Thu January 17, 2013 4:59 pm
Thu January 17, 2013 5:21 pm
Thu January 17, 2013 5:35 pm
Thu January 17, 2013 6:02 pm
Hm. Well, for the record, here's what I posted back in January 2008 when 4/5 asked a similar question:stip wrote:I don't know that I have a preference. A sort of catch all 'what role should gov't be playing in our lives' direction I guess. If this makes sense elsewhere please move it
That's really simplistic, though, and even back then I'm sure that I had some clear exceptions to that rule. One huge one that I can think of right now is that there must be a supreme law that states very clearly that governments of all stripes cannot pass laws to suppress certain rights. The Constitution does a very good job of that, and I'd be down with adding more to it. The one that could easily get me painted as a pinko lefty is that I could be fine with a clause that states that Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the right of people to collectively bargain.Green Habit wrote:One of my core beliefs is that governments should be as small as possible, because they can focus closer on a smaller group of citizens, and that they're easier to be held accountable for. As such, this is why you see me often advocate for heavy spending cuts on the federal level, but if we talked more about local issues, I may advocate a more active government role.
Thu January 17, 2013 6:05 pm
Freeman directly addressed critics of big government:
As long as we have big problems — climate change, terrorism and terror states with nukes, threats of pandemics, adjusting to China, India catching up with us, etc. — and have big banks that can destroy economies and big companies which can harm us per cigarettes and pollutants — I do not see what shield we have but government. The solutions to these problems are collective ones, which mean government.
What is troubling is that governments are flawed, influenced by special groups, and so on. But, Freeman wrote
I would rather be ruled by an elected government than the top 1000 billionaires on Forbes’ list — so I don’t think the issue is big government but the way government operates and hope that technology and information and media offer some chance for us to get a better handle over what big government does. Also I am not sure what you can shrink that would not open space for other big entities less limited by law and less sensitive to reaction of people.
Thu January 17, 2013 6:46 pm
Environment and defense are legitimate "big government" tasks. The only caveat I'd add is that they don't get a blank check--their extent should be narrowly tailored to address clearly identifiable injuries. I think that's definitely a problem with the US's current defense budget, and I can foresee it getting out of hand with certain environmental agendas.stip wrote:what do you make of this as a response to your general view?
Freeman directly addressed critics of big government:
As long as we have big problems — climate change, terrorism and terror states with nukes, threats of pandemics, adjusting to China, India catching up with us, etc. — and have big banks that can destroy economies and big companies which can harm us per cigarettes and pollutants — I do not see what shield we have but government. The solutions to these problems are collective ones, which mean government.
What is troubling is that governments are flawed, influenced by special groups, and so on. But, Freeman wrote
I would rather be ruled by an elected government than the top 1000 billionaires on Forbes’ list — so I don’t think the issue is big government but the way government operates and hope that technology and information and media offer some chance for us to get a better handle over what big government does. Also I am not sure what you can shrink that would not open space for other big entities less limited by law and less sensitive to reaction of people.
Fri January 18, 2013 2:04 am
Fri January 18, 2013 2:59 pm
Freeman wrote:I would rather be ruled by an elected government than the top 1000 billionaires on Forbes’ list
Fri January 18, 2013 4:27 pm
Fri January 25, 2013 3:50 am
Fri January 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Fri January 25, 2013 6:02 pm
Mon April 08, 2013 2:02 pm
nah wrote:i think mandatory birth control for people on welfare is an absolute must.
Wed May 01, 2013 2:16 am
Wed May 01, 2013 2:32 am
The class issue so cleverly exploited by the president in the election could prove the potential Achilles heel of today’s gentry progressivism. The Obama-Bernanke-Geithner economy has done little to reverse the relative decline of the middle and working class, whose share of national income has fallen to record lows. If you don’t work for venture-backed tech firms, coddled, money-for-nearly-free Wall Street or for the government, your income and standard of living has probably declined since the middle of the last decade.
In the current debate over financing the cost of income support forolder Americans, the chained C.P.I. proposal has more political support than the progressive alternative of raising the current $113,700 cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax. Low-income Social Security beneficiaries are not equipped to absorb cuts in benefits that a switch to a chained consumer price index would entail; on the other hand, according to the centrist Tax Policy Center, raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax could completely cover Social Security costs into the foreseeable future without reducing benefits.
Wed May 01, 2013 4:04 am
Wed May 01, 2013 10:36 am
please note that failure to reverse is different than made things worse.simple schoolboy wrote:Please note the 'failure to reverse', as in while he may not be responsible for the initial event, his policies are largely indistinguishable from his predecessors on many fronts, and therefore have probably exacerbated things.
Wed May 01, 2013 11:19 am
elliseamos wrote:please note that failure to reverse is different than made things worse.simple schoolboy wrote:Please note the 'failure to reverse', as in while he may not be responsible for the initial event, his policies are largely indistinguishable from his predecessors on many fronts, and therefore have probably exacerbated things.
i don't want to defend Obama, but i find it an incredibly useless exercise to say that a president and his cabinet are the only one's with the power to reverse a near depression. not to mention, we're recovering from it still and numerous politicians, mainly those on the oppose side of things from this president (clue: not liberals and their liberal liberalism) are holding back the policies that may have (and still could) help us recover quicker.
Wed May 01, 2013 8:09 pm
um, "It stands to reason that lawmakers who often decry the high jobless rate would want to be seen publicly trying to tackle the problem, right? Well, apparently not." nationaljournal.comsimple schoolboy wrote:I'm not sure what exactly the Republicans are holding back. Stimulus that we can't afford?
Wed May 01, 2013 8:11 pm
how are these two statements not contradictory?simple schoolboy wrote:Stimulus that we can't afford? Better immigration policy perhaps, but thats more of a long term impact.