What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Erosion of Individual Responsibility

Christopher

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
75
Points
28
I posted something similar to this in another forum and wanted to see other’s thoughts on this. Over the last decade I have noticed a pattern from the government (which I believe has been occurring for much longer) that involves the increase in the number of policies which remove one’s individual responsibility. I think that at least part of the causes of this are from cases where the government was sued or “took heat” of some kind for something that was previously beyond the jurisdiction or control of the government. One example I have seen was regarding an incident at an amusement ride. Two operators were injured as a result of their negligence in not following proper safety precautions. One of the operator’s parents threatened to sue the State, so the State shut the ride down, even though the State clearly knew it was not the fault of the owner of the ride and was the fault of the two operators. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I have seen.

There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

I find this a very sad progression of government policies and this only increases the government’s involvement in our lives. Who really wants that? The government seems to be continually hounded by someone or some group wanting them to also take away their responsibility. People then begin to rely on the government more and more to “bail them out” and save themselves from the consequences of their poor choices. Since these people did not suffer consequences, they did not really learn from their poor choices and they tend to make mistakes over and over while always expecting to be “bailed out”. What many sadly do not realize is that we are gradually losing our freedoms from this process.

Before anyone begins discussing “what about the people that did not make poor choices, and they are just down on their luck, or they were taken advantage of?” This is another problem with many of the political leaders we have today. They use the exceptions to the rule to justify their social policies and give them more power over our lives. One quote that typifies this is from Bill Clinton in 1999: “I can spend your money better than you can.” What this shows is that the government is portraying themselves as more responsible than the public, and I would add that it is because we the people have asked them to do so.

We should make rules that deal justly and fairly with the exceptions, we should however, never make exceptions THE governing rule. The more we not only let the government proceed in the direction it is headed, but beg them to take more control over our lives, the less freedoms we will continue to have. My question is, when will more people begin to realize this so that real change can happen?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,921
Reaction score
48,666
Points
2,190
There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it
 
OP
C

Christopher

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
75
Points
28
There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it

We let government apply the label of "too big to fail". That was our downfall. To try and say the Obama administration is not taking on more (or planning to) of our individual responsibilities than the Bush administration did is just spin.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,921
Reaction score
48,666
Points
2,190
There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it

We let government apply the label of "too big to fail". That was our downfall. To try and say the Obama administration is not taking on more (or planning to) of our individual responsibilities than the Bush administration did is just spin.

Yes, GM was "too big to fail". A collapse of GM would have had repercussions in supplier industries throughout the nation.
What specific "individual responsibilities" are you afraid you will lose?
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it

and you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously....what you post is the exact opposite of the truth....an outright lie. But then again, we expect nothing less from you and those who agree with your abject stupidity.

Anyone with half a brain and watches the news on occasion knows that the TARP is being repaid WITH INTEREST and the Obama GRANTS to States will never be repaid...

NOW SHUT YOUR FUCKING HOLE UNTIL YOU GET SOME FACTS TO POST.
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it

We let government apply the label of "too big to fail". That was our downfall. To try and say the Obama administration is not taking on more (or planning to) of our individual responsibilities than the Bush administration did is just spin.

Yes, GM was "too big to fail". A collapse of GM would have had repercussions in supplier industries throughout the nation.
What specific "individual responsibilities" are you afraid you will lose?

How about the responsibility to aquire your own health insurance....
How about the responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for your family without the government interfering.
 

Gatekeeper

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
369
Points
48
Location
New Jersey
From what I see occurring is that government is trying to take ALL the responsibility away from everyone, thereby becoming the ultimate slavemaster and we are the sharecroppers.

The BAIL OUT, as the OP mentioned, is a prime example of wealth protecting wealth, removing the real cause and replacing it with IRRESPONSIBLE leadership and BS, at our expense.

They are heading in a direction to FORCE everything on the masses. To them, we aren't smart enough to handle our own affairs, so they feel they must intervene, in 'our best interests' and protect us from ourselves, thus insuring complete control and domination over the citizens.

That's kind of how I see part of it. :eek:
 

Gadawg73

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
14,426
Reaction score
1,617
Points
155
Location
Georgia
Americans do not want to have to get their own health insurance. They DEMAND their employer provide it in a group policy as a "benefit", the absolute worst way to run a health care program as the insurance company is a third party.
American investors, mostly of the right wing variety, blamed government rules and regulations as causing the bank and financial failures. That one is the biggest laugher of all time as I work for banks as a consultant. They did themselves in.
Personal responsibility, or lack of it, knows no party affiliation.
 

Angelhair

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,597
Reaction score
152
Points
48
The 'best' is yet to come. We have 3 yrs to go with this bozo.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
From what I see occurring is that government is trying to take ALL the responsibility away from everyone, thereby becoming the ultimate slavemaster and we are the sharecroppers.

The BAIL OUT, as the OP mentioned, is a prime example of wealth protecting wealth, removing the real cause and replacing it with IRRESPONSIBLE leadership and BS, at our expense.

They are heading in a direction to FORCE everything on the masses. To them, we aren't smart enough to handle our own affairs, so they feel they must intervene, in 'our best interests' and protect us from ourselves, thus insuring complete control and domination over the citizens.

That's kind of how I see part of it. :eek:

You aren't alone. And as to your emboldened text? Add "CONTROL".
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,921
Reaction score
48,666
Points
2,190
Americans do not want to have to get their own health insurance. They DEMAND their employer provide it in a group policy as a "benefit", the absolute worst way to run a health care program as the insurance company is a third party.
American investors, mostly of the right wing variety, blamed government rules and regulations as causing the bank and financial failures. That one is the biggest laugher of all time as I work for banks as a consultant. They did themselves in.
Personal responsibility, or lack of it, knows no party affiliation.

Employers no longer want to be in the health insurance business. It used to be a nice, low cost benefit they could provide. Now, it is becoming prohibitively expensive. More costs are now dumped on the employee. More employers are finding creative ways to avoid offering health insurance to new employees. Without government sponsored insurance pools, many more Americans will be locked out of the insurance market.

People scream that they don't want the government to make health insurance decisions for them.........Then why do you want your employer to make health insurance decisions for you?
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
Americans do not want to have to get their own health insurance. They DEMAND their employer provide it in a group policy as a "benefit", the absolute worst way to run a health care program as the insurance company is a third party.
American investors, mostly of the right wing variety, blamed government rules and regulations as causing the bank and financial failures. That one is the biggest laugher of all time as I work for banks as a consultant. They did themselves in.
Personal responsibility, or lack of it, knows no party affiliation.

Employers no longer want to be in the health insurance business. It used to be a nice, low cost benefit they could provide. Now, it is becoming prohibitively expensive. More costs are now dumped on the employee. More employers are finding creative ways to avoid offering health insurance to new employees. Without government sponsored insurance pools, many more Americans will be locked out of the insurance market.

People scream that they don't want the government to make health insurance decisions for them.........Then why do you want your employer to make health insurance decisions for you?

More dishonesty...as expected.

You call employers letting their employees turn down coverage as employers making that decision? They allow an employee to OPT OUT of employer based health insurance and that's why 16 million Americans did just that!!!!!! A full 70% of them under 30 years of age!!!! They did NOT want health insurance and Obama just took that freedom from them. The Administration thinks this will lower premiums....nothing could be further from the truth....and now many of the groups that originally said that this law was a good thing are now sayiong it's not such a great thing after all. Funny. The more they read the law and see what it affects the worse off the country seems to be. Why is that?
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
Americans do not want to have to get their own health insurance. They DEMAND their employer provide it in a group policy as a "benefit", the absolute worst way to run a health care program as the insurance company is a third party.
American investors, mostly of the right wing variety, blamed government rules and regulations as causing the bank and financial failures. That one is the biggest laugher of all time as I work for banks as a consultant. They did themselves in.
Personal responsibility, or lack of it, knows no party affiliation.

Employers no longer want to be in the health insurance business. It used to be a nice, low cost benefit they could provide. Now, it is becoming prohibitively expensive. More costs are now dumped on the employee. More employers are finding creative ways to avoid offering health insurance to new employees. Without government sponsored insurance pools, many more Americans will be locked out of the insurance market.

People scream that they don't want the government to make health insurance decisions for them.........Then why do you want your employer to make health insurance decisions for you?

More dishonesty...as expected.

You call employers letting their employees turn down coverage as employers making that decision? They allow an employee to OPT OUT of employer based health insurance and that's why 16 million Americans did just that!!!!!! A full 70% of them under 30 years of age!!!! They did NOT want health insurance and Obama just took that freedom from them. The Administration thinks this will lower premiums....nothing could be further from the truth....and now many of the groups that originally said that this law was a good thing are now sayiong it's not such a great thing after all. Funny. The more they read the law and see what it affects the worse off the country seems to be. Why is that?

And didn't they say too that "Americans will understand this once it's voted upon"... And "We can TWEAK this as we go along..."

Anyone really buy that one?:eusa_shhh:
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
There are many policies the government has implemented that take away individual responsibility and therefore take away individual freedom, the “bail outs” for one. In a way, when someone sues the government or wants a “bail out” from the government they are saying “please control our lives more” and the government when they accept is in turn saying “OK, you are not responsible for your poor choices, we will take that on, it is really our responsibility”. The precedence is then set and gradually more responsibilities are removed from the individual and passed to the government.

The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it

We let government apply the label of "too big to fail". That was our downfall. To try and say the Obama administration is not taking on more (or planning to) of our individual responsibilities than the Bush administration did is just spin.

Boosh is not president anymore. Or so I keep hearing from those who took personal responsibility for electing him twice.
 

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
The difference is that rather than just gifting the money as a bailout, as was done under Bush, The Obama administration demanded collateral in return for the money provided. This prevented the company from continuing the policies that got them in debt and protected the taxpayer.
The result has been banks paying back the money they were loaned and some even resulting in Government profit. GM is now stable and is prepared to pay back the government money.

Bailouts are not the norm. They are reserved for critical industries at severe economic times. The economy was on the verge of depression and these government bailouts prevented it

We let government apply the label of "too big to fail". That was our downfall. To try and say the Obama administration is not taking on more (or planning to) of our individual responsibilities than the Bush administration did is just spin.

Boosh is not president anymore. Or so I keep hearing from those who took personal responsibility for electing him twice.

That was the best thing that happened to this country considering the situation we were in at the time of 9/11. Better to have him in office instead of some pantywaist pussy like Gore who would have turned over half the world to Al Qaeda with his yellow belly coward approach to foreign policy.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
We let government apply the label of "too big to fail". That was our downfall. To try and say the Obama administration is not taking on more (or planning to) of our individual responsibilities than the Bush administration did is just spin.

Boosh is not president anymore. Or so I keep hearing from those who took personal responsibility for electing him twice.

That was the best thing that happened to this country considering the situation we were in at the time of 9/11. Better to have him in office instead of some pantywaist pussy like Gore who would have turned over half the world to Al Qaeda with his yellow belly coward approach to foreign policy.

and in 2004? When Iraq was in quagmire status and all the reasons for invadinng had been debunked and spending was out of control?
Supplemental spending funding the war?
 
Last edited:

PatekPhilippe

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
1,610
Points
48
Location
Sasebo Japan
Boosh is not president anymore. Or so I keep hearing from those who took personal responsibility for electing him twice.

That was the best thing that happened to this country considering the situation we were in at the time of 9/11. Better to have him in office instead of some pantywaist pussy like Gore who would have turned over half the world to Al Qaeda with his yellow belly coward approach to foreign policy.

and in 2004? When Iraq was in quagmire status and all the reasons for invadinng had been debunked and spending was out of control?
Supplemental spending funding the war?

Oh sorry. We know you idiots think that the war should have been over in a day and that you were bitching up a storm when the Democrat Senate passed the law authorizing the war and funding for it FOR 8 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
That was the best thing that happened to this country considering the situation we were in at the time of 9/11. Better to have him in office instead of some pantywaist pussy like Gore who would have turned over half the world to Al Qaeda with his yellow belly coward approach to foreign policy.

and in 2004? When Iraq was in quagmire status and all the reasons for invadinng had been debunked and spending was out of control?
Supplemental spending funding the war?

Oh sorry. We know you idiots think that the war should have been over in a day and that you were bitching up a storm when the Democrat Senate passed the law authorizing the war and funding for it FOR 8 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the percentage of dems who voted to authorize use of military force if all else failed and percentage of Republicans did.
But then I expect you already know this and are just spinning.
Spinning is just a way of making excuses and avoiding personal responsibility.
And I do not excuse any of the dems who voted for it nor will I ever vote for any of them.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top