3 ms·

... even though there is no other entity which can be relied upon to solve it. The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. I cer

... even though there is no other entity which can be relied upon to solve it. The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. I certainly don't believe that the reason there are homeless children in American is because of people yelling "socialism." Cries of "police state" have not stopped the formation and growth of the TSA. When the government wants to spend money on something it seems to find a way. The problem is that you'll never get everyone to agree that the government needs to be involved in fixing the situation A lot of things happen despite a lack of public support. Do you think the public is cheering for the government to send billions to Pakistan? You don't need everyone to agree. There would be enough people behind it. This is a matter of political priorities.

r00fus 13y ago
> The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. You might want to provide evidence to support this claim. Also, if that is the case, then to whom or what group does this problem fall into? Or do you simply say it's unsolvable and go home to your comfortable bed at night?
- wtbob 13y ago
  > > The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. > You might want to provide evidence to support this claim. The evidence is that it hasn't.
derleth 13y ago
> The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. Except governments in other countries have a better solution for it than the US government does. Denmark, for example, has a very low homelessness rate: http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/3466 http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/3466 Here's some more statistics on homelessness. You'll need to divide by population to get percentages, which are the only useful way to present this data: http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statistics http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statist... As for the rest of your post: I'm not saying it's a majority yelling "Socialism". I'm saying it's a minority which has the power to, for example, shut down the government by blocking certain legislation because they think a health care plan created by the Heritage Foundation is Socialism. So: > When the government wants to spend money on something it seems to find a way. Not if a minority within the government has found a way to rig the game such that it can make the rest of the party in control of the House of Representatives terrified of being primaried unless they back Ted Cruz. Our system is full of checks and balances to prevent a majority from running roughshod over all of the minorities. The converse to that is that you do need broad (near-universal, by comparison to some other systems) support, or at least broad acquiescence, to institute major change. A well-positioned minority can halt things, even to the point of disaster, by digging in its heels far enough.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  Except governments in other countries have a better solution for it than the US government does. Sure. But they haven't solved it. My main point being the the idea that government is the sole entity that can be relied upon to solve it, as claimed earlier post is false. At best they will play a role along with other entities. I'm saying it's a minority which has the power to, for example, shut down the government by blocking certain legislation because they think a health care plan created by the Heritage Foundation is Socialism. But what actually happened? The government was shut down briefly, then all went back to as it was. The GOP looked like even bigger fools. The AHCA is still the law of the land. What was blocked? A well-positioned minority can halt things, even to the point of disaster, by digging in its heels far enough. Yes, but my belief (clearly not argued well, I concede) is that many times things get halted because the majority has, for political reasons, decided to acquiesce, not because they lack the means to overcome the resistance of the minority. This is not always a bad thing, but it suggests that even if the government, in the abstract, has the means to accomplish something in practice they cannot be relied on to do it, because of political self-interest (including, for example, being beholden to their campaign financial sources).
  - derleth 13y ago
    > the idea that government is the sole entity that can be relied upon to solve it, as claimed earlier post I presented my argument wrong. My position is that the government is the only entity that can be relied upon to solve it entirely, not the only one that can be relied upon to help solve it. Private entities are too small to institute the broad changes needed to solve this, as has been demonstrated in the past, when they had the chance and failed. My complaint was against the people who are convinced that the government must not be involved in any of this at all, because Socialism Is Evil. > But what actually happened? The government was shut down briefly, then all went back to as it was. The GOP looked like even bigger fools. The GOP only looks foolish to the people who were against it to begin with. They look like Brave Freedom Fighters to the people who voted them in, and will vote for them again in 2014, simply because they stood up to the Black Muslim Fascist Socialist (who is Black, by the way). > Yes, but my belief (clearly not argued well, I concede) is that many times things get halted because the majority has, for political reasons, decided to acquiesce, not because they lack the means to overcome the resistance of the minority. If the non-Tea-Party majority of the GOP in the House decided to risk being primaried en masse they could, indeed, kill the Ted Cruz contingent. I agree with you there, sure. But that's an extremely hard road to follow; it's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, something right out of a game theory textbook, and politicians are trained to be risk-averse. (Which, in other scenarios, can be a good thing.) > even if the government, in the abstract, has the means to accomplish something in practice they cannot be relied on to do it, because of political self-interest (including, for example, being beholden to their campaign financial sources) And here is where I disagree with the Libertarians (including the Tea Party, which are Libertarian on this issue): The Libertarians say that if the government isn't perfect, it can never be part of the solution. I say that if the government isn't perfect, it's time to improve the government.

r00fus 13y ago

> The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. You might want to provide evidence to support this claim. Also, if that is the case, then to whom or what group does this problem fall into? Or do you simply say it's unsolvable and go home to your comfortable bed at night?

wtbob 13y ago
> > The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. > You might want to provide evidence to support this claim. The evidence is that it hasn't.

derleth 13y ago

> The government has shown that it, too, cannot be relied upon to solve it. Except governments in other countries have a better solution for it than the US government does. Denmark, for example, has a very low homelessness rate: http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/3466 http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/3466 Here's some more statistics on homelessness. You'll need to divide by population to get percentages, which are the only useful way to present this data: http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statistics http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statist... As for the rest of your post: I'm not saying it's a majority yelling "Socialism". I'm saying it's a minority which has the power to, for example, shut down the government by blocking certain legislation because they think a health care plan created by the Heritage Foundation is Socialism. So: > When the government wants to spend money on something it seems to find a way. Not if a minority within the government has found a way to rig the game such that it can make the rest of the party in control of the House of Representatives terrified of being primaried unless they back Ted Cruz. Our system is full of checks and balances to prevent a majority from running roughshod over all of the minorities. The converse to that is that you do need broad (near-universal, by comparison to some other systems) support, or at least broad acquiescence, to institute major change. A well-positioned minority can halt things, even to the point of disaster, by digging in its heels far enough.

jamesbritt 13y ago
Except governments in other countries have a better solution for it than the US government does. Sure. But they haven't solved it. My main point being the the idea that government is the sole entity that can be relied upon to solve it, as claimed earlier post is false. At best they will play a role along with other entities. I'm saying it's a minority which has the power to, for example, shut down the government by blocking certain legislation because they think a health care plan created by the Heritage Foundation is Socialism. But what actually happened? The government was shut down briefly, then all went back to as it was. The GOP looked like even bigger fools. The AHCA is still the law of the land. What was blocked? A well-positioned minority can halt things, even to the point of disaster, by digging in its heels far enough. Yes, but my belief (clearly not argued well, I concede) is that many times things get halted because the majority has, for political reasons, decided to acquiesce, not because they lack the means to overcome the resistance of the minority. This is not always a bad thing, but it suggests that even if the government, in the abstract, has the means to accomplish something in practice they cannot be relied on to do it, because of political self-interest (including, for example, being beholden to their campaign financial sources).
- derleth 13y ago
  > the idea that government is the sole entity that can be relied upon to solve it, as claimed earlier post I presented my argument wrong. My position is that the government is the only entity that can be relied upon to solve it entirely, not the only one that can be relied upon to help solve it. Private entities are too small to institute the broad changes needed to solve this, as has been demonstrated in the past, when they had the chance and failed. My complaint was against the people who are convinced that the government must not be involved in any of this at all, because Socialism Is Evil. > But what actually happened? The government was shut down briefly, then all went back to as it was. The GOP looked like even bigger fools. The GOP only looks foolish to the people who were against it to begin with. They look like Brave Freedom Fighters to the people who voted them in, and will vote for them again in 2014, simply because they stood up to the Black Muslim Fascist Socialist (who is Black, by the way). > Yes, but my belief (clearly not argued well, I concede) is that many times things get halted because the majority has, for political reasons, decided to acquiesce, not because they lack the means to overcome the resistance of the minority. If the non-Tea-Party majority of the GOP in the House decided to risk being primaried en masse they could, indeed, kill the Ted Cruz contingent. I agree with you there, sure. But that's an extremely hard road to follow; it's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, something right out of a game theory textbook, and politicians are trained to be risk-averse. (Which, in other scenarios, can be a good thing.) > even if the government, in the abstract, has the means to accomplish something in practice they cannot be relied on to do it, because of political self-interest (including, for example, being beholden to their campaign financial sources) And here is where I disagree with the Libertarians (including the Tea Party, which are Libertarian on this issue): The Libertarians say that if the government isn't perfect, it can never be part of the solution. I say that if the government isn't perfect, it's time to improve the government.