Do u think Government should encourge...?
956035
Governments should be uninvolved in the process, except possibly to insure an adequate supply of essential goods such as medicine and food at competitive prices.  Otherwise, the government may have a role in insuring competition, but it should be minimal at most.  Generally, governments propose mergers in corporations when the political cost exceeds the value of compelling firms to absorb the financial costs of some problem.  For example, during the American banking crisis of the 80's the government encouraged mergers to reduce the loss to the FDIC by auctioning off failed banks to the highest bidder.  The political cost of getting firms to merge was less than the combined cost to the FDIC, the unemployment of closing banks and damage to communities who lost financial institutions.
830183
Great idea.. sue the government for diverting tax dollars to non-citizens through medicaid, food stamps, welfare, public schools.  It may be the only way to address the problem.  Until we take away all these reasons to invade this country, the problem will get worse.  Their effect on wages (just look at the unchanged minimum) has been devastating.
33926
Right you are, diversity it what makes the world great.  The government needs to focus on more important things like our homeless and hungry children.
723366
No, if anything we should give the individual states more power to govern themselves. The federal governmnet already has too much power over the states as it is.
90656
By "us gov" I assume you mean the current administration.  Or do you mean to include congress?  In either case, the answer is generally, no.  I'm terribly disappointed.  Or rather, not really disappointed, because I did not expect much from GWB.  But the structure of our government is still pretty good, and our Constitution is just fine, thank you.  Don't you wish the current crop of idiots paid attention to it once in awhile?\n\nThe problem I see in this country is that the vast majority of voters figure their choices are limited to the two largest parties.  Problem is, they have been trading off power trips and making back-room deals between them for so long, that does not give us much in the way of a choice.\n\nBut we have a strong and promising third party coming up fast: the Libertarian Party.  We libertarians believe that a government should be small enough to fit inside the Constitution.  We would disassemble the beaurocracy, stop butting into other countries' business, and trust the individual adult citizen to make his or her own choices about private matters.  We believe market forces would solve many of the problems that protectionism and favoritism only make worse.  And we believe that taxes should be eliminated if possible, or at least reduced to no more than it would take to run those operations that cannot be accomplished any other way.  \n\nIf the state can do it, then the feds should let them.  If the county can do it, the state should let them.  If the individual can do it, then let him alone.  If the individual cannot do it, let voluntary organizations and other structures at the local level help.  Because the larger the unit set with the task of solving a given problem, the less efficient it will inevitably be.  Perhaps the coordination necessary for defense operations would require a federal structure, but I personally cannot think of anything else that needs to be done on such a scale.  Can you?
1135461
We don't need more government...got too darn much already.  First they will want to do is impose taxes and I already pay too much.  \n\nBy the way; when you get China and its people on board let me know.
947125
No.\n\nIt's a free country, people should be able to go outside anytime they want. The government couldn't restrict us from going outdoors. That's crazy and dictatorship-like.
517669
Good idea! Perhaps ot will encourage people to actually get out of welfare, instead of propagating so that they can collect more. Brilliant!\n\nPS: Will nip corruption in the system though, hence might not be feasible.
640520
YES, WHY NOT? BEFORE GOVERNMENTS WERE ESTABLISHED, PEOPLE USED TO WALK MILE AND MILES UNTIL THEY DECIDED TO STAY THINKING THAT WAS THE BEST LAND TO START A NEW LIFE, SOME OF US WERE LUCKY SOME OF US WERE NOT, AS YOU CAN SEE NOW, WE HAVE BORDER OWNERS PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, KINGDOMS.ETC... THE REST IS YOUR TO THINK ABOUT IT....IT IS HUMAN TO LET PEOPLE TO TRY TO SURVIVE THE BEST WAY THAT THEY CAN , IF IT MEAN TO ENTER ILLEGAL TO A COUNTRY IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHY NOT AS LONG THEY ARE NOT DOING NOTHING OUT OF NORMAL TO EARN FOR THEIR NEEDS I THINK THEY CAN STAY THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR A COUNTRY LIKE US.
1092200
yes.\n\nany issue we overlook and leave in the hand of corpatist is dangerous. the intrest of the people should always come first.
649083
Yes, but it might depend on type of government
820354
I'm in total agreement with you. it's the same for any country. over population will create problems with jobs. are system would not be able to support everyone in need of help.
656764
Of course, and taxes are too low right now. We dont have enough resources to pay for everything...\n\nI would fund the federal government the most because disasters dont understand borders
859205
no they should govern
993116
In theory it is, but in practice, it doesn't work that way. The government has become self-serving. One might argue that the government looks at the bigger picture and therefore can not make decisions based on what the people want. Also, at times, the government only knows what the people with the largest influence and the biggest wallets wants.
337974
Oh, I hope not!  I think we need to be able to "get away" from whatever government dominates, or it will come to dominate every facet of our lives.  Both George Orwell's "1984," (which was written in 1948, as I recall), and "Brave New World," and lots of other science fiction have made the point that a world-wide country is too much power too centralized.  It will not make way for differences that humans need to have to function.  \n\nThe big government concept is uniformity; the politics of scale.  That is a necessary part of doing things on a big scale, and why no more than absolutely necessary should be done by the federal government.  The smaller the unit of government, the bigger the opportunity to respond to real-world circumstances.  A neighborhood can get things done with only occasional assistance from a city government, which seldom needs to draw on the resources of the entire county, state, region.  Response to a major disaster takes a well-coordinated effort across state lines.  Even there, who has done the better job in Katrina response: the Red Cross and the rest of the private foundations, or the federal government?  I rest my case.
842592
I say YES. Why should my tax dollars go to keep some low life alive. With free medical, three meals a day, dental, better than some hard working people get. I don't care what you call it, maybe it is revenge.