How can the government work for "us" when "we" can't agree on what we want?

@miamilady (4924)
United States
April 8, 2009 5:52pm CST
I probably ought to give up on posting in this interest. I'm pretty sure I'm out of my league here, but the more I read the more questions I come up with. The question in the title is my latest. Your thoughts?
4 people like this
12 responses
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
9 Apr 09
Nonsense, your not out of your league and you don't need to stop posting here. Use it as a learning tool. Ask questions, give your opinions, show us articles, etc. As to your question. It's not a matter of agreaing on what we want, we all pretty much want the same thimg, it's just that some of us differ on how to get there. In some cases, it is a matter of some people simply not realizing how we get there. What I'm trying to do is get people to shed that stupid D or R in front oif their name and look past the two party illusion. Neither support the consitution any more or represent the american people. But people are so brain washed in to following one letter or another and buy in to the propagandist virtiol spewed by the major news networks that a lot of people seem to have a hard time breaking away from that. thats where I com ein. I spend my time here trying to expose government atrocities, usurptions and try to demonstrate how the republican party and the democratic party are really not very different when you step back and look at the big picture and ultimate ends they work towards.I often refer to them as either 2 heads on the same snake, or two lanes on the same one way highway.
2 people like this
@winterose (39897)
• Canada
13 Apr 09
regardless of what the individual person what, the government works for us because they were elected to do so so then they make executive decisions based on the the good of all. It is kind of like a family, there are kids, some kids want pizza for supper, the others want hamburgers, and some couldn't care less. now the parents have to make a decision and they will because everyone has to eat that is the good of all the people, the parents can decide to go with pizza because they just had hamburgers last night, or the could decide to go with hamburgers because most of the family want them, or they might say okay you guys don't agree and I am tired of the bickering so you know what, I am just going to make a macaroni and cheese.
1 person likes this
@savypat (20245)
• United States
9 Apr 09
common goals must be foremost in the people's mind for the government to be able to satisfy them. Food, housing, health, education and work should be common to all. We need to learn from history that hugh government becomes more and more unable to accomplish it's goals.
1 person likes this
@missybal (4492)
• United States
8 Apr 09
Honestly It's getting to the point they should just cut the country in have and Obama can have on half and let the more conservative people elect someone to run the other. I'll be going to the non-Obamanation.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
9 Apr 09
Working for us, and giving us what we want is not the same thing. The government should not be in the business of giving us anything. It's only job is supposed to be handling the business of America. There are only a very few things that is the government's job. Coining money, national defense, and trade treaties... and things like that. It is not supposed to be bogged down in social programs at all. A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have. I don't remember for sure who said that, but they were right.
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
9 Apr 09
Those were Jeffersons words.
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
9 Apr 09
"Coining money, national defense, and trade treaties... and things like that. It is not supposed to be bogged down in social programs at all." Just to clarify. Are we only talking national government or are we talking government on a local level as well? What about roads? What about libraries? What about taking care of our Veterans? What about, perhaps taking care of our mentally ill who truly can't take care of themselves? "Working for us, and giving us what we want is not the same thing" First off, I just want to say, in my mind "giving us what we want" does not necessarily mean giving us handouts, but taking care of the "business" of running our country in a way that we see fit. "The government should not be in the business of giving us anything." Why not? And says who? Perhaps part of the "business" of running a government IS "taking care" of it's citizens. Of course "taking care" can mean a lot of different things. Making roads and educating our children could be considered "taking care". "It's only job is supposed to be handling the business of America." Says who? If your reply is "The Constitution", didn't the constitution allow for the changing needs of America with Amendments and Bills?
• United States
9 Apr 09
[b]"Coining money, national defense, and trade treaties... and things like that. It is not supposed to be bogged down in social programs at all." Just to clarify. Are we only talking national government or are we talking government on a local level as well?[/b] Think about your question there... National defense, and coining money, and trade treaties.... the federal government is who is supposed to handle these things in a way that does not exceed the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. Your original post was about the Federal government, was it not? Then why would that change to include state and local government at this point? [b]What about roads? What about libraries? What about taking care of our Veterans? What about, perhaps taking care of our mentally ill who truly can't take care of themselves?[/b] Roads... DOT at both Federal and State level... Financed by gas tax, toll roads, and license fees supposedly.... claims to be out of money. Libraries... Should be financed locally, usually at the city or town library. Not all towns have them. Veterans... Federal. After all, they did serve our country and therefore are entitled to just compensation and care as a result of their service. Mentally ill.... State and local. Social Security... Not authorized under the Constitution. Universal Health Care.... Not authorized under the Constitution. Medicare and Medicaid.... Not authorized under the Constitution. Interference in our individual rights, freedoms and the choices we make... interference in privately held corporations and industry, and mandated dictates for climate change/global warming.... Not authorized under the Constitution. The list goes on and on. You should note that SSA and Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest consumers of our budget, and those so-called entitlements are what is destroying our economy. If you watched that video yesterday, it would have shown you the problems. The government is not a nanny, although it wants to be. The government was intended to be small and completely out of everyone's lives. People are supposed to be taking care of themselves... it is called personal responsibility. Just as government has no business bailing out industries or banks, it also has no business bailing out people with a bunch of socialist programs aimed at making people more dependent on the government. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? How can anyone not understand the intent of the Founders when this country came into being? They came here to escape the very kind of government that now is being created.... and that we now have.
@DavidReedy (2411)
• United States
9 Apr 09
The simplest answer would be this: If "our" (by our I mean the U.S. Govt.) was, in fact, running legally and as it should be, it would be doing very little. The point and purpose of the United States Constitution was to inhibit government so as to prevent it from becoming the monster it is today--and the ever-faster treasonous beast it is becoming. The govt's job should be to provide protection from foreign invaders, coin currency, and maintain interstate commerce...that's pretty much it, all other rights and responsibilities were left to the nations/states that formed the union and to their people. David A. Reedy...
• United States
9 Apr 09
...(almost forgot the point) ...thus, if our U.S. govt. were as small and prohibited as it were meant to be, the States (nations in themselves) would be doing more for their own people, just as the people would be doing more for themselves.
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
9 Apr 09
Thanks for your post. You said things very well in a brief manner. My ADD (ish) brain really appreciates that!
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Apr 09
You're welcome. The point to remember that has been forgotten today, is that you were/are a citizen of your state (sovereign state of Florida, I would believe to be your case right?, as I am a citizen of Iowa, first, then we are a part of the United States. )(Notice, I did not say "citizen, in reference to the U.S.--this is due to some Constitutional/U.C.C. maritime law stuff that I don't quite understand, but basically the 14th Amendment, although it sounds nice, turns us all into subjects of the Federal Govt.--which was not supposed to be the case.) Our govts, if we wanted them to handle all of our problems are supposed to be the govts of Iowa (Florida), the county, the city, etc. We've turned it all around, by giving more power to the federal government (which is soon to surrender itself to a global hierarchy formally, as called for by world leaders for a couple of decades now, in the very least) we have surrended almost all of our own power (thus, our own freedoms). David A. Reedy...
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
9 Apr 09
You're not out of your league, miamilady, and your question is a good one. I think one of the problems right now is that the government isn't working for "us"...it has the feel of an out of control locomotive. I also think that some folks are too caught up in that D or R to admit that bad decisions have been made...decisions that are not going to be good for this country in the long run.
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
9 Apr 09
"it has the feel of an out of control locomotive" that really is a great way of descibing things.
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
9 Apr 09
I used to work for a railroad. Old habits die hard!
• Canada
26 Sep 09
By "we" do you mean we the regular population can't agree, or we as in the government and the rest of the people can not agree? Also, how can the government claim to be working for us, when all they are doing is constantly screwing us? i thought it was "by the people, for the people." The ones in Washington aren't acting human at all!!! LOL
• United States
26 Apr 09
" We" have never agreed on what we wanted .IThere are so many special interests that Congress just tried to stay in the middle, thus do not that much of anything. There are only a fr few in government that Really want to change things. That really want to work for the people.Thankfully one is the new president another is Senator McCain.This issue of doing very little isn't a Democratic nor a Republican issue
@jillmalitz (5132)
• United States
9 Apr 09
In a perfect world that is how the democratic process works. We have topics and issues and opposing opinions. We work together to find a common ground that all can agree with. But lately no one seems to want to give an inch about anything and are more concerned with what is in it for me or money. Some things take money to make work others take policy changes to make better. We can't seem to find us (as in the people who elected our representatives)
• United States
9 Apr 09
could be worse. my state gets everyone in agreement (tax paying citizens),then tells the people we're not qualified to know what "we" need,then vetos it.as if only they are. it's like asking daddy for an allowance.
@anniepa (27275)
• United States
9 Apr 09
With a great question like this one you're not out of your league you're in a league of your own. "We" sure can't agree on much of anything these days, can we? And it's not just minor disagreements, people get downright nasty and rude. We can't even agree that spending more on something is an increase and spending less is a cut or when an increase is really a cut or a cut is really an increase. We have democratic elections in this country, the same kind we seem to want other nations to have, but the losers are never willing to accept the loss, instead we get years of sour grapes. I'm not singling out either party here either, both are guilty. I think it seems worse now because we're in such a mess and it seems some people are more worried about scoring political points than doing what's best for the country and we the people. So probably by the time the next election rolls along in two years enough of us will be angry enough to "fire" a good number of the politicians and we'll get to start the squabbling all over again. Annie