My perspective points to the "Government" as a mirror of Society. And since Society continually shifts, therefore Government continually shifts. Ultimately, us, it and it's laws are accountable to the Supreme Court. (ie play within the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments)"Society and the people are definitely changing in the USA. (ie heading towards 300 yrs) Probably in some good and bad ways... As they/we change, so does our government. It is selected by us in society, so we have no one to point at but ourselves." by G2A/John
Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendments (Text)
Amendments (Summary)
"... Government has grown beyond our control, and spent beyond the limitations WE imposed on them in the Constitution." by J EwingMy interpretation of J's comment is that "Government" has become a unique independent entity that is no longer controlled by the people. It now controls the country and citizens, and does as it wishes. (J, Please correct as appropriate)
Personally I think this is a huge cop out... It conveniently removes the blame for our problems from the American people and transfers it to a shapeless scary monster !!! (ironically: one we created)
I mean, go ahead and say that American's are becoming self centered, soft, lazy, greedy, non-religious/amoral, uneducated (relative to best countries), egotistical, power hungry, unfocused, entitled, etc, etc, etc. But don't blame our problems on the bogeyman !!! (ie "Government")
Government is a symptom... You can never truly fix a problem until you find root cause. We as a whole are the root cause. Now how do "WE" change in order to change our "Government"? That is the question. Or do we want to keep sliding into debt, dependence and poor academic achievement? I personally think we are better than that, however only time will tell.
Apparently multiple people said something similar to this, and it seems to hold true. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Walt Kelly
Thoughts?
And stop pointing to that "OTHER PARTY", we all have dirt on our hands. Look hard in that mirror and ask, "How am I contributing to the Problem?" and "Am I willing to change." See Below...
This is an inscription on the tomb of an Anglican Bishop in Westminster Abbey:“When I was young and free and my imagination had no limits, I dreamed of changing the world.
As I grew older and wiser I discovered the world would not change –
So I shortened my sights somewhat and decided to change only my country, but it too seemed immovable.
As I grew into my twilight years, in one last desperate attempt, I settled for changing only my family, those closest to me, but alas, they would have none of it.
And now I realize as I lie on my deathbed, if I had only changed myself first, then by example I might have changed my family. From their inspiration and encouragement I would then have been able to better my country,
And who knows, I might have even changed the world.”
17 comments:
Government isn't a reflection of society it is a part of our society. It if it is out of control, it's because we don't control our society and ourselves. The fastest growing portion of government expenditures is health care, and that's the result of the fact that we are aging, something indisputably over which we have no control. The other thing the government does that matters in budget terms is schools. We have added 15,000 new kids to Minnesota schools, something totally out of the control of the schools or the state generally.
Government is out of control, and I know it that sounds bad. But in terms of the two big challenges we face, aging and education, do we really want to put government in control? Do we, for example, want to cap the number of children we want to educate? Defy our legal obligations to provide special education services? Where our aging population is concerned, is there consensus out there capping what we spend on care, possibly by use of death panels, or if conservatives find them too objectionable, ration services, or perhaps distributing them on the basis of a lottery?
If you are in favor of government taking charge, being in control of our lives, please feel free to contact your legislator and tell that legislator so.
I believe that government has taken from us the control of our lives that we ought by rights to have, by promising easy solutions to our "problems"-- i.e. making decisions for us that we ought to, by unfortunate fate but fortunate freedom, make for ourselves.
They continue this because they have lulled us into this somnambulant state in which we don't critically analyze the work of our "representatives." For example, we imagine that government must spend twice as much per student if we have more students, or that we don't have to save for our own old age because a government Ponzi scheme will sustain us.
Yes, "we" have the power to change government, for a little while longer at least, and even one person can have an effect. You would be surprised at how much one letter can affect a Congressman of the right political party (I've found those of the Other Party to be remarkably mule-headed). By all means get more involved and try to get your fellow citizens to re-engage in their own governance and to quit looking to "let George [Washington] do it." Does anybody remember that the purpose of public education was to produce productive citizens capable of participating in their own governance? Does the education system get an F?
J. Ewing
Wouldn't be nice if government actually was able to turn control of my life over to me? Rescind that statute that requires that I grow older?
I am going to write an email to my legislator as soon as the football games are over.
Many years ago, after students and too-old-to-be-students took to the streets in protest, I wondered and still do, whatever happened to "I'm going to write a letter to my Congressman"?
J. Ewing
According to the links below, some pretty huge changes have taken place since about 1930... It looks like our society decided to care for it's less fortunate, unlucky and incompetent, and it looks like we decided to put military bases pretty much anywhere they would let us. Besides the multiple conflicts/wars we have paid for in the name of self defense and spreading the American ideology. And we decided that every child needs to be educated.
Now I understand WWII, that expense was pretty much forced upon us. Other than that, most of these choices have been ours to make. And many have incurred some huge long lasting expenses.
Education
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Military Bases Abroad
Prior to the education and social choices, the number of people aging or going to school did not matter too much. Prior to us choosing to be the World's Teacher and Cop, some dictator's expansion plans would not have mattered too much.
With this in mind, where do we go from here? Back to the 1940's where many people only made it to the 8th grade. And some got almost no education at all.
Do we let the poor, unlucky and incompetent suffer or die if they can not afford food or healthcare? It may motivate them to live differently...
Do we shutter most of those foreign bases, retrain the soldiers and focus on the security of our borders? Let those foreigners fight their own battles?
I am not sure what motivated our Society/Government to change so drastically over the past 80 yrs. I assume it had a lot to do with our citizens moving from a rural subsistence life style to one where we are all dependent on our jobs/incomes for food. And the rapid technology advances and medicines. Or the huge population growth and outsourcing of jobs...
Pre-1930 and the Great Depression, maybe most people could make it through hard times better? Or the communities were smaller and tighter knit?
Thoughts?
Did the "Govt" or the "People" ask for these changes?
In hindsight, do the changes make sense?
If not, how do we undo these prior choices?
Here is the Education History link.
"Do we let the poor, unlucky and incompetent suffer or die if they can not afford food or healthcare? It may motivate them to live differently..."
To quote that great philosopher Tevye, the milk man, God loves poor people, that's why He made so many of them. Is rationing food and health care based on luck the direction we want to go? And let's not fool ourselves that being poor in relative terms is the result of incompetence, or bad or incompetent choices. I think of the case of someone who has been in the news lately, a guy who went to the Naval Academy, served his country honorably and well, then went out and got a job with an airline, where he became a union activist. What did he do wrong? Yet the airline went broke, he lost both his job and the pension he worked hard to earn. He was unemployed, without health insurance, and facing a very bleak economic future. Fortunately, the story ends happily, he found a high paying job, with a great pension plan, but as it happens, it was with the federal government. But what about the rest of us?
In the words of that great political philosopher Archie Bunker, "Franklin Deelano Roosvelt nearly ruint this country!"
Up until the 30s, the private charities endowed by men of great wealth did a pretty fair job of looking after the "less fortunate." After government created the Great Depression, it then stepped in to "solve" it with great nanny-state programs (aka Ponzi schemes) like Social Security. The "Great Society" of LBJ almost finished the job. These were not things demanded by the citizens or voters of the country, but "initiatives" by government leaders who thought they knew better than everybody else. The beauty of the free market is that everybody gets a vote, on every decision. The ignominy of government intervention is that one person gets to make the choice for everybody, and that one person is always wrong.
J. Ewing
I think the problem lies in your assumption that we "ration" food and health care (and everything else) in a free market system, when in fact it is government-run systems that ration. When the pie is sliced up in a free market, and there's not enough, we bake more. What we should NOT do is to demand that the baker give the pie away, or sell it for less than cost, as government would demand. Recent price controls should have taught us that by now. Medicare and Medicaid suffer from that exact same problem, and they're failing miserably. Obamacare is worse.
J. Ewing
"Up until the 30s, the private charities endowed by men of great wealth did a pretty fair job of looking after the "less fortunate."
I do long for the time prior to the administration of the vile Roosevelt when any American too poor to afford it, could send their bills for their cat scans, their MRI's, their chemotherapy, to John D. Rockefeller, secure in the knowledge that the ancient monopolist would pay them.
What can we do to bring those good ol' days back again and possibly bring John D. back from the dead?
John D. is beyond even modern medicine, and ultra-modern Obamacare would put him before a death panel to see if we couldn't get him to die sooner. As for the rest of the problem, all we have to do is to trim back government to the scope and size it was in Rockerfeller's day, and let the free market take its course. Easier said than done, of course, but it's no more imaginary than is the success of modern government welfare programs.
I'll repeat: Any time government takes from one citizen to give to another, no matter how "worthy," it is theft, pure and simple. It denies the "giver" the freedom and rewards of true charity, and the recipient of the obligations of gratitude and renewed responsibility.
J. Ewing
John D. knew there was big money in providing expensive health care for free. He learned that by giving away his oil.
Free markets are truly miraculous.
I'll tell a brief related story.
During one of the many United Way fund drives I've sat through or participated in. (Note: I like and give to the United Way) A single mother co-worker started telling me that she did not think much of the organizations that were being funded by the United Way.
Apparently her only son had a hearing disability, and she being pretty low income appealed to several of the charitable organizations. Each was able to provide little or no assistance for one reason or another.
Then the child went to the Kindergarten screening. The issue was then identified and dealt with via funding from the citizens via the State of MN Healthcare system.
In this case, she was very thankful for the State services. And not to grateful for our local charities.
I am not convinced regarding the following, especially regarding the "Giver". "It denies the "giver" the freedom and rewards of true charity, and the recipient of the obligations of gratitude and renewed responsibility."
I think the "Giver" is free to choose their attitude. If they focus on the problems with the system, they will not feel the rewards. If they focus on the success stories, they will feel the rewards.
It is all within their control, just like our everyday unhappiness or happiness is... Their are a lot of wealthy people who are not happy, and many poor folk who are happy everyday. It is just a matter of making a choice.
"Then the child went to the Kindergarten screening. The issue was then identified and dealt with via funding from the citizens via the State of MN Healthcare system."
Maybe I should note that I favor the outcome here and it has nothing to do with charity. I benefit when the problems of children are identified and addressed in a very direct way since it is this child and other like him who I fully expect to support me in my fast approaching dotage.
I think charity is great, it does a lot and I would like it to do more. If charities in the United States are willing to step up and provide a plan for universal health care in this country to be offered in place of Obamacare, I would be very willing to consider it. But no such plans have been forthcoming because such plans are quite understandably beyond their capabilities. The same goes for the mysterious market. If the market stepped forward and offered a plan through which all Americans could receive affordable health care, I would be all in favor of it. But markets do not exist to provide goods and services to those who cannot pay market prices. The market's invariable response in such instances is to deny access to such goods and services. If you don't believe me, I propose a practical experiment. Next time you go to a grocery store, pick up a box of Wheaties, go to the check out line, and say to the person there, "I want to take this home with me, but I don't want to pay for it." Tell us what happens.
The reason the "giver" and the "receiver" are both robbed by "the system" is because the system clouds what true charity IS-- a personal transaction between someone with means and compassion and someone with needs and a capacity for gratitude. The "system," especially if it is a government bureaucracy running on tax dollars and a huge book of hidebound rules, completely masks the personal touch in both directions.
I stopped giving to UW many years ago, despite company pressure to be "100% givers." Instead, I have given to my own choice of small charities and contributed my time directly to their work. It's far more rewarding to me and I know it works for those who receive it. I don't need to hear gratitude because I can see it happening. Imagine how much more good I could do if I didn't have to pay 28% of my income in taxes!
J. Ewing
I personally truly appreciate that you donate your time and money. You provide an excellent example.
My concern is that I believe you are in the minority. I think most people would take that tax reduction and spend it on their favorite charity. (ie themselves) The siren call of that nicer car, nicer house, nicer vacation, nicer TV, etc would be too much for them to resist.
My advice: find some Government funded program/charity that you truly respect, and imagine that it is the one your tax dollars are funding. And focus on the feeling of reward that can come with this.
Life is way too short to feel victimized/robbed for your remaining years. Work for improvement while appreciating the current positives.
Perspective Quotes
"My advice: find some Government funded program/charity that you truly respect, and imagine that it is the one your tax dollars are funding."
Thank you, but no. I will spend my energy trying to get government out of the charity business. They shouldn't be doing it at all, it's immoral and stupid and they're terrible at it. The single biggest contributor to poverty is the welfare state, IMO.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment