The Conservative Nanny State

[jillian]

You know that I didn't say that, right? And that the more you follow me around ridiculing me for saying, the more idiotic you look?

Actually, you did.

Don't mean for you to feel put upon, Allie. But I can assure you, it's not me who looks idiotic.

Now what were you saying to Larkinn about calling people stupid?

Oh...right...idiotic isn't the same thing. Silly me!

Have a good night anyway.

 

[Gunny]

Take note, none of the ideologues have in any sense addressed the article. As always they ignore reality or go someplace else in their minds where they find comfort. One only has to look at recent news to know the truth of the premise, CEOs whose businesses have been failure rob and pillage millions in salaries and the Fed bails out business not the working person.


Wal-mart info here:

http://walmartwatch.com/

Lame copout. Your thread title was addressed.

Are you saying your thread title does not reflect the propaganda it is supposed to represent?

Too bad. Try a little accuracy and honesty.

 

[midcan5]

Lame copout. Your thread title was addressed.

You must know by now that you will get proof, whether it fits your narrow viewpoint is another question.

It's a Welfare State ... If You're Rich
http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch03192008.html

 

[Toro]

Don't forget that Jesus would condemn welfare.

Jesus hated poor people.

 

[midcan5]

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living. This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect. First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages).

This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy. If government policies ensure that specific types of workers (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) are in relatively short supply, then they ensure that these workers will do better than the types of workers who are plentiful. It is also essential to understand that there is direct redistribution involved in this story. If restricting the supply of doctors raises the wages of doctors, then all the non-doctors in the country are worse off, just as if the government taxed all non-doctors in order to pay a tax credit to doctors. Higher wages for doctors mean that everyone in the country will be forced to pay more for health care. As conservatives fully understand when they promote policies that push down wages for large segments of the country’s work force, lower wages for others means higher living standards for those who have their wages or other income protected.

Conservatives don’t only rely on the nanny state to keep the wages of professionals high, they want the nanny state to intervene through many different channels to make sure that income is distributed upward. For example, conservatives want the government to outlaw some types of contracts, such as restricting the sort of contingency-fee arrangements that lawyers make with clients when suing major corporations (conservatives call this “tort reform”). This nanny state restriction would make it more difficult for people to get legal compensation from corporations that have damaged their health or property.

Conservatives also think that a wide variety of businesses, from makers of vaccines to operators of nuclear power plants, can’t afford the insurance they would have to buy in the private market to cover the damage they may cause to life and property. Instead, they want the nanny state to protect them from lawsuits resulting from this damage. Conservatives even think that the government should work as a bill collector for creditors who lack good judgment and make loans to people who are bad credit risks (conservatives call this “bankruptcy reform”).

In these areas of public policy, and other areas discussed in this book, conservatives are enthusiastic promoters of big government. They are happy to have the government intervene into the inner workings of the economy to make sure that money flows in the direction they like — upward. It is accurate to say that conservatives don’t like big government social programs, but not because they don’t like big government. The problem with big government social programs is that they tend to distribute money downward, or provide benefits to large numbers of people. That is not the conservative agenda — the agenda is getting the money flowing upward, and for this, big government is just fine."