a question about right-wing governments

[M14 Shooter]

my question is:
is there a country out there now or in the past that has been successful in implementing
positions similar to the american republican party? that has been both financially and socially successful?

News flash:
The GOP is not a right-wing party.

 

[Avatar4321]

first, thanks so huge for adding this section..i wasnt a frequent poster here but i did lurk..but was turned off by all the hateful crap i saw in every post..so i appreciate this and i read this forum now more than i did before. im hoping to participate more in the future

my question is:

is there a country out there now or in the past that has been successful in implementing
positions similar to the american republican party? that has been both financially and socially
successful?

admittedly, im only interested in politics for a few years so i welcome a discussion on the viability of such policies as recommended by the republican party.

thanks all.

EDIT: my impression of republican positions..sorry didnt add that before.

small gov/anti-tax/anti-abortion/anti-marriage equality/cutting medicare/medicaid/low regulation..

Yes. The United States of America as designed by our Founders did just that and was wildly successful until the progressive era when the progressives began robbing the people.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't know about Iceland and Norway. But Sweden has high taxes and high spending. But not much is nationalised, it's private enterprise but the government pays for it. They have free health and education for all. Low defence spending. It's a mix of left and right policies.

seems the balanced approach is best to me.

It generally is. But the USA doesn't have a left wing mainstream party. The democrats are centrist at best. The republicans can't go much more right wing.

Centrist? Right...

 

[Borillar]

my question is:
is there a country out there now or in the past that has been successful in implementing
positions similar to the american republican party? that has been both financially and socially successful?

News flash:
The GOP is not a right-wing party.

What in blazes do you consider to be right wing then if not the GOP and their astroturf Tea Party movement?

Maybe it's a matter of perspective. From my point of view, the GOP is pretty far right and seems to be getting even more so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

seems the balanced approach is best to me.

It generally is. But the USA doesn't have a left wing mainstream party. The democrats are centrist at best. The republicans can't go much more right wing.

Centrist? Right...

His is a failure of perspective.
The GOP supports Social Security, Medicare and progressive tax rates.
No "right wing" party would conider such things - the mainstream GOP is a solid 1130-1200 on the ideological clock.

 

[Avatar4321]

It generally is. But the USA doesn't have a left wing mainstream party. The democrats are centrist at best. The republicans can't go much more right wing.

Centrist? Right...

His is a failure of perspective.
The GOP supports Social Security, Medicare and progressive tax rates.
No "right wing" party would conider such things - the mainstream GOP is a solid 1130-1200 on the ideological clock.

I just can comprehend how anyone can think that the party who wants the government to seize control of 1/6 of the economy AKA through government health care is a "centrist" party. It's total nonsense. But then the whole left right spectrum is absurd to begin with.

We have a choice between totalitarian government and anarchy. That choice is liberty through a limited Constitutional Republic. Any efforts to undermind that system lead to either anarchy on the right or totalitarianism on the left.

That's why personal liberty is so important.

 

[swizzlee]

how would marriage equality destroy america?

I don't think marriage equality is a bad thing. Keep government out of it. But its not my top priority. No political party can be everything to everyone. I have to choose the one that meshes with most of my views.

fair enough, by your own definition gov shouldnt be trying to stop it either ye?

thanks for your input

Government isn't stopping it.

Since marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and woman, licenses have been issued accordingly.

Therefore, the government isn't permitting it to be started since the definition of marriage is part of the law.

If homosexuals feel that they need some sort of legal protection in areas of their life as a "couple", there are other ways to get there besides insisting on invading a religious custom that really does go back thousands of years.

 

[Vidi]

I don't think marriage equality is a bad thing. Keep government out of it. But its not my top priority. No political party can be everything to everyone. I have to choose the one that meshes with most of my views.

fair enough, by your own definition gov shouldnt be trying to stop it either ye?

thanks for your input

Government isn't stopping it.

Since marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and woman, licenses have been issued accordingly.

Therefore, the government isn't permitting it to be started since the definition of marriage is part of the law.

If homosexuals feel that they need some sort of legal protection in areas of their life as a "couple", there are other ways to get there besides insisting on invading a religious custom that really does go back thousands of years.

Thousands of years?

sigh...why do you people insist that it goes back thousands of years? You know what else goes back thousands of years? Slavery. Multiple wives. Burning at the stake.

As far as it being a religious institution, BULLSHIT. I didn't pay a church for my marriage licence, I paid the State.

There is NOTHING in marriage equality that would force a church to perform a ceremony. It would only provide equal protection under the law for same sex couples as opposite sex couples. If you oppose that, then you oppose the Constitution of the United States. Period.

 

[Avorysuds]

my question is:
is there a country out there now or in the past that has been successful in implementing
positions similar to the american republican party? that has been both financially and socially successful?

News flash:
The GOP is not a right-wing party.

What in blazes do you consider to be right wing then if not the GOP and their astroturf Tea Party movement?

Maybe it's a matter of perspective. From my point of view, the GOP is pretty far right and seems to be getting even more so.

The problem is your definition is based on things like religion, guns, white men and tax cuts to the rich… There is no point is a discussion if the definitions to the words we use differ from person to person so dramatically. The OP seems very set on thinking of the GOP in the manner as you and TM do, looking at the modern day hot button, and headlines as a way to describe an ideology.

The OP came here asking about an ideology that is mostly held by libertarians today, the GOP and DNC are separated by race, sex, sexuality and in 2008 they even pushed to divide us by age, Obama getting the youth vote. Even the OP switched his stance from “small gov/anti-tax/anti-abortion/anti-marriage equality/cutting medicare/medicaid/low regulation.” to Gay marriage almost solely. Fact is Democrats are almost just as against gay marriage as Republicans, just like most Democrats are religious nut jobs when you actually talk to them about God.

The reason for the division on issues that have absolutely nothing to do with politics is due to the severe lack of difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to spending, welfare and wars. Obama is in power, what’s different now than when Bush in power? Focus on the policy and you have nothing… focus on the name calling, the race, sex, sexuality…. Basically one liners and talking points and you have book after book filled with differences.
Minus the ridicules “gay marriage and abortion” stance, America is the best answer to the OP’s question. However what the OP left out is lower regulations and a balanced budget.

Today we have mass regulations because most people can’t see regulations. Today we have massive Government, because most people can’t see Government and when they do it’s mostly in the form of welfare. Today we have low taxes because that is the only thing most people see, every time the buy something or when they have to pay their taxes. The system is broken because Bush and Obama give tax cuts while spending tremendously more. This distorts the “lower taxes is good” argument because the economy is suffering despite lower taxes. Imagine if we raised taxes, revenue would shrink as people spend even less, as employers have to let more people go… the deficit would climb and we would be in a depression…

 

[swizzlee]

fair enough, by your own definition gov shouldnt be trying to stop it either ye?

thanks for your input

Government isn't stopping it.

Since marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and woman, licenses have been issued accordingly.

Therefore, the government isn't permitting it to be started since the definition of marriage is part of the law.

If homosexuals feel that they need some sort of legal protection in areas of their life as a "couple", there are other ways to get there besides insisting on invading a religious custom that really does go back thousands of years.

Thousands of years?

sigh...why do you people insist that it goes back thousands of years? You know what else goes back thousands of years? Slavery. Multiple wives. Burning at the stake.

As far as it being a religious institution, BULLSHIT. I didn't pay a church for my marriage licence, I paid the State.

There is NOTHING in marriage equality that would force a church to perform a ceremony. It would only provide equal protection under the law for same sex couples as opposite sex couples. If you oppose that, then you oppose the Constitution of the United States. Period.

Perhaps you should be aware of the forum you're in and make an attempt to control your somewhat hysterical ranting.

 

[Vidi]

Government isn't stopping it.

Since marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and woman, licenses have been issued accordingly.

Therefore, the government isn't permitting it to be started since the definition of marriage is part of the law.

If homosexuals feel that they need some sort of legal protection in areas of their life as a "couple", there are other ways to get there besides insisting on invading a religious custom that really does go back thousands of years.

Thousands of years?

sigh...why do you people insist that it goes back thousands of years? You know what else goes back thousands of years? Slavery. Multiple wives. Burning at the stake.

As far as it being a religious institution, BULLSHIT. I didn't pay a church for my marriage licence, I paid the State.

There is NOTHING in marriage equality that would force a church to perform a ceremony. It would only provide equal protection under the law for same sex couples as opposite sex couples. If you oppose that, then you oppose the Constitution of the United States. Period.

Perhaps you should be aware of the forum you're in and make an attempt to control your somewhat hysterical ranting.

I am well aware of the forum I am in. Perhaps you should review the rules of said forum and show me where Ive strayed from them.

betcha cant.

 

[Avorysuds]

I don't think marriage equality is a bad thing. Keep government out of it. But its not my top priority. No political party can be everything to everyone. I have to choose the one that meshes with most of my views.

fair enough, by your own definition gov shouldnt be trying to stop it either ye?

thanks for your input

Government isn't stopping it.

Since marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and woman, licenses have been issued accordingly.

Therefore, the government isn't permitting it to be started since the definition of marriage is part of the law.

If homosexuals feel that they need some sort of legal protection in areas of their life as a "couple", there are other ways to get there besides insisting on invading a religious custom that really does go back thousands of years.

Our Government should have no say in it at all, that's just fact of the matter... Unless you can point out that power in the Constitution. Religion should only have a say in it depending on if they do it or not, by that I mean 1 church can recognize gay marriage and another not. Let it out. The argument that marriage has been between a man and a woman historically has no relevance seeing as we used to have slaves, surfs and communism, kings and so on... Does that mean we can never change something just because in the past it was done differently?

Honestly, Government needs to lose it’s purely illegal power hold on marriage and let the churches figure it out. Bigots want the Government involved because they understand without that illegal monopoly they would lose the debate.

 

[swizzlee]

i would love a president/government with a spine against corruption.

I don't know that you'll ever find a well-established government that doesn't have some level of corruption. But I don't think presidents themselves are necessarily corrupt.

But then, that would depend on your definition of corrupt.

 

[gkjpalmer]

"If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

(Roads, highways, trucks, cargo ships, aircraft, computers, bridges, RIGHTS, by which your business is aided and made more possible.)

It is clear that for many of our fellow Countrymen, broad concepts and context are beyond their abilities to execute critical thinking.

For those people, there are more simple notions to grab on to, like the awe inspiring " America deserves a choice"

 

[oldfart]

ok so if we remove the religious aspect?

what then?

we are left with small gov/low-taxes/deregulation

is there a county..and it doesnt have to be a western country..that is successful doing this?

I guess my short answer would be "no". There are a number of historical cases where the economic ideology of the Republican party has been tried without a lot of success. Great Britain is in the middle of such an experiment right now. Their government just revised it's second quarter GDP growth estimates from -0.7% to -0.5%. Many economists argue that from the numbers, Britain has handled this crisis worse than they handled 1929--32.

There is a raging debate in the economics profession about "expansionary austerity; the belief that the solution to our economic situation is for nations to cut spending and lower the budget deficits. This is has been the view of the British government (which is the only one I know of to really voluntarily choose this route; Greece etc. were forced to it), the European Central Bank when Trichet was running it, and especially the German government. On the other side has been the International Monetary Fund the United States Federal Reserve, and quite a few (but still a minority) of economists from which Paul Krugman has emerged as the intellectual leader. I belong to the later group and if anyone wants to discuss economic theory, economic policy, or economic history I will be happy to do so.

Hope this helps.

Jamie

 

[Avorysuds]

"If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

(Roads, highways, trucks, cargo ships, aircraft, computers, bridges, RIGHTS, by which your business is aided and made more possible.)

It is clear that for many of our fellow Countrymen, broad concepts and context are beyond their abilities to execute critical thinking.

For those people, there are more simple notions to grab on to, like the awe inspiring " America deserves a choice"

That's not what Obama meant when he said that.

 

[rabbitthekitten]

Centrist? Right...

His is a failure of perspective.
The GOP supports Social Security, Medicare and progressive tax rates.
No "right wing" party would conider such things - the mainstream GOP is a solid 1130-1200 on the ideological clock.

I just can comprehend how anyone can think that the party who wants the government to seize control of 1/6 of the economy AKA through government health care is a "centrist" party. It's total nonsense. But then the whole left right spectrum is absurd to begin with.

We have a choice between totalitarian government and anarchy. That choice is liberty through a limited Constitutional Republic. Any efforts to undermind that system lead to either anarchy on the right or totalitarianism on the left.

That's why personal liberty is so important.

Because if they were socialist they would nationalise healthcare. It would be run by the state and be free at the point of use. Allowing people to get health insurance is not left wing, it puts money into the private sector.

 

[Polk]

The closest match you'll find are some of the Latin American dictatorships in the 80s (Chile is a prime example).

 

[jwoodie]

first, thanks so huge for adding this section..i wasnt a frequent poster here but i did lurk..but was turned off by all the hateful crap i saw in every post..so i appreciate this and i read this forum now more than i did before. im hoping to participate more in the future

my question is:

is there a country out there now or in the past that has been successful in implementing
positions similar to the american republican party? that has been both financially and socially
successful?

admittedly, im only interested in politics for a few years so i welcome a discussion on the viability of such policies as recommended by the republican party.

thanks all.

EDIT: my impression of republican positions..sorry didnt add that before.

small gov/anti-tax/anti-abortion/anti-marriage equality/cutting medicare/medicaid/low regulation..

The United States of America prior to LBJ.

 

[M14 Shooter]

first, thanks so huge for adding this section..i wasnt a frequent poster here but i did lurk..but was turned off by all the hateful crap i saw in every post..so i appreciate this and i read this forum now more than i did before. im hoping to participate more in the future

my question is:

is there a country out there now or in the past that has been successful in implementing
positions similar to the american republican party? that has been both financially and socially
successful?

admittedly, im only interested in politics for a few years so i welcome a discussion on the viability of such policies as recommended by the republican party.

thanks all.

EDIT: my impression of republican positions..sorry didnt add that before.

small gov/anti-tax/anti-abortion/anti-marriage equality/cutting medicare/medicaid/low regulation..

The United States of America prior to LBJ.

The US pior to FDR.