3 ms·

Can we drop the "conservatives are evil" mantra at some point? It really adds nothing to the discourse. Having a family full of conservatives (mind you I can't

Can we drop the "conservatives are evil" mantra at some point? It really adds nothing to the discourse. Having a family full of conservatives (mind you I can't speak for all), I can tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and what benefits should be provided by the government or not. The difference in where the line is drawn and why it's drawn is the difference between conservatives and democrats. They think that outcomes would be better with a smaller federal government, that it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of everybody, and that everyone would be better off for it. They think that the federal government should deal with defense, foreign diplomatic policy, and inter-state issues, not insert itself into every aspect of policy making nationwide. They think that governments closer to the people can respond better to the needs of the people. So yes, that does mean that it shouldn't redistribute wealth, at least on the federal level. But it's not that they want to see people suffer, it's that they think it's not the responsibility of the federal government to ameliorate it. That's not the same thing. Note: I don't agree with them on a lot of things. I just don't like seeing these things misrepresented.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> I can tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and what benefits should be provided by the government or not. While that's certainly not a bad thought, we have all benefited from larger government. History shows out that the more government spending and distribution of goods and services there is, the better the economic outlook. Even amongst most developed countries today, the government accounts for around half of GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce.... 'Small government' is nice as a political philosophy, however it hasn't been shown historically to be a great economic policy. Not to mention, while right-wing politicians and economists argue for private enterprise, lower taxes, smaller government, less spending, etc..., they simultaneously use state institutions to their advantage. In most economies governments fund research, education, they are responsible for building most infrastructure, funding transit, etc... These things benefit us as a society, yet the same people who reap these benefits every single day argue against paying for them (ie. paying taxes). The problem with left-wing economics is that they aren't intuitive. Right-wing economics is - it's simple, and reminds people of budgeting at home. The only problem is that when you study macroeconomics, you realize that it's more about behaviour than about finance. Government spending increases GDP, in most cases by more than the dollar amount spent. Social nets increase entrepreneurial behaviour, and reducing poverty always yields social benefits. > So yes, that does mean that it shouldn't redistribute wealth, at least on the federal level. No one would argue that the government should only build roads in rich cities. Or only build hospitals in rich cities. Yet creating infrastructure is a redistribution of wealth. When the US government creates a new military base, they're redistributing wealth. When they give money to schools, they're distributing wealth. Yet for some reason we have it in our heads that 'taking' taxes and then giving 'cash' to others is wrong, but it's OK when the government uses other means to redistribute wealth. Anyhow, the point is, we see it as 'fair' that we work hard and get paid. That we 'deserve' what we make. That we did it 'alone'. The fact is, wealth cannot be created in a vacuum. Whatever we do, we do because others helped us. We're more than happy to use the institutions created for us, but don't want to share the rewards. We see 'fairness' as more important than prosperity.
- thatswrong0 11y ago
  That is all way besides the point, seeing as I was describing my family's political philosophy as something that is not evil, not offering it up as something right or wrong. Yeesh.

Mikeb85 11y ago

> I can tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and what benefits should be provided by the government or not. While that's certainly not a bad thought, we have all benefited from larger government. History shows out that the more government spending and distribution of goods and services there is, the better the economic outlook. Even amongst most developed countries today, the government accounts for around half of GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce.... 'Small government' is nice as a political philosophy, however it hasn't been shown historically to be a great economic policy. Not to mention, while right-wing politicians and economists argue for private enterprise, lower taxes, smaller government, less spending, etc..., they simultaneously use state institutions to their advantage. In most economies governments fund research, education, they are responsible for building most infrastructure, funding transit, etc... These things benefit us as a society, yet the same people who reap these benefits every single day argue against paying for them (ie. paying taxes). The problem with left-wing economics is that they aren't intuitive. Right-wing economics is - it's simple, and reminds people of budgeting at home. The only problem is that when you study macroeconomics, you realize that it's more about behaviour than about finance. Government spending increases GDP, in most cases by more than the dollar amount spent. Social nets increase entrepreneurial behaviour, and reducing poverty always yields social benefits. > So yes, that does mean that it shouldn't redistribute wealth, at least on the federal level. No one would argue that the government should only build roads in rich cities. Or only build hospitals in rich cities. Yet creating infrastructure is a redistribution of wealth. When the US government creates a new military base, they're redistributing wealth. When they give money to schools, they're distributing wealth. Yet for some reason we have it in our heads that 'taking' taxes and then giving 'cash' to others is wrong, but it's OK when the government uses other means to redistribute wealth. Anyhow, the point is, we see it as 'fair' that we work hard and get paid. That we 'deserve' what we make. That we did it 'alone'. The fact is, wealth cannot be created in a vacuum. Whatever we do, we do because others helped us. We're more than happy to use the institutions created for us, but don't want to share the rewards. We see 'fairness' as more important than prosperity.

thatswrong0 11y ago
That is all way besides the point, seeing as I was describing my family's political philosophy as something that is not evil, not offering it up as something right or wrong. Yeesh.