Monday, November 5, 2012

Good Government, Bad Government

If you hate the government you'll probably suck at running it.


MRMacrum said...

On the other side of it though- If you hate government you will probably excel at running it into the ground.

T. Paine said...

And if you love the government, you will probably expand it far beyond its intended purpose and constitutional restrictions!

Snave said...

Heh! T. Paine, by your statement are you insinuating that government is an inherently bad thing? Maybe not quite, but close? 8-)

I don't love government. But I like government. And I like the idea of a government that has as part of its purpose serving and protecting all Americans, not just the half of us that subscribe to particular political or religious ideologies. I think it all comes down to the matter of the scope of government. How much government is too much? How much is not enough? I happen to think what we have now is about right, which is why I say I like government.

Electing the guy you are supporting is far more likely to lead to what MRMacrum describes than if we stick with the status quo.

Sure, Obama likes government and has his specific ideas about how to apply it. I agree with much of that, and it's one of the reasons I support him.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney probably has a deep LOVE for government, because he has apparently wanted to be the leader of the free world for much of his adult life... and I don't think you can really do that effectively unless you love government. (I think he just wants to be king and have lots of toys to play with, but that's just my opinion.) 8-)

One thing is, enough people have realized in the last four years how government can be applied in ways that are not necessarily always bad, and more people are learning to appreciate this.

However it goes, I can safely predict that either you or I will be stewing in our personal political bile for the next four years. I am guessing you probably subscribe to FOX, Gingrich, etc. but according to Nate Silver, the ones doing the stewing will be the GOP. I'll go with Nate and with other poll aggregators, who give Obama the very high likelihood of winning it.

In 2004 we were banking on people's disgust with Bush being our key to an easy win, and we all know what happened. In 2012, you are banking on people's disgust for Obama being your key to an easy win, and it looks like the same sort of thing could happen to you.

We commplained about how it would be the end of America if Bush got a second term, and America survived eight years of him. In all likelihood, our country will survive four more years of Obama (and possibly more easily than we survived the Bush years). It just won't be much fun for conservatives.

T. Paine said...

Snave, yes I am flat out saying government is a bad thing. Unfortunately it is a necessary evil. It is required to do ONLY those things which private citizens and businesses cannot do.

Government has no motivation to be cost effective or efficient, so it should always be the last resort to solving problems, and then only if they are constitutionally allowed to do so, sir.

And if Obama does somehow managed to get reelected, I suspect it will continue to not be much fun for the 47 million (and growing) number of people on food stamps. It won't be much fun for the 23 million looking for work. It won't be fun for us who have seen gas and health care costs double directly due to Obama's policies.

No, our economy cannot survive four more years and another $5 trillion in additional debt. The dollar will go the way of the Soviet Ruble if that comes to pass, my friend.

free0352 said...

I'm not insinuating government is an inherently bad thing, I'm openly declaring it - and I worked there for 12 years.

Government is a necessary evil. Anarchy would be nice, but doesn't protect the rights of the individual. But I'd much rather take my chances with anarchy than a socialist alternative. That is because while I don't really trust government, I do trust myself to take care of myself.

I'd like a happy medium, but 50% of the political establishment in this country never saw a program they didn't want to grow, never saw an industry they didn't want to regulate to death, and never met a person whose life they didn't want to run.

S.W. Anderson said...

"If you hate the government you'll probably suck at running it."

Oh, heavens no. Everyone knows that if you want to run a crackerjack airline, you've got to hire pilots who absolutely hate flying. They always do the best job. Be sure your ticket agents and flight attendants detest the flying public and loathe every minute they have to work with strangers. Throw in a few mechanics who'd rather be doing anything than maintaining and repairing engines, landing gear and other crap like that, and you've got yourself an unbeatable team. United, Jet Blue, stand back and let the real pro's show you how it should be done — a can't-lose formula for success in the airline biz!

S.W. Anderson said...

"Government has no motivation to be cost effective or efficient . . ."

Right. Nothing ensures recognition and promotions for government managers and supervisors like performance reports noting their complete disregard for cost-effectiveness and efficiency. And, nothing delights appointees — Cabinet secretaries, assistant secretaries, etc. — like being in the hot seat at congressional hearings, having to explain their department or agency's terrible inefficiency and complete lack of cost effectiveness. After all, those appointees are all masochists and just love being criticized, mauled, pummeled and made to look like complete idiots in front of the honorables and all those watching C-SPAN.

Paine, if, against seemingly insurmountable odds, a clue manages to run the incredible obstacle course that is your mind, so that you're in danger of even once making sense about things such as this, please try to not to repel that clue as if it was a hornet trying to sting you. Remember, Lady Luck might never strike again.

S.W. Anderson said...

free0352 wrote, "I'd much rather take my chances with anarchy than a socialist alternative."

free, anarchic states don't enjoy much popularity, so they're hard to find. I'm not sure Somalia even qualifies, since strongmen and gangs enforce a crude sort of order. But if we could find you one, would you promise to go?

OTOH, well-publicized polling from a couple of years ago showed Danes are the happiest citizens of any country on the planet. Denmark is a model of Western European democratic socialism that works to the satisfaction of the country's people. Countries that lean heavily toward socialism aren't at all hard to find — unlike anarchic lands and those organized along the neurotic, selfish notions of Ayn Rand and her ilk.

But again, if we can come up with something for you, will you go?

free0352 said...

I'm not sure Somalia even qualifies,

You can be sure it does not. Somalia isn't run by random gangs, but by the Sharia Courts... Muslim extreamists who dictate every aspect of life. Pretty much the opposite of anarchy.

That said, I'm not suggesting Anarchy is a good thing, simply I must endure a terrible government I'd rather endure that one as opposed to the socialist one - which is equally terrible.

T. Paine said...

THERE's the old tolerant and jovially Anderson back again! I wondered where my friend who is the bastion of cherry-picked and incorrect-assertions-masquerading as-facts went! Glad to have you back in your old form again. Perhaps a Kolonopin would help relieve your agitation, my friend.

Snave said...

SW probably won't be one who needs chill pills after this one.

As for Obama and all the people who are looking for work... will there suddenly be millions of jobs available if Obama loses? If so, why? Are prospective employers holding back on hiring? I find it to be very curious. 8-)

Snave said...

T.Paine, I think I see why you are so passionate about Romney, and it is because you basically being told that the world will more-or-less come to an end if Obama is re-elected. Do you believe he is the anti-Christ?