Reagan said: "Government is the problem". That isn't accurate

And? The only one that can pursue with force is government.

 

Schools, social security, roads, ultilities

 

Corporations changed, they used to care about employees, and customers

now they only care about shareholders, being profitable is not enough anymore, they have to be MORE profitable than the previous year

this means foreign outsourcing, doing things like making batteries in cell phones unreplaceable (called planned obsolescence), ect.....

 

Sure. My point was aimed at the elected, not the deep state. The deep state will remain as it is as long as the elected bow to it. I think the lack of equality, truth and efficiency may actually begin to turn voters away from what they have always accepted. I think it is that bad right now. While I have little faith in the voters, there is always a chance that they will begin to understand just how bad it is and why they should allow the elected to buy their votes.

 

It was a silly question because we are forced to accept everything government does to us. After all, we pay for it whether we use it or not.

 

I didn't say government programs are bad. I said many to most government programs are executed and implemented badly because politicos are more interested in solving whatever problem get conjured up in their head rather than the specific problem at hand. Examples are a dime a dozen from border control, immigration, clean air and water, welfare, War of Poverty, carbon reduction, integrated housing, to etc, etc, etc (and including the wars in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and somewhat Iran. There are some things that the feds do pretty well like the park service

 

Copping out by throwing in the not too subtle "from the government" pretty much ends this discussion. The question was things the government makes one buy, PERIOD.

 

You are not correct, but more to the point, it has absolutely no relevance to the thread.

 

I agree, but the chance of the voters rising up are just a minuscule above zero. The media won't explain it to them. No Democrat and most Republican politicos won't either. A large percentage of elected officials from any party are wedded to the swamp, and, as Trump found out, will fight like hell to protect it.

 

It's off point (with apologizes) but that the government can constitutionally confiscate some of your money does not make it government's money to begin with.

 

You answered your own question. I already knew you had a sense of entitlement to the fruits of my labor.

 

actually it does, as laws were changed so corps have to think that way

 

The government isn't an abstraction. It's a collection of elected officials we the people vote in to office.

 

Hard to argue with someone who wants to go back to the Stone Age.

 

I don't recall calling it an abstraction. I would be more likely to call it a disaster.

 

And nowadays it's the Leftist "INFRASTRUCTURE" to the tune of trillions that don't produce a single "shovel ready job"..

Pot-kettle

 

And that's just not true.

 

Prolly not in your world

 

Name even one thing that has gone wrong in this country that big CRIMINALLY EXPENSIVE government hasnt caused!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well you've got a point there, I live in the world of FACTS not alternative facts.

 

History is replete with examples of free market failures, free market success, government failures, government successes.

Evidence provided on request, but I should think that is a self - evident truth.

Without regulation, free markets tend to boom and bust. History proves this. Did not the roaring 20s lead to the crash of 1929? Did not the neoliberal policies of both republicans and democrats during Clinton (ergo, the signing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated derivatives, the one fact which, despite the abuses in the mortage and banking industry, broke the proverbial camel's back ) led to the crash of 2008?

Both government and free enterprise are needed. Let each do what they do best. They each have their appropriate spheres.

Capitalism will devour itself without socialism.

socialism will collapse onto itself without capitalism.

(And boy 'socialism', I"m using the definition republicans use when they attribute the charge to democrats, i.e., 'government regulation and government programs , so don't give me any lip that it's 'not sociaiism' given that this is how republicans have used the term againts democrats for some 80 years).

There is a place, where there is an equilibrium between the two forces, the sweet spot.

Where does the pendulum rest? It rests when it arrives to the center.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

Now, the center might not be the same center that is on a physical pendulum, which is a metaphor, the 'sweet spot' might lean to one side or the other, but there is a place where an equilibrium is achieved, as it must, because without it, there will always be claims of 'tyranny' against the other side.

Human nature compels this outcome, it is inevitable.

Deal with it.

 

so? got a better idea?

 

No, you can send your kids to private schools.

YOu can write a check to the US Treasury to the amount of whatever benefits you recieve, if you want.

Okay, so you think roads should be built and owned by private companies?

Not really seeing the issue here .

You are free to purchase your water from private sources, if public sources is a problem for you.

My power and gas company is a corporation. But, you can purchase a generator, solar system, and be independent, if the public system is a problem for you..

 

I don't know, really, I mean, it's easy to sit in your chair and complain about the status quo. There has always, and always will be, problems with humans running things.

 

No, the question was:

What government products are you forced to buy?

NOT 'products from private companies the government forces you to buy'.

If you want to start a new thread, feel free to do so, but that is NOT the subject at hand.