What is the most destructive Conservative policy in the US today?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it.

Nice strawman.

I have not seen anyone make this claim. On the contrary, conservatives understand that there will be leaders and followers. That is a fact of life no matter what system you live under.
Trying to force a level playing field is irresponsible and results in people being in positions they have no business being in.
This kind of absurd mentality resulted in banks being forced to give loans to people who could not afford them for the sake of fairness. We all know how that turned out.

 

[dblack]

Regulation is not some distortion of capitalism.

Regulation is an absolutely critical component of capitalism.

"Regulation" is a loaded term, and the subject of much equivocation. If by "regulation" you mean laws that require honest, transparent dealings and protect property rights, your statement is true. But if, on the other hand, "regulation" means active government involvement in mandating standards and dictating practices in the name of some presumed social benefit, your statement is hogwash.

 

[Coyote]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left has wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

I would say their worst is viewing poverty as a moral, not economic faiking

 

[Mac1958]

"Regulation" is a loaded term, and the subject of much equivocation...

The Left looks at more regulation as better regulation. The Right looks at less regulation as better regulation.

Volume isn't the point. It's about efficiency and effectiveness. What we have now, as a result of partisan politics that motivates each party to slap on simplistic band aids at every opportunity, is a sloppy, haphazard patchwork with both redundancies and holes.

The result is a form of capitalism that is an easy target for those who want something other than capitalism. It would be smarter for us to work together to create a better regulatory environment, but collaboration is no longer allowed, and it's all the "other" guy's fault.

This, as with all our other problems, is self-inflicted. And capitalism is now at risk because of it.
.

 

[norwegen]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

well the question then becomes if the vast majority are functioning fine within it, what are you advocating should be changed to help those who are not? i've never met a conservative who refused to help someone in need. never.

but i've met a lot of people who get tired of helping people who never seem to learn nor help themselves.

Furthermore, those who do not succeed in a free market do not function on their own in a command market, either. Effectively, they do not function on hand-outs; government functions for them.

 

[norwegen]

The conservative view of....I got mine, screw everyone else

Not unlike the liberal view that you worked harder than me and have more now give it to me

Funny thing about that I got mine; get your own bromide: whether a conservative gets his own, he does not prohibit others from getting theirs.

 

[dblack]

Regulation is not some distortion of capitalism.

Regulation is an absolutely critical component of capitalism.

"Regulation" is a loaded term, and the subject of much equivocation. If by "regulation" you mean laws that require honest, transparent dealings and protect property rights, your statement is true. But if, on the other hand, "regulation" means active government involvement in mandating standards and dictating practices in the name of some presumed social benefit, your statement is hogwash.

The Left looks at more regulation as better regulation. The Right looks at less regulation as better regulation.

Volume isn't the point. It's about efficiency and effectiveness.

Not to nitpick, but I have to disagree here. I do agree that volume (ie the sheer number of laws on the books) isn't the issue; but I don't think it's a question of "efficiency and effectiveness". It depends entirely on what the goal of a given regulation is. The issue is the scope and reach of legislation, not how efficient it is. -- eg someone might propose a law that efficiently and effectively re-authorized slavery, but it would still be wrong.

It would be smarter for us to work together to create a better regulatory environment, but collaboration is no longer allowed.

This, as with all our other problems, is self-inflicted. And capitalism is now at risk because of it.
.

There is definitely a political climate that discourages collaboration. But there is also a significant ideological divide, particularly in regard to the scope and reach issue. What constitutes "a better regulatory environment"?

 

[Mac1958]

Regulation is not some distortion of capitalism.

Regulation is an absolutely critical component of capitalism.

"Regulation" is a loaded term, and the subject of much equivocation. If by "regulation" you mean laws that require honest, transparent dealings and protect property rights, your statement is true. But if, on the other hand, "regulation" means active government involvement in mandating standards and dictating practices in the name of some presumed social benefit, your statement is hogwash.

The Left looks at more regulation as better regulation. The Right looks at less regulation as better regulation.

Volume isn't the point. It's about efficiency and effectiveness.

Not to nitpick, but I have to disagree here. I do agree that volume (ie the sheer number of laws on the books) isn't the issue; but I don't think it's a question of "efficiency and effectiveness". It depends entirely on what the goal of a given regulation is. The issue is the scope and reach of legislation, not how efficient it is. -- eg someone might propose a law that efficiently and effectively re-authorized slavery, but it would still be wrong.

It would be smarter for us to work together to create a better regulatory environment, but collaboration is no longer allowed.

This, as with all our other problems, is self-inflicted. And capitalism is now at risk because of it.
.

There is definitely a political climate that discourages collaboration. But there is also a significant ideological divide, particularly in regard to the scope and reach issue. What constitutes "a better regulatory environment"?

To both points, I'd think the goal is a regulatory environment that maintains the best possible equilibrium between (a) efficient & effective regulation of markets and (b) avoiding too much regulatory drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

Obviously there is not a magic place at which all this comes together, nor will there ever be. But right now this whole thing is such a fucking mess that it's putting the whole thing at risk.

If I were anti-capitalism, I'd be loving this. I'd be smiling as I watched the two parties refusing to work with the other. Then I could say "See? Capitalism doesn't work", and that's what's being done right now.
.

 

[Votto]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left has wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

It depends what you think the role of the Federal government is. Originally, it had a select few responsibilities, mainly keeping the peace, securing the borders (LOL), and playing referee between the states.

Today they run everything, control everything, and have more money than God, money that is all borrowed with the largest debt in human history.

So now what, throw even more money to people?

What exactly do you want the government to do to end poverty and how much debt is too much debt? Governments have collapsed due to far less debt.

 

[impuretrash]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left has wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

I would say their worst is viewing poverty as a moral, not economic faiking

The left often has nothing but contempt for rural white communities mired in poverty.

 

[dblack]

I'd think the goal is a regulatory environment that maintains the best possible equilibrium between (a) efficient & effective regulation of markets and (b) avoiding too much regulatory drag on the dynamics of capitalism.

That's kicking the can. What does "efficient and effective regulation of markets" mean? Does it mean businesses are prohibited from cheating customers? Or does it mean government is telling business how much they have to pay their employees, who they have to hire, who they can fire and why, how much they can charge for their services, etc, etc, etc.... ?

 

[Mac1958]

What does "efficient and effective regulation of markets" mean? Does it mean businesses are prohibited from cheating customers? Or does it mean government is telling business how much they have to pay their employees, who they have to hire, who they can fire and why, how much they can charge for their services, etc, etc, etc.... ?

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

Protect consumers from fraud, protect markets against distortion, protect the economy against monopolies. That kind of regulation.

I think that's pretty straightforward, and I don't know why this needs to be such a mystery.
.

 

[dblack]

What does "efficient and effective regulation of markets" mean? Does it mean businesses are prohibited from cheating customers? Or does it mean government is telling business how much they have to pay their employees, who they have to hire, who they can fire and why, how much they can charge for their services, etc, etc, etc.... ?

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

Protect consumers from fraud, protect markets against distortion, guard against monopolies. That kind of regulation.

I think that's pretty straightforward, and I don't know why this needs to be such a mystery.

I agree. But people cheering for more regulation, will likely answer "yes" to the latter. We really have to clarify when we use the word, if we're to find any real consensus.

 

[Mac1958]

What does "efficient and effective regulation of markets" mean? Does it mean businesses are prohibited from cheating customers? Or does it mean government is telling business how much they have to pay their employees, who they have to hire, who they can fire and why, how much they can charge for their services, etc, etc, etc.... ?

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

Protect consumers from fraud, protect markets against distortion, guard against monopolies. That kind of regulation.

I think that's pretty straightforward, and I don't know why this needs to be such a mystery.

I agree. But people cheering for more regulation, will likely answer "yes" to the latter. We really have to clarify when we use the word, if we're to find any real consensus.

Of course. But we refuse to communicate, so I don't know how we are supposed to clarify definitions.
.

 

[iceberg]

i've never met a conservative who refused to help someone in need. never.

maybe old world conservatives thought that way.....~S~

maybe they all do but since they dont go along with GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE the left says they're heartless cause we lost all the middleground to extreme mindsets.

i know no conservative young or old who will simply never bother to help someone. but like i said, i know many who when the help backfires enough or doesn't "take root" they give up and move on. to be helped, you have to want to help yourself or you're just making people take care of you vs caring for yourself.

 

[iceberg]

I'll try a companion thread to the one on liberal policies.

My response to that thread was "The worst liberal policy is the same it's always been: Lowering standards & expectations for groups it decides are oppressed, and in turn enabling that group's worst behaviors, hurting them and the country in the future."

For this thread, I'd say: The worst conservative policy is their absolute refusal to admit and accept the fact that, in any given socioeconomic system, there will be people who function better within it, and those who function worse within it. And those people are being left behind, FAR behind, with this absolutist anti-government madness that began when the Right took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.

The hardcore Left wrecked our culture; the hardcore Right has wrecked our socioeconomics. A pox on both houses.

Any thoughts?
.

well the question then becomes if the vast majority are functioning fine within it, what are you advocating should be changed to help those who are not? i've never met a conservative who refused to help someone in need. never.

but i've met a lot of people who get tired of helping people who never seem to learn nor help themselves.

Furthermore, those who do not succeed in a free market do not function on their own in a command market, either. Effectively, they do not function on hand-outs; government functions for them.

by nature and fact, those people will "always" exist - which invariably comes back to - what *can* we do differently that will motivate these people to "cop for themselves"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never had a deficit until I bought a house.

That's not a deficit. That is debt. Paying down your mortgage or reducing your overall debt is the opposite of deficit spending. You are using the terms incorrectly.

 

[BluesLegend]

To some degree the GOP is also rigged.

Nonsense. The GOP is rigged to the exact same degree as the Dems.

The uppity tea party House members have given the establishment GOP a run for their money. I don't see that among House Dem's its a complete left TILT.

 

[imawhosure]

What annoys me the most is how they lie about being for smaller less intrusive govt. yet keep the police state to execute the drug war which is oppressive and they want to drug test everyone including children at school.

As long as certain drugs are illegal, why should you have a problem with that? We have a process to change the laws of what is/is not acceptable. It actually worked to end prohibition.

Your job; if you disagree with what is banned now, IS TO CHANGE THE LAW, not complain that the law in place is being enforced. If a political party, or a law enforcement agency, can on their own just decide what law not to enforce, then the country is lost!

One of the things that makes our country great is----------------> we have guidelines to follow, and theoretically, if ANYONE breaks those guidelines, they are to be prosecuted if caught, regardless of social standing. Why do you think the regular citizen complains so much when a rich person gets off, when a middle class or poor person would have gotten hosed! It breaks the social contract between the government Of These United States, and its citizens.

Just because YOU THINK a law should not be enforced, means absolutely NOTHING! It is YOUR OPINION! But get enough support to change, or neuter the law, and it becomes part of the social contract!

To not CHANGE the law, or at least work towards it, is seen as intellectual laziness. It is not hard if you convince 50% plus 1 to do it, because politicians love to be the champions of popular initiatives, as it helps secure their re-election.