Do you trust this administration, our government, to keep you safe?

[uppityperson]

The purpose of a government is to do things that individuals or families cannot do on their own. Theoretically, we elect people to represent ourselves, to work together to make this happen.

Health, education, security, food, etc etc etc.

So, how do you feel?

[uppityperson]

1. 1 kick so I can find it later.

[bryant69]

2. Seems like 4 is going to be the popular option

I wouldn't trust this administration to find my car keys (although I expect they would blame my missing car keys on Iran).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cabcere]

8. LOL. They would then proceed to

bomb the hell out of Iran, claiming that the missing car keys were actually secret documents, or possibly weapons of mass destruction, or at the very least raw materials that maybe possibly theoretically might could've been used to create weapons of mass destruction, so naturally we had to attack them over there so they couldn't bring the car keys over here (because if they DID, they would probably use them to scratch up the president's limousine, and THAT can't be allowed!), terra terra terra, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Iranian car key stealers are the enemies of freedom, blah blah blah...

...sorry.

[uppityperson]

9. Meanwhile you key would be made of a lead/uranium alloy

totally safe of course

[Toucano]

28. Or Bush would blame your missing keys on "my predecessor". n/t

[Cabcere]

3. I came in here looking for a "Hell, no!" option

but I think "Hahahahahahahahaha" is equally appropriate. ;) I don't trust this administration any farther than I can throw the lot of them. Might be a different story if I were a rich GOP toady, though...I'm sure they'd take care of my needs then! :think: :eyes:

[tech3149]

4. I consider this administration to be the biggest threat to my welfare

[Iwasthere]

5. I trust them to do just the opposite

IMO they are deliberatly keeping the country as open as possible.

[Initech]

6. I don't trust a government who keeps us safe by scaring the shit out of us.

[Done]

7. I trust that they will kill a lot more people, perhaps me among them. nt

[DUyellow]

10. It is a BAD question...

It is not the responsibility of the administration to keep us safe. The presidents role is to protect the constitution, not to keep you safe.

[uppityperson]

13. not the president, the administration/gvt as a whole

FDA, TSA, ATF, FAA, ATC, ETC ETC ETC
There are many agencies within this administration and gvt that are there to regulate and monitor things to keep us safe.

[LSK]

11. no trolls voting today?

:shrug:

[windbreeze]

12. Not just NO.....hell NO!!

and why would we, after watching what they've done to us and the world, in the last 6 years...everyone better have a plan to keep themselves safe and sound...the minute you count on your government to keep you safe, and let them know it...you have given them all the power they need to put you and keep you right where they want you...under their thumb, subservient to them with no say...
windbreeze

[jody]

14. SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect, i.e. keep safe, individuals unless she/he is in

custody.

SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal problem however SCOTUS has also said government can draft an individual and force she/he to protect government.

[uppityperson]

15. FDA, TSA, what are they for? National Guard?

[jody]

20. I appreciate your concern however SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an

individual unless she/he is in custody.

Why don't you try suing FDA or TSA if you are harmed because they did not do their job.

[uppityperson]

27. What if the FDA or say, FEMA, is being run by incompetent cronies?

Do they have a responsibility to do their job, working for the welfare of The People, The Citizens they are supposed to be working to keep safe and healthy? I am NOT talking about individuals, except for the fact that we as individuals make up The People.

[jody]

30. Please note I said government is not "obligated"! What citizens may desire or expect is completely

different from obligation.

[uppityperson]

32. You said this gvt is not obligated to protect and individual. I think they have responsibilities

To do their jobs. Do you really see this as a mere expectation or desire?

[jody]

35. I use "obligation" in a legal sense where the definition is:

Obligation
QUOTE
1: a promise, acknowledgment, or agreement (as a contract) that binds one to a specific performance (as payment)

also
: the binding power of such an agreement or indication

* * * * * * * *

2: a debt security (as a corporate or government bond)
(see also collateralized mortgage obligation)

3: what one is obligated to do, satisfy, or fulfill:
UNQUOTE

You asked "Do you really see this as a mere expectation or desire?"

My answer, Yes.

[uppityperson]

36. Oh. eom

[LSK]

17. The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

[jody]

18. You are correct "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare"

That does not mean "provide for an individual's defense, promote an individual's welfare".

Have a nice day. :hi:

[LSK]

19. "promote the general welfare"

Protecting the nations food supplies would fall under that IMO.

[jody]

21. The OP asked "to keep you safe". That question narrowed the debate to an individual, not society in

general.

[LSK]

22. thats not how I interpretted it

From the OP:

"The purpose of a government is to do things that individuals or families cannot do on their own."

That would imply to me the question was should the Govt protect "you" as to mean part of society.

I dont expect the Govt to assign me personal security or taste my food.

[jody]

23. I understand however SCOTUS's ruling means government is not obligated to

keep an individual safe regarding "Health, education, security, food, etc etc etc."

Try suing government if it fails to do those things.

[uppityperson]

26. Sorry for your misunderstanding. I did NOT mean individuals but as part of society.

As an individual, I am protected when society in general is protected. I tried to get this across earlier but didn't manage. So, here we are now. Do you understand? You've repeated several times about individuals, but I am asking about in general.

The purpose of a government is to do things that individuals or families cannot do on their own. Theoretically, we elect people to represent ourselves, to work together to make this happen.

Health, education, security, food, etc etc etc.

Though these things help society as a whole, society is made up of individuals. Hence my "you".

[jody]

29. Your assertion "I am protected when society in general is protected" is most likely true

under a totalitarian government.

Personally I prefer maximum individual freedom with its attendant personal risks to a totalitarian government that provides for "Health, education, security, food, etc etc etc."

Apparently you don't agree with me. :shrug:

[uppityperson]

31. Does it have to be 1 way or the other?

I would like a FEMA that did its job. I would like a FDA that did its job. I would like schools that did their job (and the head of education someone doing their job). I would like the dept of health to do its job. I want employees and HEADS of these departments that do their jobs.

Personally I do NOT prefer total anarchy. Apparently you don't agree with me.

[jody]

33. I also do not prefer total anarchy but every government to date that has set out to

provide for an individual's "Health, education, security, food, etc etc etc." has ended up by eroding an individual's freedom.

IMO the U.S. will gradually move toward a government that provides for an individual's "Health, education, security, food, etc etc etc." but in so doing individuals must agree to obey the state.

Totalitarian "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed:"

[uppityperson]

34. I guess that puts you in the "hahahahaha" group.

Do you trust this administration/gvt to appoint competent people to those positions? Do you trust this administration/gvt to have the best interests of its constituents at heart?

[jody]

37. Yep, I don't trust the Bush administration nor do I trust most senators and congresspersons.

If my memory isn't too bad, the winner of Alabama's last senate race had about $2.6 million in individual donations from Alabamians, $2.4 million from Alabama PACs, and about $5 million from out of state sources.

I don't believe that senator will represent his constituents but he will represent the interests of wealthy donors.

A bit in jest but perhaps we could do better if we put social security numbers in a barrel and drew our representatives at random.

[orleans]

16. (are you kidding?) hahaha is right! n/t

[Richard Steele]

24. Quite the opposite. They are a threat to every living thing. nm

[BuyingThyme]

25. Slow day for trolls.