We all do better when we all do better.

[Leo123]

We all do better when we all do better. But President Ronald Reagan contended government's not the solution, it's the problem.

Too often those donning the robes of conservatives, advocate reduction of appropriations or taxes for funding government services or enforcement of regulations which are of particularly greater net beneficial to wage earners and their dependents.
Too often those conservatives proposed reduction of government's powers, or jurisdictions, or services, laws and regulations which are of greater protection and/or benefit to our nation's lesser rather than wealthier population segments.

Such political conservatives are not remedies, but they rather detrimentally contribute to our nation's political problems. Respectfully,Supposn

It's never a good idea to support the lesser by throwing money at them. It's a better idea to lessen overburdensome government control which costs money. Biden's rescinding of Trump's energy policies has cost all of us quite dearly not only in high gas prices but sky high interest rates, food prices, etc. Conservatives believe in bringing the economy under control, punish crime and rescind stupid 'green' policies and regulations that are strangling our economy. That will help everyone.

 

[Mac1958]

We all do better when we all do better. But President Ronald Reagan contended government's not the solution, it's the problem.

Too often those donning the robes of conservatives, advocate reduction of appropriations or taxes for funding government services or enforcement of regulations which are of particularly greater net beneficial to wage earners and their dependents.
Too often those conservatives proposed reduction of government's powers, or jurisdictions, or services, laws and regulations which are of greater protection and/or benefit to our nation's lesser rather than wealthier population segments.

Such political conservatives are not remedies, but they rather detrimentally contribute to our nation's political problems. Respectfully,Supposn

This stuff -- the role, size, and cost of government -- exists along a continuum, and I'd think the goal should be to find an optimal point along the continuum. Too much state support creates dependence, lowers standards and retards both individual and macro growth. Not enough support lets too many fall through the cracks and exacerbates imbalances, just asking for trouble in the form of overcompensation.

As with any major issue, there are perfectly reasonable arguments in both directions. If we were in better shape as a society, we would recognize that and proceed from that point. But now that we've lost the capacity to collaborate, all we're getting (predictably) is wild swings back and forth. So now, only one side of the spectrum has any skin in the game, while the other side hopes for failure.

As usual, this is a self-inflicted wound. Our current governing philosophy is a shit show. Our Founders gave us a clear template for collaboration, balance and accountability when they created the Constitution, and we've completely failed them.

 

[Votar Roja]

. . . . President Ronald Reagan contended government's not the solution, it's the problem . . . . .

He was correct. That is why our constitution enumerates the only powers that the Federal Govt can exercise, to try and reign in the natural growth of government tyranny.

Sadly, our government today does far too many things than it is supposed to do.

 

[Oddball]

Oddball, no, I suppose proportionally few intelligent people disagree with that opinion which was first stated by a U.S. Senator.
Respectfully, Supposn

Oh, a member of the gubmint regaling you with a fable about how you just couldn't survive without gubmint.


Barnum was right...One born every minute.

 

[Supposn]

I bet you're stupid enough to believe them when someone says, "I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help.".

.

I was very favorably impressed by what Greenspan within his book, "Age of Turbulence". "Very favorably impressed" is of course code for "the author agrees with my contentions".
[I'm no better than most others. We generally determine our political positions and then seek support and/or proof that support our positions. Also we generally lie to ourselves and claim that we are making our own OBJECTIVE determination. We ain't all saints and we ain't all that objective].

Allen Greenspan was first appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve board under a conservative administration, and he was reappointed to the chairmanship under both Republican and Democratic presidents. He was and generally remains perceived to be a conservative.

When serving as the board's chairman he wrote, he prior had confidence that the CEOs and CFOs of our nation's greatest financial institutions were extremely knowledgeable, and the best interests of their institutions were their primary concerns. Furthermore, these esteemed executives were not unpatriotic and fully appreciated that as their own best interests and those of their organizations were strongly linked to their nation's economy's best interests.

He testified to congress of perceiving no justification or need for government regulators to diligently regulate the financial industries.
However, after the great recession from which our nation and the remainder of the world's economies have not yet recovered from, Greenspan's opinion has transformed to become aligned with the economic and administrative concepts of those that I concur with.

Greenspan is now of the opinion that we are more likely to believe the concepts that our in our own best interests converge with, (if not completely share) what's in the best interests of our enterprises and our nation. He now believes that ain't necessarily so. He now believes that there is a necessary role for government's enforced regulations and the lack of such checks upon commercial activity is detrimental to our nation's economy.

I suppose some members might describe as an economic law that entrepreneurs are the best judges of their industries' best interests and are by far are superior to governments' ineffective interventions.
I and Allen Greenspan and many others believe that concept, (rather than an economic law, is a wrong concept; we believe the concepts of transparency, reasonable and diligently enforced government regulations to protect our society's interests are superior to pure Laissez faire.

Respectfully, Supposn

OKTexas, on May 14, 2013, after the great credit crunch that upset USA and many other nations' economies had passed, I posted this response within a thread entitled, "Eliminate Minimum Wage". I (and I suppose Alan Greeenspan until he died), have continued to have greater confidence in proper government regulations, rather than depending entirely upon corporate's regulating themselves. We both disagreed with President Reagan. Respectfully, Supposn

I bet you're stupid enough to believe them when someone says, "I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help".

.

 

[Oddball]

OKTexas, on May 14, 2013, after the great credit crunch that upset USA and many other nations' economies had passed, I posted this response within a thread entitled, "Eliminate Minimum Wage". I (and I suppose Alan Greeenspan until he died), have continued to have greater confidence in proper government regulations, rather than depending entirely upon corporate's regulating themselves. We both disagreed with President Reagan. Respectfully, Supposn

You're really silly enough to believe all that happened in the absence of massive regulation, instead far too much, aren't you?

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, on May 14, 2013, after the great credit crunch that upset USA and many other nations' economies had passed, I posted this response within a thread entitled, "Eliminate Minimum Wage". I (and I suppose Alan Greeenspan until he died), have continued to have greater confidence in proper government regulations, rather than depending entirely upon corporate's regulating themselves. We both disagreed with President Reagan. Respectfully, Supposn

So the answer is, yes? LMAO

.