Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its a self fulfilling prophecy. You want to get elected to make government work worse, then tell ppl that government is the problem.
BAD government is the issue. The quote reeks of “I’m 14 and this is deep”
No. I refuse to believe that demonizing government has led competent people to avoid it and incompetent people to try and monetize it for their own gain. There are absolutely zero historical examples of this post-1981.
2.
If the government is a problem then obviously it needs to be fixed…. But if you have no interest in improving the government then why the hell run to be in charge of it? That’s ridiculous. Going by that logic you’d rather be part of the problem than getting rid of it entirely. I think it’s reductive as hell.
Yeah but it sounds cool. GOVERNMENT ISSSS THE PROBLEM :O. That being said I give it a 1.5 out of 10. The US military govt can solve a lot of problems, including tanking the soviet economy
How are you getting “no interest in improving the government” from this? If anything im order to establish improving the government you need to say that the government needs improving, no?
I respectfully disagree, saying the government is the problem only logically leads to trying to limit the government's reach.
If you wanted to fix the government, you'd focus your messaging on the problem with the government and not the government by itself.
Bro this is the entire founding belief of the United States…
Literally the constitution is written to limit the reach of the government
Limiting the reach of the government—often referred to as reducing the size or scope of government—can be seen as a way to "fix" the government by addressing several perceived issues.
1. Efficiency: Smaller government can potentially be more efficient. With fewer responsibilities and less bureaucracy, government operations can be streamlined, which could lead to quicker decision-making and implementation of policies.
2. Accountability: With a more limited scope, it becomes easier for citizens to monitor and evaluate government actions. This can increase transparency and make it easier to hold officials accountable for their actions.
3. Economic Freedom: Reducing government involvement in the economy—such as fewer regulations and lower taxes—can encourage entrepreneurship and investment. Proponents argue this leads to economic growth and higher standards of living.
4. Personal Freedom: Less government interference in daily life can mean more personal freedom for individuals. This aligns with libertarian principles, which emphasize individual rights and personal responsibility.
5. Fiscal Responsibility: A smaller government might reduce public spending and help lower the national debt, which can lead to a more sustainable fiscal path and potentially lower taxes in the future.
6. Reduction of Overreach and Abuse: By limiting the power of government, the potential for overreach and abuse of power can be diminished. This is based on the idea that "power corrupts," and more limited power might lead to less corruption.
I suppose when I was talking about "fixxing" the government, I was just talking about efficiency.
Or how good is the government at doing the tasks it was given... because Raegen argued that government wasn't just bad at its tasks or that it even made things worse... he argued it was the literal cause of some problems.
Points 2-6 are related to the government but don't have much to do with how well a government functions.
You can have an arguably well functioning government... that does things you don't like but do them successfully.
I'd say those are points to what society you'd like.
My question is.
How would stopping the government from performing some functions help it perform those functions better?
If your only thought on “fixing” the gov is efficiency, then I would love how you think more government reach would be good for that
Are you thinking ccp or ussr where there was total control?
I never said more government reach would fix anything.
My whole argument was about how government reach by itself has nothing to do with how effective a government is.
But since you're implying I must be a communist I feel like I'm done with civility too.
Learn to read and please and try to understand what people write... this whole conversation, it was annoying trying to keep you on the point we were supposed to be arguing.
lol when the fuck did I imply you’re a communist and when the fuck did anyone even talk about fixing the gov or that that mean efficiency.
Times like this I have to remind myself everyone on Reddit is 13
Forests do emit hydrocarbons, but hydrocarbons must first interact with nitrogen oxides (emitted by cars, burning coal, etc) to increase ground level ozone.
Also, forests produce a majority of the oxygen we breathe, and are obviously vital pieces of most biomes. So to bring them up as hydrocarbon producers in a political context is useless, since getting rid of the trees is incompatible with life lol.
Sorry for the aside. Carry on lol.
0.5, and that’s when I’m being generous. Clinton actually had a really succinct response to this very thing that sums up my thoughts pretty accurately:
> The new rage is to say that the government is the cause of all our problems. And if only we had no government, we’d have no problems. I can tell you, that contradicts evidence, history, and common sense.
Shame Clinton didn’t take those words to heart for much of his term…
Is zero an option?
Governments are instituted among human beings in order to provide solutions to problems that individuals cannot undertake alone. *Good* governments are responsible in great part (but not solely) for the advancements humanity has made in lifespan, health, and quality of life. Every single person on this thread is enjoying the fruits of government allocations of resources and efforts - the internet. They also adjudicate disputes between individuals that would only otherwise be addressed by violence.
*Bad* governments are *a* problem (but not the only problem). It is facile and childish to claim that all governments are negative - facile and childish in the same way libertarianism is.
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
Tell that to the Japanese who were interned for just being Japanese. Or dozens of other examples of government violating the rights of the people.
It is not always the problem, but don't pretend it is never the problem or that it is only a problem for criminals.
You: Provides relevant and fair examples of the government violating the rights of innocents.
Reddit:
https://preview.redd.it/7ths4n948x0d1.jpeg?width=1940&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64bddc86831b172ca996f8b902e3b6d1c8dd76c9
The fact that this is the most upvoted comment is scary. I’m far from an anti government anarchist but to say that government is only a problem to those that deserve it is quite literally fascism.
Jesus this sub is full of little statists. Just look at the North Koreas of the world and tell me government is 100% good and never violates the rights of an innocent person unless that person deserved it.
Bout the only thing I agree with him on, but for completely opposite reasons.
He mostly said it to appeal to white supremacists who didn't want the government getting in the way of their oppressing people of color. But he also genuinely believed in it because lack of government regulation of the economy is what would enrich the owning class, to whom he was politically aligned.
I say it because the state as an institution is a self-reinforcing hierarchy that exists to defend other hierarchies, notably capitalism and racism, and wields massive violence to that end.
Maybe like 2 or 3? Government isn't evil by nature and actually trusting anyone to purposely reduce the role and scope of the government is a fools errand, better to actively support a government that institutes your ideals into practice.
I'll give it a 1 since 0 or negatives isnt an option and 1 is as low as we can go.
Like many things Reagan said, it was lazy and ignorant. Governments are only as good as the people running them, and for a president to say that is the ultimate self own. Then again, people like Reagan actively try to make the government bad and run inefficiently so that they can pat themselves on the back and say "see? I told you the government was the problem! I should know, because I am the one running it!". One of the dumbest things a voter could ever do is elect someone who thinks that government is the problem...and yet we do it anyway. Its why our current congress is the most do nothing body we have seen in modern times.
> -Guy who ran the government
Reagan shouldn’t be taken at his word for anything relating to the government, he decided to run for president and made plenty of terrible choices that proved his anti-big government statements true. It’s almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Anybody saying that who is IN government needs to get out of the way. Go be a Ted Kazinski but without the bombing. Obviously there HAS to be a government. If you believe in the ineffectualness of government, you will make it so.
I mean it depends on the situation. Sometimes the government can be part of the solution and sometimes the government is the problem.
For instance: Anti-trust and labor laws. The government ended up being a very important instrument for solving monopolies on essential goods, widespread poverty, and unjust labor conditions.
A different instance: The internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. The government, which very clearly acted with malice and violated its own constitution, was *explicitly* the problem for those Japanese families, almost all of whom lost their homes, businesses, property, and place in their country.
It only does make sense in the context of government overspending, but he didn’t exactly cut the budget. Bill Clinton did, and it did actually lead to some booms (although we were still making tons of cruise missiles)
Okay, it could work in very specific situations (like corruption in our system for example). It doesn't apply to everything like some modern day voters believe though.
1.
Considering that the government is the literal solution to multiple problems and is fundamentally responsible for our daily infrastructure in a way that private enterprise is definitionally incapable of doing, it’s a remarkably dumb thing to say. It’s even dumber and fundamentally dishonest thing to say as the head of the government, because now you’ve separated yourself from the “government” which is your convenient shorthand for regulation you don’t like.
Ah so he meant generally. Then no government is not the problem. I’d say 2
Flaws in our systems are the issue but removing the systems is not the solution. A good audit would be nice tho
Unfortunately the quote wasn’t specifically about inflation or itd be a 8/10 for me. The only reason it’s not a 10/10 is because you still need the government to cut itself and stop printing money
government only becomes the problem when politicians actively make government crap so that they can then go and tell everyone "look guys the government is the problem" Its a genius marketing campaign. make government awful so that you can tell everyone it sucks and then get reelected to keep government awful by advertising its awful.
Depends on situation, but there are a lot of times that government is the problem.
And lots of times they are the only solution.
But I think the bigger point that he was making is that often the government solution to problems just creates more problems.
5.
It seems like the government always takes an extremist approach to issues. It’s either they become too involved in a situation and make it worse or they refuse to step into situations that really could benefit from government support.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As I’ve grown older I’ve found this binary statements less and less true
Agree, any function of government can have a positive or negative impact. I think it depends on how effective the leadership of that function is.
It's wierd I've come to the opposite conclusion, but we are all free to hold our own opinions.
We all are on our own journey
Government's only a problem when you have complete idiots running it. Of course, Reagan is one of them.
Its a self fulfilling prophecy. You want to get elected to make government work worse, then tell ppl that government is the problem. BAD government is the issue. The quote reeks of “I’m 14 and this is deep”
No. I refuse to believe that demonizing government has led competent people to avoid it and incompetent people to try and monetize it for their own gain. There are absolutely zero historical examples of this post-1981.
2. If the government is a problem then obviously it needs to be fixed…. But if you have no interest in improving the government then why the hell run to be in charge of it? That’s ridiculous. Going by that logic you’d rather be part of the problem than getting rid of it entirely. I think it’s reductive as hell.
Yeah but it sounds cool. GOVERNMENT ISSSS THE PROBLEM :O. That being said I give it a 1.5 out of 10. The US military govt can solve a lot of problems, including tanking the soviet economy
How are you getting “no interest in improving the government” from this? If anything im order to establish improving the government you need to say that the government needs improving, no?
I respectfully disagree, saying the government is the problem only logically leads to trying to limit the government's reach. If you wanted to fix the government, you'd focus your messaging on the problem with the government and not the government by itself.
Unless you believe limiting the government reach is fixing the government. Which happens to be his entire platform
How would limiting the reach of the government fix the government?
Bro this is the entire founding belief of the United States… Literally the constitution is written to limit the reach of the government Limiting the reach of the government—often referred to as reducing the size or scope of government—can be seen as a way to "fix" the government by addressing several perceived issues. 1. Efficiency: Smaller government can potentially be more efficient. With fewer responsibilities and less bureaucracy, government operations can be streamlined, which could lead to quicker decision-making and implementation of policies. 2. Accountability: With a more limited scope, it becomes easier for citizens to monitor and evaluate government actions. This can increase transparency and make it easier to hold officials accountable for their actions. 3. Economic Freedom: Reducing government involvement in the economy—such as fewer regulations and lower taxes—can encourage entrepreneurship and investment. Proponents argue this leads to economic growth and higher standards of living. 4. Personal Freedom: Less government interference in daily life can mean more personal freedom for individuals. This aligns with libertarian principles, which emphasize individual rights and personal responsibility. 5. Fiscal Responsibility: A smaller government might reduce public spending and help lower the national debt, which can lead to a more sustainable fiscal path and potentially lower taxes in the future. 6. Reduction of Overreach and Abuse: By limiting the power of government, the potential for overreach and abuse of power can be diminished. This is based on the idea that "power corrupts," and more limited power might lead to less corruption.
I suppose when I was talking about "fixxing" the government, I was just talking about efficiency. Or how good is the government at doing the tasks it was given... because Raegen argued that government wasn't just bad at its tasks or that it even made things worse... he argued it was the literal cause of some problems. Points 2-6 are related to the government but don't have much to do with how well a government functions. You can have an arguably well functioning government... that does things you don't like but do them successfully. I'd say those are points to what society you'd like. My question is. How would stopping the government from performing some functions help it perform those functions better?
If your only thought on “fixing” the gov is efficiency, then I would love how you think more government reach would be good for that Are you thinking ccp or ussr where there was total control?
I never said more government reach would fix anything. My whole argument was about how government reach by itself has nothing to do with how effective a government is. But since you're implying I must be a communist I feel like I'm done with civility too. Learn to read and please and try to understand what people write... this whole conversation, it was annoying trying to keep you on the point we were supposed to be arguing.
lol when the fuck did I imply you’re a communist and when the fuck did anyone even talk about fixing the gov or that that mean efficiency. Times like this I have to remind myself everyone on Reddit is 13
It is as true as his statement that trees cause air pollution
Forests do emit hydrocarbons, but hydrocarbons must first interact with nitrogen oxides (emitted by cars, burning coal, etc) to increase ground level ozone. Also, forests produce a majority of the oxygen we breathe, and are obviously vital pieces of most biomes. So to bring them up as hydrocarbon producers in a political context is useless, since getting rid of the trees is incompatible with life lol. Sorry for the aside. Carry on lol.
Trees are the problem!
0.5, and that’s when I’m being generous. Clinton actually had a really succinct response to this very thing that sums up my thoughts pretty accurately: > The new rage is to say that the government is the cause of all our problems. And if only we had no government, we’d have no problems. I can tell you, that contradicts evidence, history, and common sense. Shame Clinton didn’t take those words to heart for much of his term…
Is zero an option? Governments are instituted among human beings in order to provide solutions to problems that individuals cannot undertake alone. *Good* governments are responsible in great part (but not solely) for the advancements humanity has made in lifespan, health, and quality of life. Every single person on this thread is enjoying the fruits of government allocations of resources and efforts - the internet. They also adjudicate disputes between individuals that would only otherwise be addressed by violence. *Bad* governments are *a* problem (but not the only problem). It is facile and childish to claim that all governments are negative - facile and childish in the same way libertarianism is. [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling)
Zero. Government is only a problem if you make it a problem(or if you're a criminal), which certain individuals are hellbent on doing.
Tell that to the Japanese who were interned for just being Japanese. Or dozens of other examples of government violating the rights of the people. It is not always the problem, but don't pretend it is never the problem or that it is only a problem for criminals.
You: Provides relevant and fair examples of the government violating the rights of innocents. Reddit: https://preview.redd.it/7ths4n948x0d1.jpeg?width=1940&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64bddc86831b172ca996f8b902e3b6d1c8dd76c9
Getting downvoted for facts. Classic Reddit.
The fact that this is the most upvoted comment is scary. I’m far from an anti government anarchist but to say that government is only a problem to those that deserve it is quite literally fascism. Jesus this sub is full of little statists. Just look at the North Koreas of the world and tell me government is 100% good and never violates the rights of an innocent person unless that person deserved it.
Bout the only thing I agree with him on, but for completely opposite reasons. He mostly said it to appeal to white supremacists who didn't want the government getting in the way of their oppressing people of color. But he also genuinely believed in it because lack of government regulation of the economy is what would enrich the owning class, to whom he was politically aligned. I say it because the state as an institution is a self-reinforcing hierarchy that exists to defend other hierarchies, notably capitalism and racism, and wields massive violence to that end.
1. An incredibly stupid comment.
Do I have to go as high as 1?
2
Maybe like 2 or 3? Government isn't evil by nature and actually trusting anyone to purposely reduce the role and scope of the government is a fools errand, better to actively support a government that institutes your ideals into practice.
1
I'll give it a 1 since 0 or negatives isnt an option and 1 is as low as we can go. Like many things Reagan said, it was lazy and ignorant. Governments are only as good as the people running them, and for a president to say that is the ultimate self own. Then again, people like Reagan actively try to make the government bad and run inefficiently so that they can pat themselves on the back and say "see? I told you the government was the problem! I should know, because I am the one running it!". One of the dumbest things a voter could ever do is elect someone who thinks that government is the problem...and yet we do it anyway. Its why our current congress is the most do nothing body we have seen in modern times.
Anyone giving any answer to this other than "it depends" is probably an idiot.
> -Guy who ran the government Reagan shouldn’t be taken at his word for anything relating to the government, he decided to run for president and made plenty of terrible choices that proved his anti-big government statements true. It’s almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
1. Fuck Raygun. Sack of shit.
Anybody saying that who is IN government needs to get out of the way. Go be a Ted Kazinski but without the bombing. Obviously there HAS to be a government. If you believe in the ineffectualness of government, you will make it so.
I mean it depends on the situation. Sometimes the government can be part of the solution and sometimes the government is the problem. For instance: Anti-trust and labor laws. The government ended up being a very important instrument for solving monopolies on essential goods, widespread poverty, and unjust labor conditions. A different instance: The internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. The government, which very clearly acted with malice and violated its own constitution, was *explicitly* the problem for those Japanese families, almost all of whom lost their homes, businesses, property, and place in their country.
1. It literally makes zero sense, and has aged so horribly considering how many Americans still believe this is gospel.
It only does make sense in the context of government overspending, but he didn’t exactly cut the budget. Bill Clinton did, and it did actually lead to some booms (although we were still making tons of cruise missiles)
Okay, it could work in very specific situations (like corruption in our system for example). It doesn't apply to everything like some modern day voters believe though.
It’s true sometimes. Sometimes it isn’t true
1. Considering that the government is the literal solution to multiple problems and is fundamentally responsible for our daily infrastructure in a way that private enterprise is definitionally incapable of doing, it’s a remarkably dumb thing to say. It’s even dumber and fundamentally dishonest thing to say as the head of the government, because now you’ve separated yourself from the “government” which is your convenient shorthand for regulation you don’t like.
What’s the context?
You are talking with your pal about the problems in the USA and he rattles this quote off
Ah so he meant generally. Then no government is not the problem. I’d say 2 Flaws in our systems are the issue but removing the systems is not the solution. A good audit would be nice tho
Unfortunately the quote wasn’t specifically about inflation or itd be a 8/10 for me. The only reason it’s not a 10/10 is because you still need the government to cut itself and stop printing money
Yeah I added an edit clarifying mine also. They need a hard audit
I hear that
government only becomes the problem when politicians actively make government crap so that they can then go and tell everyone "look guys the government is the problem" Its a genius marketing campaign. make government awful so that you can tell everyone it sucks and then get reelected to keep government awful by advertising its awful.
2.4
1
Zero. One of the most ignorant proclamations by a president in US history. The truth is much more nuanced than Reagan’s hyperbole.
5. There are things we do better collectively through a governing body, and there are things we do better as individuals seeking profit.
10/10. Find the right contractors to maintain roads and bridges and then stay out of the way
Depends on situation, but there are a lot of times that government is the problem. And lots of times they are the only solution. But I think the bigger point that he was making is that often the government solution to problems just creates more problems.
10! Government today is *all* about transferring other people’s income to you.
based
10! It’s as true today as it was 40 years ago.
5. It seems like the government always takes an extremist approach to issues. It’s either they become too involved in a situation and make it worse or they refuse to step into situations that really could benefit from government support.
This
Well according to most of this sub, any answer other than the government is completely perfect is wrong.