“It’s critical to demonstrate that government can function — can function and deliver prosperity, security and opportunity for the people in this country,” Biden said.
Poll: Do You Agree with Biden on the Role of Government?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
There is no doubt that he is correct. Something I want really badly, and am very happy to see in the works, is a $10 trillion plan to address climate change. If we get even half of this, it could literally save us from a hellish nightmare.
We ARE the government and we ARE helping ourselves, so yes I agree with POTUS Joe.
It is not very fleshed out yet, so who knows how it will turn out. But we need a huge change for CC. I love that this is seriously in the works.
There's a reason that the founders wrote "the pursuit" of happiness.
The knew that the government can't guarantee that as a right.
The knew that the government can't guarantee that as a right.
LMAO.... seriously, I thought you were on the left but now it’s clear you are a Q’anon troll. Nobody actually believes what you portray to. Well played to this point, but you just exposed yourself...... how long before you get arrested for your involvement in January 6th?
This would look great on a bumper sticker. Inspirational
We institute governments to secure our rights, so definitely concur on the security question.
I don't have any expectation the government can provide 'prosperity'. Strikes me as too subjective and the mechanisms of government simply aren't structured to accommodate that.
On the opportunity portion, I'm just not sure what is meant. Some people might say that the government capping Asian STEM majors at 6% (roughly equivalent to their share of our population) would provide more equal 'opportunity' in society. For me, it's more a matter of not wanting to see the government taking measures that preclude individual opportunity (e.g. Jim Crow).
I don't have any expectation the government can provide 'prosperity'. Strikes me as too subjective and the mechanisms of government simply aren't structured to accommodate that.
On the opportunity portion, I'm just not sure what is meant. Some people might say that the government capping Asian STEM majors at 6% (roughly equivalent to their share of our population) would provide more equal 'opportunity' in society. For me, it's more a matter of not wanting to see the government taking measures that preclude individual opportunity (e.g. Jim Crow).
The government is responsible for a lot of society’s ills; surveillance state, prison industrial complex, systematic narrowing of individual freedoms, war on drugs, etc. I’m for less government, unfortunately, both parties are proponents of government expansion—just of different types. The best way the government can bring prosperity, security, and opportunity is to regulate as much as necessary, and then to get out of the way.
I like Jefferson’s definition better. He felt that the entire purpose of government is to protect the preexisting natural rights of individuals. Governments are not founded in order to create new rights and arbitrarily dispense benefits upon preferred groups, but to secure rights that existed before governments were ever created.
There’s a reason Jefferson changed Locke’s “Property” to “the pursuit of happiness”.
Adams on the other hand said, “"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
There’s a reason Jefferson changed Locke’s “Property” to “the pursuit of happiness”.
Adams on the other hand said, “"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
I don't need the government to provide any of those; but it should provide security for the nation(provide for the common defense). Opportunity and prosperity are up to the individuals. Go out and work you ass off and make yourself a valued asset. The right to do that is already written into the Constitution.
Exactly this.
The founders couldn't fathom the greed and lack of humanity that has consumed this country.
Democrats just love to screw with things. They cannot help themselves. They always end up ****ing things up. The Federal Government needs to get out of education. The welfare State has been a disaster for families and has created a massive longer term problem, hordes of young people that have had no family upbringing, no guidance. Obamacare has juiced the cost of healthcare in America, solved nothing, killed off increases in pay. Prior to Obamacare we spent roughly 20% of our GDP on healthcare, today it is closer to 30%. It allows many young people to extend their adolescence and meander through life without having to take a real job because they need healthcare, because hey, mom and dad have me covered. Moving forward, If you think that the Trillions we are spending are going to be paid for by the rich, you are crazy. We will either see inflation, or business owners squeezing their businesses for more profits, more likely a combination of both. Some of the policies that the Democrats are proposing will kill off the greatest strength of the American Economy, its ability to adapt and create new small businesses. Young people who have been indoctrinated by University professors long for a European style of Capitalism. They never tell you that your upward mobility is thwarted, and that young people see incredibly high unemployment rates for decades at a time. For the 15-24 age group, you see unemployment rates in the EU near 20%, in the USA it is closer to 10%. People in Spain, Italy, France and elsewhere live at home into their 30s just trying to save enough money to buy their first home. The higher unemployment rate carries forward as you get older as well. The long term unemployment rate in France for adults 24-74 is 10%, in the USA 3%. That reflects the amount of opportunity there is in the economy. Ability to change jobs, climb upward if dissatisfied. Be careful what you wish for boys and girls.
Last edited:
Both sides tout and celebrate government provided prosperity. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. Trump literally bet his entire presidency on stock market numbers, promises of jobs, and economic growth. Americans vote first and foremost on government lead prosperity.
Life: basic needs
Liberty: freedom, including national (and local) security
Pursuit of happiness: you can pursue whatever course makes most sense for you to be happy.
"Prosperity" is subjective and means something different to everyone. It's not the government's role.
Liberty: freedom, including national (and local) security
Pursuit of happiness: you can pursue whatever course makes most sense for you to be happy.
"Prosperity" is subjective and means something different to everyone. It's not the government's role.
It depends what you mean by 'provide prosperity'.
The government can provide a legal system to secure property rights so that individuals can create prosperity, so in that sense the government of Clinton and Reagan are preferable to the government of Maduro.
Certainly US claims of prosperity are different from other countries, but what cannot be argued against is that everyone runs on prosperity. It's the economy, stupid, jobs, jobs, jobs, economic growth, ect. Everyone from all aisles runs on prosperity.
After the attacks on 9/11, President George W. Bush said
that the government's responsibility is to keep our citizens
safe and secure. He called it priority #1. This led to new
security measures at our nation's airports among other
things. Of course we assume that our nation's national
defense against our enemies is always ready.
that the government's responsibility is to keep our citizens
safe and secure. He called it priority #1. This led to new
security measures at our nation's airports among other
things. Of course we assume that our nation's national
defense against our enemies is always ready.
Mostly disagree. I think the role of the federal government is to protect our freedom, from borders to our Constitutional rights. As long as people are free to make their own decisions, there will never be prosperity for everyone. It's absurd to think a government can make that be otherwise.
This ultimately when it comes down to it everyone runs on prosperity, security and opportunity.
You are looking at prosperity in the micro sense. Biden said Prosperity, security and opportunity. The use of the word opportunity here to me screams that he's talking about prosperity in the macro sense. . . that the country itself is prosperous. The opportunity is in the micro sense that each individual has the opportunity to create prosperity (in the micro sense) for themselves.
Otherwise if everyone is prosperous already, than why would anyone need the opportunity that he mentioned?
I’ll take the other side of that bet.
I’d be more surprised if his successor didn’t add more debt than he signs onto.
You are absolutely correct in how I interpreted what he said. I believe that's what he meant, though I could be wrong. Can you imagine Biden explaining that, and actually saying what you said? That he was saying he wants the US to be prosperous, not necessarily the individual, that they simply have the opportunity?
Why should he have to explain it when he said opportunity which clearly means that the government can not guarantee individual prosperity because if it could, no one would need "opportunity".
I think you read that the way you did because you are so caught up in the "socialist" label that Republicans have been giving Democrats since before FDR.
I'm economically liberal and we can't guarantee individual prosperity. . . but what we can do (but don't) is have a certain minimum standard of opportunity that everyone gets.
No way.
Eisenhower freeway system has been a complete boondoggle.
We should'a stuck with the county roads, dirt and gravel. Would've totally built our modern economy up.
Same with ARAPNET. Should have let private companies figure all that out.
No, it is not the government's role to deliver prosperity and opportunity. Mostly because a government cannot do it.
Biden at his first address to the country stated is top priority was protecting the people, and relating that to his COVID "plan". The federal government's responsibility to protecting the people is primarily limited protecting us from outside, not the inside. I am not his responsibility. Protecting me from you, is not his responsibilty.
So, like NOT disenfranchising voters in minority communities?
Or is leaving minorities out A-OK?
No, my interpretation has nothing to do with labels by Republicans. It's based on a lifetime of experience of Democrats focusing on giving poor people money. The Earned Income Credit was passed when I was in high school (1975). I was brought up with a different standard, even before I understood the differences in political parties. I was a registered Democrat until the early 80's, as were over 80% in the FL Panhandle. It wasn't about party then, it was about individual candidates.
I'm glad you realize there's no guarantee of individual prosperity. The way to prosperity in the US isn't going to be through trillions in deficit spending.
Then we need to start taxing people more to make up for it. We used to tax the wealthy a lot more . . . since then they have gotten tax cut after tax cut after tax cut.
Taxing the rich won't come even close to the deficit spending we've had, especially since 2007 / 2008. Look at federal revenues, then look at expenses. Look at federal spending as a % of GDP. Obama got away with it because interest rates are so low. Trump, to some extent, had the same advantage. At some point, interest rates will go up, and debt service will be a major budget item.
47% or so of tax payers pay no federal income tax. When people have no skin in the game, they don't pay as much attention, or demand accountability. If you want to hold up the European model, nearly everyone has skin in the game. For the most part, they are satisfied with a simpler lifestyle than we have. But in places like Germany, a lot of their choices are taken away, like education path. They accept it. They also wonder what it would be like if they had our system.
