The Role Of Government

I’ve been thinking recently about the role of government in our lives today, and about how each candidate would affect that. While browsing a MSM news site I saw a poll asking whether or not people thought the media should back off of asking personal questions of Sarah Palin. This is nothing spectacular in itself but I got quite a shock while browsing some of the comments.

As I was sifting through the comments of the people who answered the question no, I found this particular gem.

I would want a better then average person to remove my tonsils, why wouldn't I want a better then average person in charge of my life??

So what stands out about this comment you might ask? Allow me to highlight the point of interest for you.

in charge of my life??

Is this what the average person believes the role of government to be? Does anyone honestly feel that the President or Vice President is in charge of their lives? Furthermore, why would they think that way?

Personally I believe this is the way we have begun to be conditioned by some in Washington. There are those out there who want us to feel dependent on government to provide for us and take care of us.

In reality though, we are in charge of our own lives, and nothing any politician can do will change that.

reply to post by nyk537


Social Security and Medicare are the programs that the government should offer on a federal level. All the other programs should be taken care of by the states. The states know where the problems are and who would need the most help. I do believe people should take care of themselves, but people pay into social security and medicare. They should expect some sort of programs when they retire and/or need them.

Edited to change

[edit on 9/4/2008 by kidflash2008]

reply to post by nyk537


Interesting question... I've been a few days mulling over my answer...

To answer your explicit question, does the President or VP have much influence on my daily life... no.

I agree with you about the desire of some in the power structure to have a citizenry that is dependent on the government for many things. Sadly, I think they (whoever 'they' are... probably nobody anybody has ever heard of... ) are far closer to that goal than is healthy for our country.

But I'm more interested in the question implied by your title and opening remarks...

the role of government in our lives today

It seems clear to me that what passes for government today, and for an arguable but lengthy period of time, is dysfunctional.

What I have at the moment, boiled down to as concise wording as I can manage is, I think the role of government *should* be:

1 - Enforce the Constitution. Seems clear.

2 - Manage activities that are most effectively managed on a large scale, such as for instance interstate highways, national defense, etc.

Of course, as we see all around us today, the devil is in the details. But these are the basic concepts.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

It seems clear to me that what passes for government today, and for an arguable but lengthy period of time, is dysfunctional.

What I have at the moment, boiled down to as concise wording as I can manage is, I think the role of government *should* be:

1 - Enforce the Constitution. Seems clear.

2 - Manage activities that are most effectively managed on a large scale, such as for instance interstate highways, national defense, etc.

Of course, as we see all around us today, the devil is in the details. But these are the basic concepts.

I am in total agreement. These types of tasks are what the role of government should be. Not ensuring you have shoes on your feet or food in your belly. Not making sure you have enough money to retire (as if social security would ensure that anyway:@@. Not making sure you have a vehicle to evacuate when a hurricaine comes.

Responsibility has become a sliding scale - sliding from personal to government (see diagram ).

PersonalI------------------[ @ ]----IGovernment

I am not a ninny. I do not need government to take care of me or solve my problems, and it angers me that I am forced to tolerate government intrusion into my life via useless laws and tax extortion because some people want to behave as children until they are dead.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by sc2099]

[edit on 9/4/2008 by sc2099]

reply to post by sc2099


I think we are in fundamental agreement, and I like your slide gadget!

Where I think things get confused is where it's not a binary either/or situation... I know I have trouble with those...

I'll use one of your examples if I may: that the gov't is not responsible for putting food in your belly.

Clearly, you don't need this, and I sure don't, but I have personally known people who really honestly could not fend for themselves (brain damage - another story).

Do you believe the government should take the position of ensuring such people do not starve, and for that matter have a roof over their heads?

The initial answer might be No, the person's family should help, or voluntary charity, not gov't, i.e. taxes.

And I agree.

But I also believe a government should guarantee it, on the off chance that family/voluntary charity is not adequate.

And here lies what I believe is a fundamental contributor to the problem:

Corruption, not to put too fine a point on it, although probably not always in the legal sense.

When these programs exist, some people tend to gravitate to them when they don't really need to, for instance the family of our example above says "Well, we'll pretend we are poor so the gov't will do it for us."

And on the other side, institutions such as hospitals sometimes tend to encourage people to use these government programs so they (the hospital) get their money sooner. I have seen this personally.

Then you add in the government bureaucracy that grows up around it all, and whose purpose quickly seems to become that of maintaning itself, and you've got the mess we have today.

And that tendancy of people to take the easy way out is, I believe, the real problem... the problem is not that the government wants to make sure some poor schmuck won't starve, but the result of repeated greed on the part of both sides of such programs...

Didn't mean to babble on quite so long... sorry...

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


OMSkeptic you make a wonderful point. I am in complete agreement with you that it is our responsibility as civilized people to provide for our countrymen who cannot provide for themselves, such as the disabled, the elderly, and children. It is the only right thing to do to make sure people who can't work or have no family can still live with dignity.

However, the only people who should be recipients of such programs are people who are actually unable to provide for themselves, and no one else should get one thin dime.

I have no problem whatsoever helping someone live a decent life who can't take care of themselves through no fault of their own. But anyone who is able-bodied and of sound mind ought to have no option but to take care of themselves.

reply to post by sc2099


As someone with a disability, I agree with you 100%. I would much rather be healthy and working. I know the vast majority of people with disabilities agree with me. For those who are completely healthy and living off the system, sometimes I feel they should live one day in my shoes. (I don't want to wish this on anyone.)
You can never predict what will happen in the future. Be thankful you have good health.