Government's basic Role -longish

[ina/puusty]

The reason its failing to entertain some..deals with how far..some of us diverge..from the accepted line of belief..I'm guessing. Remember that 80 ish percent..are following a more conservative view/views..where as those of us who are always biting at any leash..are about 14 to 15 %..and thats..society..in the main. Also..I see that the almost 90 degrees in my apt. is meaning that I have more typos..than usual..sigh..for That..I apoligize. And do I get bored with hearing the same views..no way Jose! The reason? It is because..like sending sound waves into the ground..then 'reading' the reflections back..each day, each week..the word choices, the 'tone' as percieved by me..and each other person ..'out there' in NN land..adds to the picture of people..and how they came to be..what they are today. We are each..myself included..a veritable xray..of all that filtered into..our 'persona'. It is..as the saying goes..'All good'. ina n HB n Kesa

 

[Bluedog]

The reason its failing to entertain some..deals with how far..some of us diverge..from the accepted line of belief..I'm guessing.

Just responding to Ina's post, but I've seen or heard this sort of assumption before. Couldn't be farther from the truth, in my case at least, Ina. Don't give a flying fig how far anyone's views on anything diverge from my own. For me all views are an accepted line of belief...they are all valid based on individual experience. The entertainment value for me is in opposing views, how far they diverge, and lively debate, but not when it brings out the worst in human nature. It's not the predictable opposing political or social views that become boring. The boredom and lack of entertainment comes in the predictable reactionary judgements and assumptions based on one's political leanings or beliefs, and most of all, the baiting that goes along with it. If someone is trying to get a message heard, or get people to think, then purposely pulling the strings of the opposition to get the same ugly reactions over and over again is counter-productive, don't you think? If you keep beating that same message drum you like hearing, Ina, people, by human nature, stop listening... because they stop being entertained. Turn every debate into a social study in human nature or a teaching opportunity, will find most with very short attention spans and short fuses.

So how many are now yawning and would have rather watched paint dry? :clown:

Night Ina...love ya...:hugs:

 

[ardeagold]

Hear hear Nancy!

Lively debate is never boring. Lectures are. Who listens to lectures...unless there's a test in the morning? :lol:

People "enter" a specific thread, and post, because they're interested in the subject matter of the topic at hand.

My opinion is that people tune out when a subject that doesn't interest them enters into play (the mighty thread killer!!!). Agreement (or not) doesn't factor in. The change in subject becomes "uninteresting or uninspiring". That's human nature. If the topic stayed "on topic" ... it would have a better chance at longer survival.

For example...a thread killer, for me, would be if the topic suddenly turned to something like the history of NASCAR and how it impacts our society (with attendant links that I'm told I should read to educate myself). I'd rather watch paint dry than read about, discuss or watch NASCAR, from any perspective.

It doesn't mean that I've lost interest in the OP, it means that I'm not at all interested in the "divergent" direction the topic has taken.

Some people might feel that discussing NASCAR and how it's impacted society is a perfectly acceptable, and interesting "line of belief" - but it just isn't my cup of tea.

Does that mean that I don't find it "comfortable" because those who love NASCAR disagree with my opinion of the sport (and I theirs)? No. I just means I find it less than titillating, and something I have no intention of getting involved in. It's boring to me. Plain and simple. (Math bores me too, btw)

Granted this might be what some feel to be a ridiculous comparison...but, honestly, to me......it's not at all dissimilar to what I feel has happened to the OP.

 

[ina/puusty]

Bless you ..good people..I rest moi case. .. ina n HB n Kesa

 

[Bluedog]

:coffeepaper:

...and Donna, although I responded to Ina in my last post, I was refering to baiting, reactionary judgements, assumptions, and beating the same message drum on both sides of the political debate aisle, not just one.

 

[ardeagold]

I know Nancy...I got it. :nod:

I was also responding to Ina's post (regarding the aspect that interested me)...yet agree with yours fully.

Ina...I was attempting to point out that the "accepted line of belief" often isn't in play any longer because the replies have gone so far "off topic" that there's no relevance to the OP....thereby losing those who, initially, had some thoughts on the matter.

 

[ina/puusty]

Good points and by all means..there IS the weekend..and actual related to the original topic..should-ought..(one of moms saying) be able to take center stage. My comments from left field etc. were in resp. to certain 'fragments'..that I found uniquely 'curious'..so I'll jus watch..and not muddy the pool for you all. ina n HB n Kesa

 

[Windancer]

What was the topic now ?? Oh yea....I just want the government to run the military, that is protect us...and with a few exceptions pretty much let us live our lives free of their constraint. I don't want to be limited or told what to do by the government. Especially the federal government....The States should have certain other duties.

 

[KodysGrandma]

Originally I was HOPING that people would think about why they wanted a particular direction from their government (on all levels). What was the philosophical/religious/moral etc. reason for their view. Tried to explain why I was for very limited government, especially on the federal level. I used to believe that 90+% of discussion in this country / Western world were really about means, not goals. Not so sure that is true any more which was why I raised the question. Oh well, maybe we all are so busy, it's too hard to really think about.

 

[Windancer]

Does anyone even care??? Probably not.......too bad...

 

[Kobutsu]

Any room in here for a radical progressive Buddhist priest?

 

[ardeagold]

Of course not! (Yes...of course there is!) The more the merrier...

 

[Kobutsu]

As I see it right now, the primary role of the government is to maintain the status quo i.e. insure that the rich stay rich. There are many ideological "takes" on the "role" of government, it is not something that can really be definitively defined by any ideology, the role of government is always changing to meet the needs of the time.

We have just watched the government interfere in the economy in a major way to maintain alleged "free market" economics. Had not the Federal Government intervened in the financial industry, we would have seen literally every bank and financial institution collapse into bankruptcy taking down the whole economy like dominos. Are we propping up a "failed ideology" with our tax dollars? I perceive we are, if only for the reason that we lack the collective vision to see beyond greed, profit, competitiveness and the capitalistic creed.

 

[ardeagold]

Had not the Federal Government intervened in the financial industry, we would have seen literally every bank and financial institution collapse into bankruptcy taking down the whole economy like dominos. Are we propping up a "failed ideology" with our tax dollars? I perceive we are, if only for the reason that we lack the collective vision to see beyond greed, profit, competitiveness and the capitalistic creed.

Unfortunately, this is a presumption, with no proof to back it up. I was totally against propping up ANY of them, especially the car manufacturers. As were many who are fiscally to the right of center.

OUR government didn't prop up anyone. China did. And that's not good for us. IF we had the money to infuse into the "broken" system, then perhaps a deal should have been made for the Govt to help. But since we didn't...and still don't...this kind of ridiculous spending has got to stop.

Private industry should remain that. If they fail...they fail. If they succeed...they deserve every profit they can garner. Government should not be there as a safety net for bad business decisions. Why? Because it's OUR money...not the legislators. Profit is not a bad word. It allows companies to grow, to hire employees, to pay better, and even offer health insurance and other benefits.

I feel they should have been left to fail, and see who or what would have risen from the carnage.

 

[markoc]

OUR government didn't prop up anyone. China did.

Ugh. Just ugh.

 

[Kobutsu]

I prefer the term "astute observation" over "presumption" thank you.

There was an article in the Huffington Post last January by Dean Baker: The Role of Government: Keeping the Wealthy Rich – this piece addresses the issue I raised.

Profit is not a bad word, it is merely a word. Profit in the exchange of goods and services is vital to sustaining community, and insuring the lubrication of the economy. Nevertheless, unreasonable profit at the expense of others is problematic as is all profit derived from oppression, misery and the suffering of others.

"Deserving every profit that can be garnered" runs into problems in situations such as in the Prison Industrial Complex where profit is made from the enslavement of citizenry. (See my essay: The Prison Industrial Complex in America: Investment in Slavery)

Profit cannot be unbridled, it needs social responsibility and social justice to balance it out.

 

[ardeagold]

I prefer the term "astute observation" over "presumption" thank you.

I'm sure you do.

Oh...and the HuffPo...um...that doesn't qualify as "balanced" reading, IMO. I do read it, but I also read "the other side" as well.

Do you not see Government control of every aspect of what used to be "the private sector" as an Investment in Slavery? Every other citizen country who's government is in total control is enslaved...and poor.

Mark...that was erudite and enlightening. Thanks for the input!:wave:

 

[markoc]

Mark...China doesn't own most of the bonds that this country uses to pay it's bills? Ugh is right. And they're getting concerned about the devaluation of our dollar. And the drop in our GDP. If they don't buy any more bonds...or try to cash in...where would that leave us? Oh yea....we have a printing press don't we? Print MORE worthless paper.

We need to go back to the gold standard. Of course we need gold to do that, now don't we?

If it's worthless-they must be the suckers-they keep buying. They could stop buying anytime. The more important question is where would it leave the value of the bonds they hold? The Chinese (and others) buy bonds because they're a good investment-they have more faith in our economy they you do apparently. There is an open market-others do buy bonds-Japan holds nearly as many as China but they're not as scary so no one likes to point that out. The point is if the gov't doesn't offer a stimulus, where will demand come from? Since we know demand equals consumption (down sharply) + investment (down sharply) + govt spending, tell me please how long til investment and consumption return to levels to propel and grow the economy? Can we afford to wait? Unemployment is already 10%. Increasing govt spending is the most efficient avenue to increasing demand-which is the underlying problem in the economy.

The gold standard? You can't be serious. There isn't enough gold on earth to back the money the US alone has issued.

 

[markoc]

Oh...and the HuffPo...um...that doesn't qualify as "balanced" reading, IMO.

Mark...that was erudite and enlightening. Thanks for the input!:wave:

Yes please limit your quotes to the balanced reporting of the Washington Times or Byron York as Donna does.

Donna and only Donna will be the arbiter of what is deemed unbiased.

 

[ardeagold]

Yes please limit your quotes to the balanced reporting of the Washington Times or Byron York as Donna does.

Donna and only Donna will be the arbitator of what is deemed unbiased.

Mark, why must you be so antagonistic? It's a discussion, or a debate .... not a war.

Now back to the thread. I didn't say "biased" I said "balanced, however, if you insist...yes it's biased. As is the Washington Times, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and on and on ... but that's another topic, isn't it? Bias in the media? Could it be? Surely you jest!

And who is Byron York? I'm asking in all seriousness.... Oh never mind. I can use Google too.

Here's why China keeps buying our bonds - and it's not because we're keeping the dollar strong...they are. Right now, they have no choice. Here's a snippet, but the whole article is linked below.

Because of America’s deep current account deficits, Washington has little choice but to keep selling dollar denominated instruments to willing buyers. Beijing has no choice but to buy dollars with its excess foreign reserve in order to keep economic circumstances stable as long as its economy is export-dependent.

Thanks to China, the dollar remains strong for now. But it may decline as China leads the way to economic recovery.

Investment in Chinese companies may be a viable way to hedge against future moves in the dollar as inflation looms over the U.S. debt-driven economy.

http://www.stockmarketsreview.com/news/why_a_strong_dollar_is_good_for_china_economy_20090721/

(Notice this isn't from the HuffPo OR the Washington Times!)

Oh...and guess who they export the MOST to? Could it be the US? Hmmmm....so what happens if we're SO in debt and SO many people are out of work that we aren't buying?

You're right...there isn't enough gold in the world. I was being facetious. And there certainly isn't enough in the US. But we DO have a really nice bunch of printing presses. :alc: