More government involvement in the economy or less?

The lesser the government is involved in the countries economics the better it will become, their involvement in it just makes it worse and more complex.

 

That is true, governments tend to be extremely bureaucratic, so sometimes it's better if they don't interfere.

 

I think government needs to have as little intervention in the economy as possible.
Sure that left to fend for itself, the economy isn't perfect, but it seems like whenever the government intervenes it only worsens it and nothing good happens.

 

I really can't say, are the private companies better than the government? I really can't say, I am not that educated in that way.

 

I personally prefer a laissez-faire approach. Instead of pushing new laws that limit our rights more and more, I think the government should focus their energy on finding all the politicians, businessmen, and brokers who make a mockery of the law. If the government would put more effort into enforcing our laws, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

 

I agree with this 100%. The masses have already suffered enough and it's time to take it out on the people that actually deserve to have stricter policies in place. I could see it as beneficial if they would do it carefully and with a lot of thought but......when has that ever been the American way? I totally agree that the finance mess we have inherited could have been avoided pretty easy with the right regulations. Too late too bad at this point.

 

Our economy seems to be doing better now that they're aren't as many new laws and regulations being forced on them. I think having a divided government and having Republicans in control of the House has mitigated a lot of the damage that could have been done if more liberal policies were continuing to be put in place as they were during the 2007-2010 era. I think as long as the line on spending, taxes and regulations is kept where it is, the economy will continue to grow. Less regulations and taxes would obviously be better, but I don't think that's in the cards for the next few years.

 

I think you hit on it here later in your post, but it's not that people voted for Obama because they want more government involvement in the economy, but they're simply not educated on what his economic policies are. The "ADA" bill is one I'll always keep coming back to with regards to public ignorance as to what sort of economic policies are being implemented in the White House. People will say they support Obama because of the "free health care," but when you ask them anything of substance about the bill, they can't tell you anything about it or what it really does to health care in the country.

 

The problem with no regulation is that monopolies occur and the companies do whatever they want. The wealthy have no idea what it is like to be at the bottom, and they do not care. I'm not talking welfare, I am talking increased wages and good benefits. If a company make X Billions of dollars last year for the third year in a row, then can't they spread the wealth a little and reward their employees? And of course the company can do what they want and the employees can work elsewhere---but what if they cannot?

Another poster wrote that a hands off government would allow small businesses to grow. This is not true. Twenty years ago, my state had 1000 independent pharmacies, now we are down to about 60. That is a real number, not made up. The big chains bought them all up. When I have only two choices of cable companies in my area, that is not a choice. It is a coercion, and the only choice is the lesser of two evils.

I truly believe regulations need to be in place because without the correct ones-- and I do not mean kill the corporation with regs, but create sensible policies---monopolies occur, workers are trapped with no upward mobility available, and small businesses get strangled or never get off the ground.