Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   Those who like government the least govern the worst   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, George W. Bush, President of the United States, Central Intelligence Agency, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraq War, Iraq, Bush family, George H. W. Bush  
•       •       •

1159 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Aug 2020 at 4:27 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-27 12:27:04 PM  
The GOP campaign slogan for decades has been "Government is incompetent. Elect me and I'll prove it."
 
2020-08-27 1:22:28 PM  
People who hate their job are bad at it.

I suppose that makes sense and would apply to elected positions.

So why did they apply for the job if they don't want to do it?
 
2020-08-27 1:38:46 PM  

AlgaeRancher: People who hate their job are bad at it.


It seems more that people who's views of "how the world ought to be" constrain their acceptance of "how the world is" tend worse than those who allow "how the world is" to constrain their pursuit of "how the world ought to be".
 
2020-08-27 4:28:42 PM  
One positive aspect of this pandemic is that it has removed the glossy/shiny layer of American exceptionalism and exposed a disgusting rotten core.

A rotten core that consists of massive wealth inequality, millions without medical insurance (before the pandemic), flat wages for working class, failed trickle-down economics, police brutality, never ending wars, homelessness crisis, millions unemployed, high suicide rate for veterans, opioid crisis, millions in prison for non-violent crimes, etc.
 
2020-08-27 4:29:54 PM  

SoupGuru: The GOP campaign slogan for decades has been "Government is incompetent. Elect me and I'll prove it."


Done in one.
 
2020-08-27 4:32:21 PM  
Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.
 
2020-08-27 4:32:55 PM  
The republican plan for a long time now has been to deliberately place the most corrupt and incompetent individuals into high positions so that when things inevitably go to hell they can point their crooked fingers and say "see? See? Government doesn't work!"

They've definitely got a lock on the corrupt, incompetent part.
 
2020-08-27 4:34:17 PM  
Would you let someone babysit your child if their major philosophy about child rearing included the phrase 'drown it in a bathtub'?
 
2020-08-27 4:34:38 PM  
Republicans have been anti-Government for decades and it couldn't be clearer. They actively sabotage every branch of government they can at every opportunity, open the coffers to their crony friends and corporate donors and implement fascist policies designed to hurt people of America.

Republicans are the biggest threat to our society and Nation as a whole, have no doubt about it.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-27 4:36:28 PM  

nyseattitude: Republicans have been anti-Government for decades and it couldn't be clearer. They actively sabotage every branch of government they can at every opportunity, open the coffers to their crony friends and corporate donors and implement fascist policies designed to hurt people of America.

Republicans are the biggest threat to our society and Nation as a whole, have no doubt about it.

[Fark user image image 547x656]


They are no more a threat than the socialists and communists are...and they arent even human.
 
2020-08-27 4:36:51 PM  
azquotes.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-27 4:38:41 PM  
You know this seems obvious but I used to be one of those people that wanted a small government and thought that people who claimed to believe that would govern well. Nowadays I still want a small government but I know that's not what the Republican party actually stands for. The Republicans actually stand for a bad government. They won't actually do anything to reduce the scope of the government or increase it's efficiency, all they will do is try to break anything that works in order to help sell their political argument that government can't work. The USPS is a shining example of this, the Republicans complain that USPS isn't competitive with private industry so they take control and institute measures to make the USPS less competitive. Their operating principle is that public institutions are bad and should be forcibly dissolved. This is not conservatism in the classic sense it is just vandalism. Our political discourse is not between liberalism and conservatism it is between conservatism and vandalism where the democrats are largely conservative and the Republicans are vandals. Republicans aren't governing badly because they are stupid, they are governing badly because they intend to make things worse.
 
2020-08-27 4:39:16 PM  
They should have been aborted and their parents prohibited from breeding in the first place.


Oh wait that goes for anyone in the GOP and those that support/defend them/kill people in their name.

Fark them all
 
2020-08-27 4:39:34 PM  

dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.


its
 
2020-08-27 4:39:40 PM  

dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.


That's roughly the time that the worldwide economy started collapsing in the Great Depression. That happened after roughly a decade of complete rule of the federal government by Republicans. If you and your fellow Republicans didn't want an expansive government that takes over the roles of many private sector industries, maybe you shouldn't have tanked the global economy three times in a 90-year span.
 
2020-08-27 4:40:07 PM  
Uh. Doy?
 
2020-08-27 4:43:35 PM  
TFA was a recap of 2001-2003 BushCo machinations to justify war in Iraq.

Back then, it seemed like an existential crisis for our nation.

Now, it's nostalgia for better times.
 
2020-08-27 4:44:02 PM  

dwrash: nyseattitude: Republicans have been anti-Government for decades and it couldn't be clearer. They actively sabotage every branch of government they can at every opportunity, open the coffers to their crony friends and corporate donors and implement fascist policies designed to hurt people of America.

Republicans are the biggest threat to our society and Nation as a whole, have no doubt about it.

[Fark user image image 547x656]

They are no more a threat than the socialists and communists are...and they arent even human.



If I want the opinion of delusional right wing trash I'll call for human garbage to speak up.

Until then stfu
 
2020-08-27 4:47:03 PM  

dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.


Governing occurs the moment two humans recognize each other's existence and have the capability to communicate. Governing: that is, agreeing to terms, cooperating (or competing), communicating (the agreement to the meanings of what is being communicated) are part and parcel to the existence of multi-person settings.

Good governance require good, skilled people doing that governing: knowing when to apply pressure, when to ease up pressure, where to apply resources, where to let nature take its course. Bad governance require bad, incompetent people who have no idea what they're doing. People fall on the spectrum from utterly incompetent to very skilled. Elect those who are skilled, and don't elect those who are incompetent.
 
2020-08-27 4:48:14 PM  

mathamagical: You know this seems obvious but I used to be one of those people that wanted a small government and thought that people who claimed to believe that would govern well. Nowadays I still want a small government but I know that's not what the Republican party actually stands for. The Republicans actually stand for a bad government. They won't actually do anything to reduce the scope of the government or increase it's efficiency, all they will do is try to break anything that works in order to help sell their political argument that government can't work. The USPS is a shining example of this, the Republicans complain that USPS isn't competitive with private industry so they take control and institute measures to make the USPS less competitive. Their operating principle is that public institutions are bad and should be forcibly dissolved. This is not conservatism in the classic sense it is just vandalism. Our political discourse is not between liberalism and conservatism it is between conservatism and vandalism where the democrats are largely conservative and the Republicans are vandals. Republicans aren't governing badly because they are stupid, they are governing badly because they intend to make things worse.


It's worse than that.  Republicans not only wish to destroy as many public institutions as possible, they wish to replace them with private entities not answerable to the electorate but still funded by taxation.  Often, these are large, monopolistic type enterprises that have no true competition.  Privatizing roads, prisons, schools and even soldiers are little more than corporate money grabs with little to no accountability.

Trump, of course, has taken all this is a new level.  In the past, politicians had to hide their involvement with the companies that benefited from privatization.  Usually they waited until the end of their term and were then granted do-nothing 6 figure "consulting" jobs at the companies they helped.  But now politicians can do it right out in the open, with the president himself dipping into the public till in plain sight for his own personal benefit.
 
2020-08-27 4:48:55 PM  
this is of course the real issue at hand.

People who claim, X is blanketly bad and evil.
Will themselves make it be what they say it is themselves given the chance.


It is NOT THING:
claims govt is bad, gets into govt to put effort into making it work and protecting it from the bad.

They ARE THIS:
says it is bad, so seeks to take it over and do exactly with it what they claimed others were doing.


Anyone that ever once said they have no faith in govt should never be allowed to hold office in it even at the lowest levels of basic worker staffing.
because they will actually do all the evil stuff they claim others are the ones doing. but truth is, it was them telling us how they would ruin it all if we gave them the chance.
 
2020-08-27 4:50:46 PM  

nyseattitude: Republicans have been anti-Government for decades and it couldn't be clearer. They actively sabotage every branch of government they can at every opportunity, open the coffers to their crony friends and corporate donors and implement fascist policies designed to hurt people of America.

Republicans are the biggest threat to our society and Nation as a whole, have no doubt about it.

[Fark user image 547x656]


That's a myth, in one particular sense.

Republicans aren't anti-government. They're "anti-government that they don't control", otherwise, they'd be sitting at home all day and doing nothing and let people who "love" government run Washington. That's like having an avowed atheist advertising to be a church pastor.
 
2020-08-27 4:53:52 PM  
The Nine Most Terrifying Words
Youtube xhYJS80MgYA


Obviously:  https://en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/Reagan_a​dministration_scandals
 
2020-08-27 4:54:34 PM  

mathamagical: You know this seems obvious but I used to be one of those people that wanted a small government and thought that people who claimed to believe that would govern well. Nowadays I still want a small government but I know that's not what the Republican party actually stands for. The Republicans actually stand for a bad government. They won't actually do anything to reduce the scope of the government or increase it's efficiency, all they will do is try to break anything that works in order to help sell their political argument that government can't work. The USPS is a shining example of this, the Republicans complain that USPS isn't competitive with private industry so they take control and institute measures to make the USPS less competitive. Their operating principle is that public institutions are bad and should be forcibly dissolved. This is not conservatism in the classic sense it is just vandalism. Our political discourse is not between liberalism and conservatism it is between conservatism and vandalism where the democrats are largely conservative and the Republicans are vandals. Republicans aren't governing badly because they are stupid, they are governing badly because they intend to make things worse.


IMHO, the most effective evangelist for small government in the past few decades was a Democrat-namely former California Governor Jerry Brown.  He had no problem vetoing all sorts of exotic spending programs the Democrats in the legislature would pass if they were not an effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.  He pretty much single handedly make sure the state balanced it's budget with a huge rainy day fund left over, which is why California hasn't had to make as drastic cuts as many other states, both red and blue, have had to do due to Covid.
 
2020-08-27 4:55:46 PM  

Palined Parenthood: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

its


As if that's the only thing worth correcting...
 
2020-08-27 5:02:10 PM  

Serious Black: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

That's roughly the time that the worldwide economy started collapsing in the Great Depression. That happened after roughly a decade of complete rule of the federal government by Republicans. If you and your fellow Republicans didn't want an expansive government that takes over the roles of many private sector industries, maybe you shouldn't have tanked the global economy three times in a 90-year span.


But the parties switched... or so I am told ever time its convenient for democrats.
 
2020-08-27 5:02:51 PM  

dericwater: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

Governing occurs the moment two humans recognize each other's existence and have the capability to communicate. Governing: that is, agreeing to terms, cooperating (or competing), communicating (the agreement to the meanings of what is being communicated) are part and parcel to the existence of multi-person settings.

Good governance require good, skilled people doing that governing: knowing when to apply pressure, when to ease up pressure, where to apply resources, where to let nature take its course. Bad governance require bad, incompetent people who have no idea what they're doing. People fall on the spectrum from utterly incompetent to very skilled. Elect those who are skilled, and don't elect those who are incompetent.


Nice fairy tale there.
 
2020-08-27 5:03:44 PM  

dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.


Good lord what does it look like inside your noggin?
 
2020-08-27 5:05:40 PM  

dericwater: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

Governing occurs the moment two humans recognize each other's existence and have the capability to communicate. Governing: that is, agreeing to terms, cooperating (or competing), communicating (the agreement to the meanings of what is being communicated) are part and parcel to the existence of multi-person settings.

Good governance require good, skilled people doing that governing: knowing when to apply pressure, when to ease up pressure, where to apply resources, where to let nature take its course. Bad governance require bad, incompetent people who have no idea what they're doing. People fall on the spectrum from utterly incompetent to very skilled. Elect those who are skilled, and don't elect those who are incompetent.


Government formed for mutual protection, prevent vigilante justice and to keep people from fighting each other.  This entire concept of people working together for the common good is complete and utter bullshiat
 
2020-08-27 5:08:45 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-27 5:11:56 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


"Cotton Hill here said the 'n' word. Not me. I said there was problems on both sides, remember?"
 
2020-08-27 5:14:38 PM  

MightyMerkin: [Fark user image image 802x213]


Yes.. because we have become stupid and elect people that promise to save us.. but are really playing us for chumps.

More democrats get elected and have modest means and they are multimillionaires when they leave than Republicans.
 
2020-08-27 5:15:05 PM  

bughunter: TFA was a recap of 2001-2003 BushCo machinations to justify war in Iraq.

Back then, it seemed like an existential crisis for our nation.

Now, it's nostalgia for better times.


Fark user imageView Full Size


Anybody that's gullible enough to whitewash George W. Bush's administration is gullible enough to whitewash Trump's administration, too.
 
2020-08-27 5:18:11 PM  

mathamagical: Nowadays I still want a small government


No you don't. Nobody does. Chiefly because the phrase "small government" is absolutely meaningless and impossible to define.

Everybody wants the same thing. They want a government that does the things they want a government to do, and doesn't do the things they don't want it to do. Pinning that to some nebulous concept of the "size" of government is always dishonest bullshiat, and it's the first indicator that the person speaking has no farking clue.
 
2020-08-27 5:18:28 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: bughunter: TFA was a recap of 2001-2003 BushCo machinations to justify war in Iraq.

Back then, it seemed like an existential crisis for our nation.

Now, it's nostalgia for better times.

[Fark user image image 631x316]

Anybody that's gullible enough to whitewash George W. Bush's administration is gullible enough to whitewash Trump's administration, too.


Anyone gullible enough to blame others for their situations... is wasting their lives.
 
2020-08-27 5:19:17 PM  

dwrash: dericwater: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

Governing occurs the moment two humans recognize each other's existence and have the capability to communicate. Governing: that is, agreeing to terms, cooperating (or competing), communicating (the agreement to the meanings of what is being communicated) are part and parcel to the existence of multi-person settings.

Good governance require good, skilled people doing that governing: knowing when to apply pressure, when to ease up pressure, where to apply resources, where to let nature take its course. Bad governance require bad, incompetent people who have no idea what they're doing. People fall on the spectrum from utterly incompetent to very skilled. Elect those who are skilled, and don't elect those who are incompetent.

Nice fairy tale there.


The fact that we communicate on digital electronic devices, across hundreds or thousands of miles, utilizing myriad technologies that all have to agree to multiple common standards, methods, and regulations is about the clearest evidence that governance is present and required at all times.

Your suggestion that governance and governments are never needed has no evidence in recorded history (by the fact that any recording of history demonstrates the existence of governance).
 
2020-08-27 5:20:23 PM  

emtwo: mathamagical: Nowadays I still want a small government

No you don't. Nobody does. Chiefly because the phrase "small government" is absolutely meaningless and impossible to define.

Everybody wants the same thing. They want a government that does the things they want a government to do, and doesn't do the things they don't want it to do. Pinning that to some nebulous concept of the "size" of government is always dishonest bullshiat, and it's the first indicator that the person speaking has no farking clue.


I want strong local government that has free access to county, state and federal resources.  Local government impacts people way more than upstream government.
 
2020-08-27 5:23:49 PM  

dwrash: I want strong local government that has free access to county, state and federal resources.  Local government impacts people way more than upstream government.


Yes, we know that you want your own little fiefdom of racist asshiles that allows you to commit atrocities against women or people of color without interference from a federal government charged with protecting the rights of all Americans. That will come as no surprise to anyone on Fark.
 
2020-08-27 5:23:54 PM  

dwrash: dericwater: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

Governing occurs the moment two humans recognize each other's existence and have the capability to communicate. Governing: that is, agreeing to terms, cooperating (or competing), communicating (the agreement to the meanings of what is being communicated) are part and parcel to the existence of multi-person settings.

Good governance require good, skilled people doing that governing: knowing when to apply pressure, when to ease up pressure, where to apply resources, where to let nature take its course. Bad governance require bad, incompetent people who have no idea what they're doing. People fall on the spectrum from utterly incompetent to very skilled. Elect those who are skilled, and don't elect those who are incompetent.

Government formed for mutual protection, prevent vigilante justice and to keep people from fighting each other.  This entire concept of people working together for the common good is complete and utter bullshiat


And yet, for the 180+ nations across the world, who all saw the light, post 1950s, have managed to do such things as working together for the common good and have created wonderfully successful democratically led nations like Iceland and Norway and France and Singapore and Vietnam and New Zealand and...

The key, and only, difference between them and failed nations is that they hire good people into government, whereas failed and failing nations hire bad people into government.

We have governance at all fractal dimensions, from the federal down to the tribal and familial. It's everywhere. Corporations that have good governance succeed. Corporations with bad governance fail. Hire good people, and you will succeed.
 
2020-08-27 5:31:41 PM  

dericwater: dwrash: dericwater: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

Governing occurs the moment two humans recognize each other's existence and have the capability to communicate. Governing: that is, agreeing to terms, cooperating (or competing), communicating (the agreement to the meanings of what is being communicated) are part and parcel to the existence of multi-person settings.

Good governance require good, skilled people doing that governing: knowing when to apply pressure, when to ease up pressure, where to apply resources, where to let nature take its course. Bad governance require bad, incompetent people who have no idea what they're doing. People fall on the spectrum from utterly incompetent to very skilled. Elect those who are skilled, and don't elect those who are incompetent.

Government formed for mutual protection, prevent vigilante justice and to keep people from fighting each other.  This entire concept of people working together for the common good is complete and utter bullshiat

And yet, for the 180+ nations across the world, who all saw the light, post 1950s, have managed to do such things as working together for the common good and have created wonderfully successful democratically led nations like Iceland and Norway and France and Singapore and Vietnam and New Zealand and...

The key, and only, difference between them and failed nations is that they hire good people into government, whereas failed and failing nations hire bad people into government.

We have governance at all fractal dimensions, from the federal down to the tribal and familial. It's everywhere. Corporations that have good governance succeed. Corporations with bad governance fail. Hire good people, and you will succeed.


They have all looked out for their own interests first and foremost and only agree when it benefits them.
 
2020-08-27 5:31:44 PM  

dwrash: Serious Black: dwrash: Because we were never supposed to be governed in the first place.  Government exists to serve the people in this country and it lost it's way 90 years ago.

That's roughly the time that the worldwide economy started collapsing in the Great Depression. That happened after roughly a decade of complete rule of the federal government by Republicans. If you and your fellow Republicans didn't want an expansive government that takes over the roles of many private sector industries, maybe you shouldn't have tanked the global economy three times in a 90-year span.

But the parties switched... or so I am told ever time its convenient for democrats.


Yes, that's roughly the time period when the switch began.

The conservative coalition was an unofficial Congressional coalition bringing together a conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative (mostly Southern) wing of the Democratic Party. According to James T. Patterson: "By and large the congressional conservatives agreed in opposing the spread of federal power and bureaucracy, in denouncing deficit spending, in criticizing industrial labor unions, and in excoriating most welfare programs. They sought to "conserve" an America which they believed to have existed before 1933."[1]

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had won a second term in a landslide, sweeping all but two states over his Republican opponent, Alf Landon. For the 1937 session of Congress, the Republicans would have only 17 Senators (out of a total of 96) and 89 congressmen (out of a total of 431). Given his party's overwhelming majorities, FDR decided he could overcome opposition to his liberal New Deal policies by the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, which had struck down many New Deal agencies as unconstitutional. Roosevelt proposed to expand the size of the court from nine to fifteen justices; if the proposal met with success, he would be able to "pack" the court with six new justices who would support his policies.
However, the Southern Democrats controlled the entire South with only token Republican opposition, and thus had both liberal and conservative factions. While the South had many New Deal supporters it also had many conservatives opposed to the expansion of federal power. Among their leaders were Senators Harry Byrd and Carter Glass of Virginia and Vice President John Nance Garner of Texas. U.S. Senator Josiah Bailey (D-NC) released a "Conservative Manifesto" in December 1937,[5] which included several statements of conservative philosophical tenets, including the line "Give enterprise a chance, and I will give you the guarantees of a happy and prosperous America." The document called for a balanced federal budget, state's rights, and an end to labor union violence and coercion.[5] Over 100,000 copies were distributed and it marked a turning point in terms of congressional support for New Deal legislation.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserv​a​tive_coalition

See also:

As an ultraconservative activist and occasional political candidate in Texas, J. Evetts Haley registered few electoral victories. However, his far-right crusades revealed nationwide right-wing discontent within the Democratic Party and delineated the anti-statist contours of ultraconservatism from the 1930s through the 1960s. Haley's combination of white supremacy, conspiracy theories, anti-statist populism, and rugged individualism reflected the extremities of agrarianism, Cold War anti-communism, and Old Right conservatism. Put simply, Haley constituted an explanatory link bridging anti-New Deal ultraconservatism and the mid-century conservative movement; in addition, he represented a point of convergence between Sunbelt reactionaries and mainstream conservatism. In 1936 Haley chaired the Jeffersonian Democrats of Texas, a state chapter of a national organization that sought to defeat Roosevelt by supporting Republican Alf Landon, despite the predominance of the Texas Democratic Party. The Jeffersonian's failure forecast the electoral inefficacy-but grassroots appeal-of mid-century far-right conservatism. During the 1950s Haley fomented fringe movements through his gubernatorial candidacy and the ultraconservative group Texans For America (TFA), but his hardline platforms restricted the success of both. Haley's time with TFA elicited his most fruitful activism, but his attacks against Lyndon Johnson in 1964 cemented Haley as a national far-right icon.

https://academic.oup.com/whq/article-​a​bstract/49/1/65/4564173?redirectedFrom​=fulltext

/tl;dr:  It didn't succeed instantly, but it started in the New Deal era.
 
2020-08-27 5:32:52 PM  

emtwo: dwrash: I want strong local government that has free access to county, state and federal resources.  Local government impacts people way more than upstream government.

Yes, we know that you want your own little fiefdom of racist asshiles that allows you to commit atrocities against women or people of color without interference from a federal government charged with protecting the rights of all Americans. That will come as no surprise to anyone on Fark.


Absolutely not.  Fundamental constitutional principles of fair representation and equal protection must be first and foremost.
 
2020-08-27 5:34:28 PM  
Diaper wrash is really smearing his shiat all over this thread.
 
2020-08-27 5:35:04 PM  

emtwo: mathamagical: Nowadays I still want a small government

No you don't. Nobody does. Chiefly because the phrase "small government" is absolutely meaningless and impossible to define.

Everybody wants the same thing. They want a government that does the things they want a government to do, and doesn't do the things they don't want it to do. Pinning that to some nebulous concept of the "size" of government is always dishonest bullshiat, and it's the first indicator that the person speaking has no farking clue.


Here's something we can all get behind: regardless of whether or not we agree with the government having a particular programme or not philosophically, how about we agree that no matter what the role of the government is to run those programmes efficiently? We should maximise benefit to those using the programme and minimise cost to the taxpayer. Let the argument about whether the system should exist or not be left to the polls, but sabotaging a programme as a means to 'spite it' is just wasting taxpayer money. It's childish, and inherently Republican.
 
2020-08-27 5:37:00 PM  

dwrash: emtwo: dwrash: I want strong local government that has free access to county, state and federal resources.  Local government impacts people way more than upstream government.

Yes, we know that you want your own little fiefdom of racist asshiles that allows you to commit atrocities against women or people of color without interference from a federal government charged with protecting the rights of all Americans. That will come as no surprise to anyone on Fark.

Absolutely not.  Fundamental constitutional principles of fair representation and equal protection must be first and foremost.


So how does your concept of the ideal government differ (specifically, please) from what we have now, aside from having better people in charge of it?
 
2020-08-27 5:44:17 PM  

emtwo: dwrash: emtwo: dwrash: I want strong local government that has free access to county, state and federal resources.  Local government impacts people way more than upstream government.

Yes, we know that you want your own little fiefdom of racist asshiles that allows you to commit atrocities against women or people of color without interference from a federal government charged with protecting the rights of all Americans. That will come as no surprise to anyone on Fark.

Absolutely not.  Fundamental constitutional principles of fair representation and equal protection must be first and foremost.

So how does your concept of the ideal government differ (specifically, please) from what we have now, aside from having better people in charge of it?


Diaper rash wants fair representation and equal protection, but doesn't want (or trusts?) the government to be able to carry that out. I guess.
 
2020-08-27 5:47:07 PM  

Shaggy_C: emtwo: mathamagical: Nowadays I still want a small government

No you don't. Nobody does. Chiefly because the phrase "small government" is absolutely meaningless and impossible to define.

Everybody wants the same thing. They want a government that does the things they want a government to do, and doesn't do the things they don't want it to do. Pinning that to some nebulous concept of the "size" of government is always dishonest bullshiat, and it's the first indicator that the person speaking has no farking clue.

Here's something we can all get behind: regardless of whether or not we agree with the government having a particular programme or not philosophically, how about we agree that no matter what the role of the government is to run those programmes efficiently? We should maximise benefit to those using the programme and minimise cost to the taxpayer. Let the argument about whether the system should exist or not be left to the polls, but sabotaging a programme as a means to 'spite it' is just wasting taxpayer money. It's childish, and inherently Republican.


Yes and no.

Sabotaging the government is immensely wasteful and uniquely Republican, we can agree on that.

But good governance is rarely efficient, and if you make efficiency the primary goal then you will end up with bad governance.

It will never be efficient, particularly from a finance perspective, to guarantee equal rights for your citizenry.
 
2020-08-27 5:47:48 PM  
Putting republicans in charge of government is like letting Jeffrey Dahmer run an Austin Steak House.
 
2020-08-27 5:50:05 PM  

emtwo: mathamagical: Nowadays I still want a small government

No you don't. Nobody does. Chiefly because the phrase "small government" is absolutely meaningless and impossible to define.

Everybody wants the same thing. They want a government that does the things they want a government to do, and doesn't do the things they don't want it to do. Pinning that to some nebulous concept of the "size" of government is always dishonest bullshiat, and it's the first indicator that the person speaking has no farking clue.


People like you make me roll my eyes.

I'm a pragmatist, I want the government to be as minimal as possible while achieving what I want it to achieve. There are legitimate differences in schools of thought on how to set up government. There are people that value large and detailed systems and people who value small and simple systems. Think for example of Ubi vs having a bunch of separate aid programs, there are arguments on both sides.

On some things government is a necessity, healthcare for example simply doesn't seem to work in our broken pseudo market system, I'd love for a free market solution to exist but it simply doesn't appear realistic there. On other things I want less government intervention to allow the market to set prices (but need the govt to actually break up monopolies to keep a competitive market.)

I want a simpler tax code with fewer exemptions rather than a detailed one for example. (Though I wouldn't go as far as a flat tax)

I can go on and on about what I mean but that's not the point. The point is one can legitimately want smaller government and mean something real by it just as someone can also want a larger government and mean something by it. They aren't mutually exclusive or end goals they are just ways to describe relative position on a spectrum. Maybe visualize it as a quadrant with smaller and larger on one axis and more/less effective on the other axis where Dems are really close to the center while Republicans fully max out the "less effective" axis. You and I probably both want a more effective govt but I suspect you probably want a higher degree of government involvement in things than I do.
 
2020-08-27 5:54:59 PM  

emtwo: Shaggy_C: emtwo: mathamagical: Nowadays I still want a small government

No you don't. Nobody does. Chiefly because the phrase "small government" is absolutely meaningless and impossible to define.

Everybody wants the same thing. They want a government that does the things they want a government to do, and doesn't do the things they don't want it to do. Pinning that to some nebulous concept of the "size" of government is always dishonest bullshiat, and it's the first indicator that the person speaking has no farking clue.

Here's something we can all get behind: regardless of whether or not we agree with the government having a particular programme or not philosophically, how about we agree that no matter what the role of the government is to run those programmes efficiently? We should maximise benefit to those using the programme and minimise cost to the taxpayer. Let the argument about whether the system should exist or not be left to the polls, but sabotaging a programme as a means to 'spite it' is just wasting taxpayer money. It's childish, and inherently Republican.

Yes and no.

Sabotaging the government is immensely wasteful and uniquely Republican, we can agree on that.

But good governance is rarely efficient, and if you make efficiency the primary goal then you will end up with bad governance.

It will never be efficient, particularly from a finance perspective, to guarantee equal rights for your citizenry.


No, good governance is efficient and bad governance is inefficient basically by definition. If you are failing to achieve the goals of your citizenry then you are inefficient no matter how much or little you are spending. If you are achieving the goals of your citizenry that is good but if you are using more resources than you need then obviously it would be better to achieve the same with fewer resources. Your ideological bent here is stupid.

The reason our government fails to protect everyone's rights in America is not because we can't afford it it is because most people don't want it. They want to persecute some other group and use the govt as a vehicle for that. That is governing badly AND we spend a lot of money doing it. Our incarceration rate for example is both expensive and ineffective, that's bad governance.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.