What's wrong with right wing politics you ask?

[Jethro Bodine]

Reminds me of the Real Estate agent's business card you pick up from a friend. They look 30 something on the card, and when they get to your house you see they're 90 years old.

 

[reba]

Your still good looking for an old guy

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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...

Yup. 90 days. Not a hammock to go to sleep in propped up by hard working tax payers. But a sling that comes off when the doctor orders it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your still good looking for an old guy

Well, you gotta be in my line of work.

 

[Deborah13]

The government has very little constitutional authority to "serve the people." It's there to protect your rights and nothing else, certainly not "serve" you. We live in a country where the government's powers are intended to be few and limited, and we serve ourselves. Why then is congress "implementing laws to help lobbyists?" Part of getting government out of the way is for them to stop "implementing" such laws.

Mostly what I hear from many conservatives is get rid of Well Fair for the poor but keep it for the wealthy and corporations. For some reason they think that reasoning it is good for their own pocketbook.
imo...
Get rid of the IRS, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of bailing out special interests, give power back to the people in their states, etc. etc....
These are things Only the government can undo, that government did/does wrong in the first place, that would service the welfare of the American people as a whole.

 

[reba]

I vote for Deb

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I vote for Deb

But she not's as good looking as I am.

 

[Deborah13]

Let me reword that to be (imo) a little more realistic:

The right:
Let's delay that road that ordinary people need and use so that we can keep taxes low for the rich.

The TOG​

And he wasn't joking, just being honest with his friends and they knew it too.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And he wasn't joking, just being honest with his friends and they knew it too.

Is this in response to what I said below?

But she not's as good looking as I am.

2

 

[Deborah13]

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

By the nature of how free markets 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. Government's 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 and services with the majority of two income families that drive prices up. Government incentives to encourage that is fair, honest, and workable.

I'm not sure but I think the healthcare cost problem for most families and companies could be solved by non-profit insurance companies. Get healthcare out of Wall Street.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm not sure but I think the healthcare cost problem for most families and companies could be solved by non-profit insurance companies. Get healthcare out of Wall Street.

That's exactly my opinion about it. But even that has to be done carefully.

All essential services should be non-profit IMO. That doesn't mean nobody makes a living in those businesses. It means they don't get to retire at age 45 in the Bahamas simply because the market would allow it. That may be legitimate business, but it's hardly moral. And we love to boast about how 'Christian' we Americans are, right?

 

[Deborah13]

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.

We are a Republic and Washington left that part of the constitution behind long ago and they have little by little taken away the power of the people by taking the power away from state governments.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We are a Republic and Washington left that part of the constitution behind long ago and they have little by little taken away the power of the people by taking the power away from state governments.

May I ask, what power do you personally think you have lost, or do not have that you think you should?

 

[TOG]

Basically, what you're saying is 'conservative', and 'liberal' are relative terms. And I guess that's true.

Exactly my point.

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.

When one American is speaking to another American about American politics, then he can get away with using those terms interchangeable, and the other person will know what he is referring to. But the Internet isn't just American. This is an international forum with members from all over the world, and those terms mean different things to different members. When talking to a group with such diverse backgrounds and from different cultures, we have to be careful to use the right words, or we risk being misunderstood.

The TOG​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When one American is speaking to another American about American politics, then he can get away with using those terms interchangeable, and the other person will know what he is referring to. But the Internet isn't just American. This is an international forum with members from all over the world, and those terms mean different things to different members. When talking to a group with such diverse backgrounds and from different cultures, we have to be careful to use the right words, or we risk being misunderstood.

The TOG​

Yeah, yeah, I know, but America is the snobbish Roman Empire at this present time in history around which all things revolve. Get with the program!

 

[Deborah13]

But she not's as good looking as I am.

Maybe not but I have more hair on my head than you do.

 

[Jesse]

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.

The scenario that there needs to be a 2 parent income all came about because of the LEFT' idea of women's lib, women were once staying home raising the children, for the most part families were intact, but that was not good enough for those women who felt they needed to also be out and about, away from their kids, letting daycares raise them.

The way I see it, this idea is not from the right wing as most realized the importance of staying at home, raising their children. Now it's all created a disintegration of the family unit and the need for 2 parent income. If families are divided, they turn to the state for welfare.

I'd say women's lib was the beginning and the direct reason for all of this.

 

[Jesse]

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.

Again, this whole idea of having to have both parents work WAS a LEFT wing notion, and it grew and this is what we have today.

Like it or not corporations is what runs the country, but they are leaving because it cost too much because the left likes to tax.....

 

[TOG]

The scenario that there needs to be a 2 parent income all came about because of the LEFT' idea of women's lib, women were once staying home raising the children, for the most part families were intact, but that was not good enough for those women who felt they needed to also be out and about, away from their kids, letting daycares raise them.

What about women who's husbands abandoned them and their children? They don't choose to go outside the home to work and send their kids to daycare. They have to. Is it a leftist idea that they should be able to support themselves?

The TOG​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The scenario that there needs to be a 2 parent income all came about because of the LEFT' idea of women's lib, women were once staying home raising the children, for the most part families were intact, but that was not good enough for those women who felt they needed to also be out and about, away from their kids, letting daycares raise them.

The way I see it, this idea is not from the right wing as most realized the importance of staying at home, raising their children. Now it's all created a disintegration of the family unit and the need for 2 parent income. If families are divided, they turn to the state for welfare.

I'd say women's lib was the beginning and the direct reason for all of this.

Women's rights groups endorse it, but actually it was WWII that got women in the work place.

While men were off on foreign soils fighting the war, Rosie Riveter worked a 60 hour week at the local bomb manufacturing plant in place of the man who wasn't there to do it.