Hating government doesn't solve problems - By E.J. Dionne Jr.

[DonViejo]

In its current iteration, the Republican Party truly seems to believe that the solution to every problem involves throwing more money at rich people. This explains the health-care fiasco in the Senate, and it’s why President Trump and Congress have yet to address a single major problem the country faces.

Everything is secondary to the GOP’s two opening legislative priorities: gutting Obamacare and passing a tax cut.

The president has talked a lot about infrastructure, but he has offered no plan and Congress shows few signs of coming up with one anytime soon. Trump loves to say he wants to help those battered by economic change. But his actions in this sphere have been entirely symbolic. There are no comprehensive proposals for, say, using training, community colleges and the apprenticeships he was touting recently to open up new opportunities.

There have been steps to eliminate regulations protecting workers, consumers and the environment, rationalized as job-creation measures. This is just trickle-down economics in another form: Whatever fulfills the desires of the most-privileged sectors in our society is declared to be good for everyone else. But God forbid that government do anything to help the non-rich directly.

It’s not true that every problem has a government solution. But it is true that certain problems can be addressed only by government. One of these is helping all Americans afford a decent health-insurance policy. It’s this simple: To cover everyone, government has to spend a lot of money.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hating-government-doesnt-solve-problems/2017/06/28/2a8c8e72-5c35-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.20dd8e7ded22&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

[Blue_Tires]

1. k+r

[hurple]

2. I've used the analogy

"If you were the principal of a high school, would you hire a football coach who hates football, and wants it to be outlawed?"

And, that has actually gotten through the thick skulls of a few of the RW mouth-breathers I've spoken with.

[Igel]

3. If you thought that football was taking up too many resources.

Plus there's a difference between "hating football" and demanding that you have a full-time head coach who does nothing but be head coach; plus a defense coach, offensive coach, and training coach, all with extra periods off and additional stipend; that they have separate locker rooms and weight room; a playing field, a practice field; that the school springs for physicals at the beginning of the year, pays for football camp facilities and staff starting in june; and that it's standard that in the event of a night game no test can be given the next day.

If the demands were that football players be separately monitored and, if they're failing, additional help provided after school, additional retests or chances at making up assignments given, and if they're still failing that "you find it in your heart to maintain the student's grade so that he can uphold the high standards of this high school." (Yes, I've been asked to pass kids who were failing, badly, in order to uphold high standards. And I've seen others asked to do with by a coach with the head principal standing in the doorway.)

For die-hard supporters, "right sizing" that would be equivalent to "hating football."

I personally would love to see that "right sized." Because that's my high school.

But wanting it downsized doesn't mean I hate football. It's the whole reason some of my kids come to school. But I've had kids tell me that they're so special because of all they do for the school I should just give them 100s on tests. Can't laugh at their ridiculousness, but it's absurd.

Saying "to limit football = to hate football" would be the fallacy of overgeneralization. Fallacies lead to really bad argumentation and piss-poor logic.

I've never known anybody to hate government overall; I've known a lot of people who hated portions of it--from ICE and DEA to the ATF and DOE. I know people on the left and right that hate taxes and the IRS--mostly because of their own experience because they think they pay too much or were badly treated. But even the most inveterate of libertarians I've known, and I've known some pretty far into the anarchist side of things, still see a number of valid reasons for government. Yet I've known RWers who said people who hated DEA drug-law enforcement "hated government," and "LWers" who said that people who hated the DOE "hated government." Hyperpolarization is a bad thing, even in rhetoric.

In some cases people say they "hate government" but they're also overgeneralizing. It's a common error in thinking--there's a reason it's also called the "hasty generalization" fallacy. It's easy to fix--just point out the areas they like or approve of. It'll take a minute or two as they work through the fallacy and dispose of it, and a couple more minutes as they realize "the government" is a huge range of services and requirements and sort through which they approve of and which they don't. Make them slow their thinking down just a bit. Whatever side of the aisle they're on.

[hurple]

4. Wow

You are waaaay over-analyzing this.