Why do Democrats want more government?

ballz2wallz · 01-11-2008, 05:55 PM

It boggles my mind to see Democrats over the past 7 yrs of the Bush administration complain over and over again about government involvement in our lives, privacy, less government 'control', etc. and yet turn around and want to vote for candidates who want nothing more than government programs like universal healthcare.

National security IS a part of our lives where government is needed. Controlling how we live is not.

thewise1 · 01-11-2008, 06:04 PM

Democrats and Republicans are both puzzle pieces that fit together to become a whole, single, government machine.

The individual puzzle pieces may consume different resources and infringe on different rights, but together they manage to consume everything and waste most of it.

ballz2wallz · 01-11-2008, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Democrats and Republicans are both puzzle pieces that fit together to become a whole, single, government machine.

The individual puzzle pieces may consume different resources and infringe on different rights, but together they manage to consume everything and waste most of it.

So what's the solution?

thewise1 · 01-11-2008, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So what's the solution?

Sharia law, of course. Allah is never wasteful and always forgiving. Oh, and my wife will gladly make dinner or else!

RMNIXON · 01-11-2008, 06:19 PM

I don't do long posts. So I won't bother with much detail.

But if you look at the people in government, not the politicians but the bureaucrats, you will notice something. You get a lot of people with questionable ability, intelligence, ambition, and talent who like their job security. So they get their "politicians" to sell the public on the idea that the "Government" brings the same kind of "security" at the expense of somebody else!

bheld · 01-11-2008, 06:58 PM

I don't want more government, just better government.

Here's how it breaks down in terms of private organizations vs. government in healthcare.

FUNDING

What benefit does the consumer see through competition between insurance companies? What reasons does the government have to assume control of funding health care?

The answer to those questions are undoubtedly simple to answer. We don't get any benefit from competition between insurance companies besides more and different ways for them to make a profit from denying us care. The government removes the problem of death by spreadsheet and allows more of our health care dollars to go to health care instead of profit, administrative costs, etc.

SERVICES

What benefit does the consumer see through competition between service providers? What reasons does the government have to assume control of providing health care?

I don't know about you all but I'd rather not be stuck going to a sucky doctor. Here competition is most obviously a necessity. The problem most people have with government involvement in healthcare is that there's no choice in providers.

So there you have it. Government assumes control of funding, not care. That doesn't mean that the government couldn't open up their own facilities, but they would not replace traditional private service providers.

motivez · 01-11-2008, 07:05 PM

I think 'better government' is the answer.

I don't think the government should be legislating morality, violating our civil liberties, etc.. but I also think that in today's society we need a bigger government than what was realistic back before the invention of the automobile.

There's obviously a lot of waste, and I think it's important that we reduce it wherever possible. Judging by the incompetence of the Bush administration over the last 8 years, I don't have much faith in the Republican party to do anything about it.. That really only leaves one realistic choice in today's politics, and I'm not against giving the Democrats another shot while the Republican party reforms itself to start caring about being wasteful again instead of just telling people how to live their lives

bheld · 01-11-2008, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So what's the solution?

coalition for democracy

bheld · 01-11-2008, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't do long posts. So I won't bother with much detail.

But if you look at the people in government, not the politicians but the bureaucrats, you will notice something. You get a lot of people with questionable ability, intelligence, ambition, and talent who like their job security. So they get their "politicians" to sell the public on the idea that the "Government" brings the same kind of "security" at the expense of somebody else!

That's a fabrication of the highest degree. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that government employees are more mission-driven than those working in the private sector. Unless you're talking about the people working at the DMV, I hate those bastards.

Let's be honest though. Most of our interaction is with low-level customer service people, who for the most part aren't that great in either the public or private sector.

thewise1 · 01-11-2008, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

That's a fabrication of the highest degree. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that government employees are more mission-driven than those working in the private sector. Unless you're talking about the people working at the DMV, I hate those bastards.

Let's be honest though. Most of our interaction is with low-level customer service people, who for the most part aren't that great in either the public or private sector.

I'd be willing to wager you on that for sure.

I've done the public service thing, and holy shit those people were not mission driven at all

Thorgrim · 01-11-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'd be willing to wager you on that for sure.

I've done the public service thing, and holy shit those people were not mission driven at all

I've just got off the phone with a regular staffer at a congressional office, and when he was supposed to be going home for xmass he was dealing with 600 detailed intra-House messages...per day...and was working 16 hour days, up from his usual 12 hour days

The only kind of people working those kind of hours on a regular basis, that I am aware of, are new corporate lawyers or resident doctors, which professions in general are less than 1% of America, let alone the subcategories I just outlined

It goes across the board, public defenders, usually considered the most inept of public servants, everyone I've met and talked to was usually in their office from 6am until 10pm going over appeals and strategy, not to mention they only had 1 day weekend because saturday is the day public defenders go visit the county prison

Yet I constantly hear my friends who majored in business whine that they had to be at work at 7am instead of 9am, and had to work all the way until 5pm! After the usual 9-5, they thunp their chest like they've put in real hours and worked a full day

thewise1 · 01-11-2008, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I've just got off the phone with a regular staffer at a congressional office, and when he was supposed to be going home for xmass he was dealing with 600 detailed intra-House messages...per day...and was working 16 hour days, up from his usual 12 hour days

The only kind of people working those kind of hours on a regular basis, that I am aware of, are new corporate lawyers or resident doctors, which professions in general are less than 1% of America, let alone the subcategories I just outlined

It goes across the board, public defenders, usually considered the most inept of public servants, everyone I've met and talked to was usually in their office from 6am until 10pm going over appeals and strategy, not to mention they only had 1 day weekend because saturday is the day public defenders go visit the county prison

Yet I constantly hear my friends who majored in business whine that they had to be at work at 7am instead of 9am, and had to work all the way until 5pm! After the usual 9-5, they thunp their chest like they've put in real hours and worked a full day

Neat. But since when is a congressional staffer is a bureaucrat?

Thorgrim · 01-11-2008, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Neat. But since when is a congressional staffer is a bureaucrat?

Since when is Congress not related to a bureacracy?

Also, more importantly, he said "public servant" and I listed public servants

Donkey® · 01-12-2008, 02:45 AM

Just with any job, there are people doing it for their own good...and people doing it for the good of others. Some Dr's are Dr's in order to help people. Others are in it to earn large dollars.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I think 'better government' is the answer.

I don't think the government should be legislating morality, violating our civil liberties, etc.. but I also think that in today's society we need a bigger government than what was realistic back before the invention of the automobile.

There's obviously a lot of waste, and I think it's important that we reduce it wherever possible. Judging by the incompetence of the Bush administration over the last 8 years, I don't have much faith in the Republican party to do anything about it.. That really only leaves one realistic choice in today's politics, and I'm not against giving the Democrats another shot while the Republican party reforms itself to start caring about being wasteful again instead of just telling people how to live their lives

So basically you're saying you're all for bigger government telling you how to live or what's best for you as long as they're not moral issues?

bheld · 01-12-2008, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So basically you're saying you're all for bigger government telling you how to live or what's best for you as long as they're not moral issues?

Only somebody pushing an agenda would call providing services everybody needs "government telling you how to live."

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

Only somebody pushing an agenda would call providing services everybody needs "government telling you how to live."

Simply providing services is a lot different than 1) forcing you to pay for services you don't use or 2) forcing you use those services

Private companies already provide those services to those that want them. What do we need the government for?

bheld · 01-12-2008, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Simply providing services is a lot different than 1) forcing you to pay for services you don't use or 2) forcing you use those services

Private companies already provide those services to those that want them. What do we need the government for?

I already broke down one example above. Just because private companies provide services the government can offer doesn't mean that they're serving the public better.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

I already broke down one example above. Just because private companies provide services the government can offer doesn't mean that they're serving the public better.

And you trust the government to serve the public better?

bheld · 01-12-2008, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And you trust the government to serve the public better?

Well they're actually accountable to the public, so yes. You'd rather trust private corporations to put the interests of the public ahead of making a buck?

Government isn't the bogeyman, it's people running the government that don't believe in it that we have to look out for.