[quakenul]

When things go bad government should intervene to protect people. These steps are always going to be extraordinary, because the situation is extraordinary, but it is the very role of government to apply necessary fixes without false pride for any economic or governmental models.

Of course, questions as to how one ended up in a bad situation have to be asked. Underlying issues should be fixed.

But when things get out of hand, when extraordinary action is deemed necessary to adjust for an untenable situation, it is not only right but paramount to take action.

As is with all issues, people will disagree with any specific course of action. By all means, vote to that effect.

[WkndTriathlete]

> But when things get out of hand, when extraordinary action is deemed necessary to adjust for an untenable situation, it is not only right but paramount to take them.

That rationale is also how wars get started.

Not that I disagree with you, per se: lethal "cures" and excessive pollution were killing people in the early 20th century in the US and government intervention was required. But the Korean and Vietnam wars were also the result of people thinking that the spread of communism was also untenable.

[quakenul]

Nope. Just like physics is exactly not how an atom bomb got dropped -- in an extremely important distinction between physics and atom bomb dropping -- there is a very important distinction between government intervention and going to war.

In a complicated world things will correlate. I hope this neither makes a generalised case against physics nor government intervention.