We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Foxfyre, Jan 5, 2011.

?

Which statements more are closest to your point of view? Check all that apply:

  1. The USA requires a bigger more authoritarian government.

    1 vote(s)
    1.6%
  2. Government should take care of the poor.

    5 vote(s)
    8.1%
  3. The rich should be required to support the poor.

    4 vote(s)
    6.5%
  4. The government should provide the general welfare.

    11 vote(s)
    17.7%
  5. Federal and State Government invite corruption when it dispenses charity.

    19 vote(s)
    30.6%
  6. Government should not do anything the private sector does better.

    31 vote(s)
    50.0%
  7. Government is too big, too intrusive, too expensive.

    38 vote(s)
    61.3%
  8. The Federal Government should secure our rights and then leave us alone.

    43 vote(s)
    69.4%
  9. None of the above. I'll explain in my post.

    5 vote(s)
    8.1%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

    The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

    How do you want it to go? Please include at least some basic reason for your choice that is more than an insult toward another person or group.

    The basic crisis seems to be summarized in this article in Forbes today:

    (emphasis mine)

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 5
  2. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,179
    Thanks Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    Too late:

    'Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo - latimes.com

    Two examples from the article:

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    20,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,057
    No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.

    We need to see government as George Washington did.

    Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    Okay so this involves fund raisers and lobbyists, both of which certainly factor into the debate. These are the very least of our problem however. Fund raisers are a necessity for elections. Lobbyists are simply another way of petititioning the government.

    My approach to government is to limit its scope and authority which in itself will reduce the need for fund raisers and will reduce the influence of lobbyists.
     
  5. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,179
    Thanks Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    So wait a minute, you are worried about there being no change in Washington but you don't care if the people you want to bring change to Washington are in the pockets of the same people who want to keep the status quo? What?

    Also, if you reduce government scope and authority on a federal level and just give more power to the states, then lobbyists will just merely focus on state houses, senates, and governors more. Nothing you are proposing will actually reduce the influence of lobbyists.

    So yes or no question, do you have a problem with all these "tea party" candidates putting lobbyists in essential roles and accepting various lobbyists help in the form of cash and or gifts?
     
  6. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,150
    Thanks Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +313


    Oh, I thought this was about federal government??
     
  7. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    I don't care about fund raisers. And I don't worry about lobbyists. I do have concern that government will become ever biggers, more intrusive, less responsive, and more costly when we are already at the brink of bankruptcy.

    Fund raisers don't cost me a dime. And they will be even less of a factor if people aren't able to buy favors, disbursements from the treasury, or influence by participating in them. How about we make it more difficult to be rewarded for attempts to buy favor from an elected official?

    Lobbyists don't cost me a dime--it's their success in persuading our elected leaders to fork over the people's money that is the problem.

    How about we reduce our elected leaders' ability to do that?
     
  8. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,150
    Thanks Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +313
    All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)
     
  9. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,179
    Thanks Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    Maybe if I type REEEEEALLY SLOW you might not be so obtuse about what I say?

    I said I don't care about fund raisers.

    I was clear that I don't want fund raisers to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

    I said I don't care about lobbyists.

    I was clear that I don't want lobbyists to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

    I suggested we think differently about government so that these things are no longer the case.

    Honestly, I think a third grader should be able to grasp that concept????? Am I wrong about that?

    What part of thinking differently about government rather than the same old same old criticisms don't you understand?
     
  11. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    22,288
    Thanks Received:
    2,653
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +2,737
    All this "new thinking" is what got us where we are.
     
  12. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,179
    Thanks Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    You don't want lobbyists to have the ability to buy favors but don't care about lobbyists. You don't want fund raisers to be used to buy favors but you don't care about fundraisers. You do realize that such thinking makes absolutely no sense, correct? I'm reminded of the term doublethink. When it comes to lobbyists and fundraisers, it takes two to tango. Both the lobbyists and political officials are involved in the dance, simply trying to change around the partner (political official) that the lobbyist is having the tango with isn't going to change things.

    Perhaps I'm missing something you're saying and vice versa.
     
  13. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    Sure it does. Your problem is you think the LOBBYISTS or the FUND RAISERS are the problem. They aren't the problem. The problem is the corruptability of those in charge of the process. Take away the fund raisers and take away the lobbyists and those determined to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortune will find some other way to do that.

    Take away the ability of our elected officials to use the people's money or regulatory power or whatever in order to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortunes, however, and the problem is eliminated.

    Of course it requires a willingness to think differently about government to understand that. Some will be willing to debate this on that basis. And some won't.
     
  14. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,179
    Thanks Received:
    2,952
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,952
    I believe lobbyists and fund raisers like in the example I posted are part of the problem. You seem to think they aren't a problem at all, that's your problem. Take away the ability of our elected officials to be tempted by lobbyists and such kinds of fund raisers and you make corruption that much more difficult. Is it going to solve the problem? Nope, and I never said it would. However, it would help.

    All of this is focusing away from my original point however. The "tea party conservatives" that were elected to bring change to Washington and stop corruption are embracing the status quo that new Speaker of the House Boehner is a expert at.
     
  15. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    You don't know what they are embracing. We haven't tested them yet to know if their votes or influence is being bought in those fund raisers or by those lobbyists.

    But your opinion is noted. You are determined to think the status quo when it comes to assessment of government and how we think about it. If you think lobbyist and fund raisers are even part of the problem, that's your prerogative no matter how naive I believe that to be.

    I am just as determined to try to keep the focus on the OP with the hope that we will choose to think differently about government and how to fix it and make it more effective, efficient, and economical and more responsive to what most Americans really want. The examples of California versus Texas are instrucftive to begin that process.
     
  16. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    10,526
    Thanks Received:
    1,988
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +2,097
    How do you put a positive note on sewer scum?
     
  17. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    So who is sewer scum? Texas or California?
     
  18. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    10,526
    Thanks Received:
    1,988
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +2,097
    I would say both, Foxfyre, since they both are playing shell games in reference to their budget woes. They're both going to make massive cuts. And then Ca has a state income but yet Tx does not. I see Texas slashing into the 30B dollar budget of education. How's California going to solve their debt? I think both states can solve the issue without raising taxes. California can't even afford to raise taxes. It's one helluva conundrum.
     
  19. sangha
    Offline

    sangha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,997
    Thanks Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +179
    Because if we pass the right laws, politicians will stop having fundraisers and listening to lobbyists (who raise money for them) because with the right laws, politicians will not want more money :cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
     
  20. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38,025
    Thanks Received:
    6,478
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +6,756
    In the interest of thinking differently about government, the following appeared in one or more north Texas newspapers and has been circulating in emails lately.

    It outlines a concept that prompted several to comment and urge me to start this thread.

    I would be interested in everybody's opinion of it, but most particularly I would like to hear from the Left why any one of the suggestions would be a good or bad idea:


    And recently somebody added one more:

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page