What's wrong with right wing politics you ask?

[Jethro Bodine]

Conservatism isn't a righ/left issue either. People often confuse the terms right/left with conservative/liberal and use these terms interchangeably. But those terms aren't interchangeable. Right-wing politics doesn't equate to either conservative and left-wing politics doesn't equate to liberal. As I posted earlier, right-wing politics consider a certain amount of inequality to be desirable, while left-wing politics encourage more equality. Conservatism is about keeping things the way they are and liberalism is about being open to change. In a society where there has been a right-wing government for a long time, those who want to keep to the right are conservative and those who want a more left-wing government are liberal. But in a society that has been governed by left-wing politics for a long time, those on the left are conservative and those on the right are liberal. In the parliamentary elections here in Iceland in 2003 and again in 2007, there was a party called the Liberal Party. It was the farthest right-wing party in the elections. The reason it was liberal was because we have traditionally had more center to left-wing governments.

The TOG​

Basically, what you're saying is 'conservative', and 'liberal' are relative terms. And I guess that's true. But for us who don't have Æ's on our keyboards () those terms have consistently represented the same ideologies for quite a while now.

 

[Mike S]

I am now beginning to see that is a pipe dream because free markets are fundamentally flawed at being able to deliver services to all people.

By the nature of how they work it is necessary to intervene to keep the balance between those who have and those who need. I do think there is a good, fair, and honest way to do that. Governments job is to build incentives for business to, for example, control health care costs so it's affordable for the one income families who can't compete for goods with the majority of two income families that drive prices up. Government incentives to encourage that is fair, honest, and workable.

Government incentives extend to those things consistent with the limits of the Constitution: protection of property rights, creation of a system of laws, respect for individual responsibilities, etc. It certainly doesn't extend to the government trying to "balance" anything, which is nothing more than political favoritism.

No system of government is perfect, but only limited, dispassionate, government will maintain liberties. The end result of any statist government using it's power to balance society is inevitably a totalitarian administrative welfare system.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Government incentives extend to those things consistent with the limits of the Constitution: protection of property rights, creation of a system of laws, respect for individual responsibilities, etc. It certainly doesn't extend to the government trying to "balance" anything, which is nothing more than political favoritism.

How is the fundamental idea (not the way the idea gets implemented) of government making sure one income families can compete for goods and services with two income families somehow political favoritism?

No system of government is perfect, but only limited, dispassionate, government will maintain liberties.

You see we've been conditioned to believe that the only way to maintain business liberties is for government to stay completely and utterly out of business. That's simply not true. In fact, it is necessary for government to intervene in order to maintain liberties for all of us in business and interacting with business.

And it would be a mistake to think 'dispassionate' means 'no compassion', or 'compassion neutral', because that's what government does--makes sure people are treated fairly and honestly. That's compassion. Perhaps what you resist is favoritism. And you should.

The end result of any statist government using it's power to balance society is inevitably a totalitarian administrative welfare system.

No way. But I understand how being under decades of liberal ways to make sure nobody gets disenfranchised would lead someone to that conclusion.

 

[Mike S]

How is the fundamental idea (not the way the idea gets implemented) of government making sure one income families can compete for goods and services with two income families somehow political favoritism?



You see we've been conditioned to believe that the only way to maintain business liberties is for government to stay completely and utterly out of business. That's simply not true. In fact, it is necessary for government to intervene in order to maintain liberties for all of us in business and interacting with business.

And it would be a mistake to think 'dispassionate' means 'no compassion', or 'compassion neutral', because that's what government does--makes sure people are treated fairly and honestly. That's compassion. Perhaps what you resist is favoritism. And you should.



No way. But I understand how being under decades of liberal ways to make sure nobody gets disenfranchised would lead someone to that conclusion.

That's what government is supposed to do, maintain a fair system by maintaining a systems of laws concerning property rights, contract rights, etc. Nothing about "balancing." Once the decision is made that the Constitution does not limit the power of government, that the purpose of the government is to balance society, there is no limiting principle, as far as I can see, to what the government has the power to do in the name of balance or fairness. Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and all the totalitarian populist governments of South America, are someone's idea of using the power of government to create balance.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let me help you all understand what's wrong with free markets and why Uncle Sam needs to smooth out those flaws.

Five families live on Elm street. Each family is headed by a working man who goes to work each day while mother works at home raising their 2.5 children. They all make essentially the same amount of income.

Prices at Joe's Car Dealership downtown are set at what the market can bear. That means they're as high as they can be so he can make the most money, and low enough for people to afford to buy them. Since everybody on Elm Street makes about the same money, and the prices of Joe's cars are in accordance with what they as a whole generally make, everybody can buy a car at Joe's Car Dealership.

To keep a long story short, if four of these families send mama to work and the kids off to daycare suddenly the prices of Joe's cars that the market can bear can go up....and it will, because that's what business does. They exist to make money. The poor slob who's wife stays at home can not now afford a car that his neighbor's greater income drove up. Government's job is to create incentives to car makers to build cars for a market they would normally not cater to simply because 'that's not where the money is'.

Business is always motivated by and pointed to that which makes money. Government has to build monetary incentive into making cars not only for the richer people, but also for the poorer. By the nature of how free markets operate, that doesn't happen by itself. Perhaps in a moral society it would. But since that is a pipe dream we need creative, fair government intervention that doesn't rob the rich to make it so business has a reason to also cater to those with less income than the majority has.

Just because liberal policy doesn't do this in a fair and equitable way doesn't mean it should not be done at all. Which is what the 'righteous' right does about it--nothing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's what government is supposed to do, maintain a fair system by maintaining a systems of laws concerning property rights, contract rights, etc. Nothing about "balancing." Once the decision is made that the Constitution does not limit the power of government, that the purpose of the government is to balance society, there is no limiting principle, as far as I can see, to what the government has the power to do in the name of balance or fairness. Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and all the totalitarian populist governments of South America, are someone's idea of using the power of government to create balance.

Maybe you can see now that the 'balancing' that government must do is to make sure business has the incentive to provide goods and services to all income levels, not just goods and services for the majority rich.

Tax incentives are an example of how to do this that does not blindly rob the rich. Government creates a financial incentive for business to produce goods and services where there is no normal and logical business incentive to do so by giving businesses tax breaks for operating in business sectors it normally would, and could not operate in before.

 

[Mike S]

Let me help you all understand what's wrong with free markets and why Uncle Sam needs to smooth out those flaws.

Five families live on Elm street. Each family is headed by a working man who goes to work each day while mother works at home raising their 2.5 children. They all make essentially the same amount of income.

Prices at Joe's Car Dealership downtown are set at what the market can bear. That means they're as high as they can be so he can make the most money, and low enough for people to afford to buy them. Since everybody on Elm Street makes about the same money, and the prices of Joe's cars are in accordance with what they as a whole generally make, everybody can buy a car at Joe's Car Dealership.

To keep a long story short, if four of these families send mama to work and the kids off to daycare suddenly the prices of Joe's cars that the market can bear can go up....and it will, because that's what business does. They exist to make money. The poor slob who's wife stays at home can not now afford a car that his neighbor's greater income drove up. Government's job is to create incentives to car makers to build cars for a market they would normally not cater to simply because 'that's not where the money is'.

Business is always motivated by and pointed to that which makes money. Government has to build monetary incentive into making cars not only for the richer people, but also for the poorer. By the nature of how free markets operate, that doesn't happen by itself. Perhaps in a moral society it would. But since that is a pipe dream we need creative, fair government intervention that doesn't rob the rich to make it so business has a reason to cater to those with less income than the majority has.

Just because liberal policy doesn't do this in a fair and equitable way doesn't mean it should not be done at all. Which is what the 'righteous' right does about it--nothing.

Yes it does. Please show me in the Constitution where the government has the authority to do what you are suggesting. Once you decide that eh government's job is to make everything fair, there is no limit to what the government will eventually do to control your life. Please tell me where the limit to government power is if not the Constitution. Health-care, housing, clothing, transportation, child-care, where? Where do you draw the line to what government is responsible for? I suggest to you that once you go down that road there is no limit, and it inevitably ends in a police state.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes it does. Please show me in the Constitution where the government has the authority to do what you are suggesting. Once you decide that eh government's job is to make everything fair, there is no limit to what the government will eventually do to control your life. Please tell me where the limit to government power is if not the Constitution. Health-care, housing, clothing, transportation, child-care, where? Where do you draw the line to what government is responsible for? I suggest to you that once you go down that road there is no limit, and it inevitably ends in a police state.

I honestly know very little about the Constitution. What I'm arguing is, if it is as you are saying, that it is entirely unconstitutional for the government to do anything about the balance of buying power in American commerce then we have a very flawed and doomed to failure system of commerce.

In an entirely unhindered free market business only thrives among the most wealthy. Because there is no business incentive to build a car, for example, to chase the fewer dollars that poor people have. That would be a moral decision to do that. Despite what so many Americans think, America is NOT a Christian nation in deed, only in word. Therefore it is necessary to build monetary incentives into the system to make Americans do moral things. You have to speak the language of business ($) to get business to do something.

In the end, the only thing I can think of why anyone would resist what I said about the necessity of government to fairly and honestly make it so goods and services are attainable through a 40 hour a week job, alone, is.........greed. And that is precisely what I see in the right wing. The thinking being, why should I build a car for 20% of the population and make less money when I can continue to only build cars for 80% of the population and make good money.

 

[reba]

While our kids were young i stayed home with them..
we had 1 TV
one car not counting his hotrod
no boat
no RV
ate meals at home
We lived simply

Yes there is greed it is not limited to corporations. there is government, personal, power all kinds of greed...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This isn't about poor people having the same nice car a rich person can have. It's about making it so poorer people can even have a car, or a house, healthcare, etc.

 

[reba]

Jethro search the net find out what poor people here in the states have...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro search the net find out what poor people here in the states have...

Thanks to who? Big business?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't know a doggone thing about the Constitution, I just know what works

Jethro Bodine 2016

 

[reba]

Where should jobs come from, but business?

 

[reba]

The U.S. Constitution has 4,400 words. It is the oldest and shortest written Constitution of any major government in the world."

What the slimy politicians have done to it is dishonest.

 

[reba]

I don't know a doggone thing about the Constitution, I just know what works

Jethro Bodine 2016

major photo shop

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where should jobs come from, but business?

Of course.

But business won't hire if there's no financial gain in hiring. Government's job is to create financial incentives for businesses to hire people.

When I injured my back, Pasco County had a program that would pay half my wages for ninety day for the business that would give me a job. It's how I got into my present career. Without it there would have been no reason for a business trying to make money, not give it away, to hire me.

Is it really going to keep honest 'moral' hard working people awake at night to know that some of their tax dollars went toward getting someone less fortunate than them a job?! Really folks?! And we call this a Christian nation?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

major photo shop

Oh, I didn't say I was honest.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

major photo shop

Okay, okay, already....

 

[reba]

WOW a government program that has an end! I can not compute that living in California no government program ends only grows... I would most definitely support such a program...