So, what do you think the government is supposed to do?

I feel like this question gets ignored, but it is the obvious explanation for the differences between all the political parties.

I think the government's first priority is protecting the interests of society as a whole. Increasing national wealth and facilitating industrial growth. I believe that by doing this, the Government can increase the standard of living we enjoy in this country, and therefore, serve its people best.

Now, I imagine a lot of you believe that the government is there to protect the interests of the individual. I get that, that you see it as important for the government to do everything it can to stop people from failing, but I feel like that view of government focuses more on how to divide up the wealth, not grow it. In the end, it just seems to me that a government who puts the person before the society ends up stagnating.

What is your take.

If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

SourWorms wrote:screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I don't agree (personally).

For the most part I think the government should have a role similar to what PTZ has said. However I think it should support help to the poor, it just doesn't have to change the policy for everyone just so that the poor get aid.

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I live in CT and work at a grocery store. Minimum wage is 7.65. The lifers who work the cashiers all make more than that. Only the high schoolers and college kids make minimum wage.

I mean, raising minimum wage really is just funneling money into the pockets of high schoolers. I can't think of a job someone with a GED would hold down on a year round basis and not make more than minimum wage.

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I live in CT and work at a grocery store. Minimum wage is 7.65. The lifers who work the cashiers all make more than that. Only the high schoolers and college kids make minimum wage.

I mean, raising minimum wage really is just funneling money into the pockets of high schoolers. I can't think of a job someone with a GED would hold down on a year round basis and not make more than minimum wage.

try california with immigrants and what not who have to work in a kitchen on minimum wage in order to support their families. or the single-parent homeless man/woman put on the streets by some unfortunate circumstance who cannot afford rent and support their children on 8.00 an hour working in a restaurant. the government just screws them over

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I live in CT and work at a grocery store. Minimum wage is 7.65. The lifers who work the cashiers all make more than that. Only the high schoolers and college kids make minimum wage.

I mean, raising minimum wage really is just funneling money into the pockets of high schoolers. I can't think of a job someone with a GED would hold down on a year round basis and not make more than minimum wage.

try california with immigrants and what not who have to work in a kitchen on minimum wage in order to support their families. or the single-parent homeless man/woman put on the streets by some unfortunate circumstance who cannot afford rent and support their children on 8.00 an hour working in a restaurant. the government just screws them over

The reality is that these people don't have marketable skills. It isn't nice to say they are a burden to society, but it is accurate. How can businesses be expected to grow if you force them to throw thousands of dollars a year more at each employee just because they dropped out of high school? The reward should match the work, or else everyone who did do what they had to to make themselves successful is going to end up suffering so a few mexicans and ex-junkees can afford to furnish their trailers with nascar posters.

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I live in CT and work at a grocery store. Minimum wage is 7.65. The lifers who work the cashiers all make more than that. Only the high schoolers and college kids make minimum wage.

I mean, raising minimum wage really is just funneling money into the pockets of high schoolers. I can't think of a job someone with a GED would hold down on a year round basis and not make more than minimum wage.

try california with immigrants and what not who have to work in a kitchen on minimum wage in order to support their families. or the single-parent homeless man/woman put on the streets by some unfortunate circumstance who cannot afford rent and support their children on 8.00 an hour working in a restaurant. the government just screws them over

The reality is that these people don't have marketable skills. It isn't nice to say they are a burden to society, but it is accurate. How can businesses be expected to grow if you force them to throw thousands of dollars a year more at each employee just because they dropped out of high school? The reward should match the work, or else everyone who did do what they had to to make themselves successful is going to end up suffering so a few mexicans and ex-junkees can afford to furnish their trailers with nascar posters.

i am going to laugh when you are homeless

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I live in CT and work at a grocery store. Minimum wage is 7.65. The lifers who work the cashiers all make more than that. Only the high schoolers and college kids make minimum wage.

I mean, raising minimum wage really is just funneling money into the pockets of high schoolers. I can't think of a job someone with a GED would hold down on a year round basis and not make more than minimum wage.

try california with immigrants and what not who have to work in a kitchen on minimum wage in order to support their families. or the single-parent homeless man/woman put on the streets by some unfortunate circumstance who cannot afford rent and support their children on 8.00 an hour working in a restaurant. the government just screws them over

If the government supported help groups and charities we could get the best of both worlds. Corporations would flourish, and the government wouldn't control every aspect of people's lives, they'd just support friendly help. In the end the money would come mostly from willing consumers, and there would be more of it because they'd be more aware.

It's hard to explain but I guess what I'm trying to say is the government could give some money to charities, giving homeless people help but not having an over-controlling government. More consumers would also be aware of these charities and willling people would give more money.

ProtestTheZero wrote:I feel like this question gets ignored, but it is the obvious explanation for the differences between all the political parties.

I think the government's first priority is protecting the interests of society as a whole. Increasing national wealth and facilitating industrial growth. I believe that by doing this, the Government can increase the standard of living we enjoy in this country, and therefore, serve its people best.

Now, I imagine a lot of you believe that the government is there to protect the interests of the individual. I get that, that you see it as important for the government to do everything it can to stop people from failing, but I feel like that view of government focuses more on how to divide up the wealth, not grow it. In the end, it just seems to me that a government who puts the person before the society ends up stagnating.

What is your take.

i actually agree with you on something. shocker. thats one of my problems with our government because i see it firsthand. i have a cousin who has used the government continuously. she has 2 children 1 at the time that she was not taking care of when she went to college for free because she was a single parent. she gets welfare and all that shit cant keep a job doesnt try too. its ridiculous. but the government keeps giving. the college thing especially pisses me off because our family income was high enough that my sister didnt get hardly any financial aid. she could only go to college for one year because of this and worked for like 3.5 to get money to go back. she has worked steadily and doesnt get to go free to school. to me that is bullshit. and like ptz its all because the government does not want her to fail so to speak. bullshit if you ask me.

xc_babe09 wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:I feel like this question gets ignored, but it is the obvious explanation for the differences between all the political parties.

I think the government's first priority is protecting the interests of society as a whole. Increasing national wealth and facilitating industrial growth. I believe that by doing this, the Government can increase the standard of living we enjoy in this country, and therefore, serve its people best.

Now, I imagine a lot of you believe that the government is there to protect the interests of the individual. I get that, that you see it as important for the government to do everything it can to stop people from failing, but I feel like that view of government focuses more on how to divide up the wealth, not grow it. In the end, it just seems to me that a government who puts the person before the society ends up stagnating.

What is your take.

i actually agree with you on something. shocker. thats one of my problems with our government because i see it firsthand. i have a cousin who has used the government continuously. she has 2 children 1 at the time that she was not taking care of when she went to college for free because she was a single parent. she gets welfare and all that shit cant keep a job doesnt try too. its ridiculous. but the government keeps giving. the college thing especially pisses me off because our family income was high enough that my sister didnt get hardly any financial aid. she could only go to college for one year because of this and worked for like 3.5 to get money to go back. she has worked steadily and doesnt get to go free to school. to me that is bullshit. and like ptz its all because the government does not want her to fail so to speak. bullshit if you ask me.

Are you going to be able to go to college?

i hope. it will be hard to afford and i doubt ill get much aid. hopefully i can get some good scholarships otherwise im screwed.

Even for a public school?

FinishingKick wrote:Even for a public school?

yeah, she should apply to the best public in her state, apply for 100 scholarships and win a handful, and then take out a loan to cover whatever else she needs

I don't see how she can't afford it. She could go to a community college for two years and then go to a public school for two and take out loans.

yea..

[quote="SourWorms"]

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

ProtestTheZero wrote:

CT Track wrote:If the government tries to increase common wealth, then why was the bill for raising the minimum wage constantly rejected?

Because only high schoolers make minimum wage?

ignorance ftw!

screw the working poor right? thats the conservative battle-cry

I live in CT and work at a grocery store. Minimum wage is 7.65. The lifers who work the cashiers all make more than that. Only the high schoolers and college kids make minimum wage.

I mean, raising minimum wage really is just funneling money into the pockets of high schoolers. I can't think of a job someone with a GED would hold down on a year round basis and not make more than minimum wage.

try california with immigrants and what not who have to work in a kitchen on minimum wage in order to support their families. or the single-parent homeless man/woman put on the streets by some unfortunate circumstance who cannot afford rent and support their children on 8.00 an hour working in a restaurant. the government just screws them over

The reality is that these people don't have marketable skills. It isn't nice to say they are a burden to society, but it is accurate. How can businesses be expected to grow if you force them to throw thousands of dollars a year more at each employee just because they dropped out of high school? The reward should match the work, or else everyone who did do what they had to to make themselves successful is going to end up suffering so a few mexicans and ex-junkees can afford to furnish their trailers with nascar posters.

hmmm.... yeah i wonder hwat that ceo does allday...


oh that's right funnels money out of his workers by firing them... ohohohoho i almost forgot

but this is a pointless argument.... a government represents all the people...but only a majority of the people support the existing governemnts actions. the rest complain about what they should really be doing. the government does the best it can to make the majority happy, and sometimes the governemtn becomes one that makes the minority happy but these governments are usually dictatorships where they rule by force. i know the gov't we have is doesn't have a good record so far but when obama (yes he will and don't you deny it) gets elected the people who are complaining now will be happy and vis versa. there is no one size fits all utopia.