawnbrokers Association. "People in all walks of life are in need of short-term credit."

Reality-TV shows such as "Pawn Stars" also have helped to change the image of the industry, which is more euphemistically referred to as collateralized or secured lending. High prices for gold and other precious metals, meanwhile, have brought out more people as borrowers and sellers. It's not just job losses and paltry yields on savings accounts that have decimated personal incomes, forcing more people to consider short-term financing. Another key factor has been the general reluctance of banks to lend money, while often making the process so onerous and time-consuming that traditional loans don't make sense for small, short-term cash needs. Even some businesses are turning to pawn transactions to raise money in a pinch.

James Verbic, a Scottsdale resident who runs a firm that operates ATM machines, said he recently sought a loan from Biltmore for business needs. He turned to Biltmore after getting the runaround from several of the largest banks operating in Arizona. He pledged more than a dozen paintings as collateral. "I spent six months dealing with banks and five days dealing with (Biltmore)," he said. Indeed, banks typically aren't equipped to evaluate and make loans on the types of collateral that people bring to pawn stores, including artwork, sports memorabilia, other collectibles, gold coins, jewelry, watches, musical instruments, diamonds, expensive electronic equipment and even firearms. "We're a Band-Aid to use until the government corrects the banking system," Goldstein said.

Lofty rates

 

[Darkwind]

Those are all things we as a people do better as a collective group.

How exactly does building a public park not fall into this category?

When I was a kid living in the SF Bay Area, there was a huge field at the end of My block. Most times, it was overrun with weeds, and it was elevated by about 2ft above the street.

We used to beat down a path in the shape of a diamond and use old rice sacks as bases and turned one corner of the field into a baseball diamond.

A number of our parents noted that we tended to be less of a bother to the neighborhood when we spent all day playing baseball, so about 10 of them went down to that field and using their own lawn mowers, created a baseball field that the entire housing tract (There were about 250 houses in that one tract alone) used for baseball, picnics, and a general neighborhood gathering place.

Not a single dime was spent by the city, the county, or the State. Oh, and get this. Richard Nixon did not have to put an item for this little park into his Federal Budget either!

Imagine that......

 

[NYcarbineer]

So according to the idiot who started this joke of a thread, there should be no public parks anywhere in America.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Public parks are built and developed by corporations all the time.

Zucotti Park, site of the OWS non-sense, in NYC is a prime example.

 

[Jackson]

- Govt SHOULD be called when a bridge is about to collapse.
- Govt should NOT be called when we want a new park or cultural arts center.

Rightist idiocy, both are perfectly appropriate.



More idiocy, no one ever said it should.

It is perfectly appropriate, however, for government to act in its regulatory capacity concerning issues of fair and consistent compensation, such as an employer paying for health insurance premiums.

- Govt should NOT be called when a person wants to sit at home, not work, while perfectly healthy, but still wants free money and food.

It’s the rightwing idiocy trifecta – again, no one ever said it should; it’s also perfectly appropriate for government to provide assistance to those in need. Those who are work-ready are required to seek employment as a condition of ongoing eligibility. Currently, with regard to states with high unemployment rates, a waiver for the food stamp program’s work requirement is in effect for those states, to be ended when unemployment drops below a certain level.

Your other ‘points’ are gross overgeneralizations, exhibiting your ignorance of basic public policy and sound principles of governance.

So you think it is the governments role to build a park in a neighborhood? The people can't do that themselves?

So you say no one has ever run to the govt to demand their birth control be paid for..........just weeks after a woman whined in front of the Federal Govt that she shouldnt have to pay for her own birth control?

And...you say no one on welfare is abusing it, that they are all trying as hard as they can to get and keep a FORTY HOUR A WEEK JOB?? Because I know for a fact, in fact a friend of mine who owns a gas station proves it, that he has about 15 clerks on payroll, despite needing about 8, because they all refuse to work full-time because too many hours would eliminate their welfare, but too few wont meet their requirement, so they only want 1 or 2 shifts a week.

Yep, thats fair right?

It's not appropriate for govt to provide for those in "need". We ALL are in need, and most of us get off our asses, live within our means and provide for our own needs.

Govt should provide for those in CRISIS. Not in "need", and ABSOLUTELY not just for those in "WANT".

If I was that gas station worker, I'd fire those""shift(y)" workers and get only full time help. There's certainly 8 people who want full time work.

 

[Seawytch]

So according to the idiot who started this joke of a thread, there should be no public parks anywhere in America.

We don't need state and National parks. Strip mine the fuckers!