The Conservative Nanny State

[midcan5]

How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

The Conservative Nanny State, by Dean Baker

"In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

[actsnoblemartin]

the top ten percent pay 70% of taxes, instead of making them pay more, wouldnt it make sense to help the other 90% make more so they can pay more taxes

glen beck

yesterdays show


How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

The Conservative Nanny State, by Dean Baker

"In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

[manu1959]

seems the conservative system works and the liberal one doesn't.....

[Yurt]

How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

The Conservative Nanny State, by Dean Baker

"In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

care to cite examples? or are you satisfied with a general blanket conclusory statement? i'm guessing you are, given how often you reply to posts which challenge your assertions.....

[Hobbit]

How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

The Conservative Nanny State, by Dean Baker

"In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

WRONG! The market should be left alone. 'Decent' wages are a function of the market. If you want a decent wage, make your labor valuable. If you want 'good' pay, make your labor worth 'good' pay, and if you want 'affordable' health care, then either get an employer that grants benefits or stop support legislators who drive up health care costs by making sure nobody ever has to pay them directly and that people are covered for option or foreseeable costs, such as child-bearing, aromatherapy, and regular checkups.

Oh, and no 'social outcome' is desirable if it involves forcefully seizing wealth from somebody who earned it and giving it to somebody who didn't.

[avatar4321]

and what nannystate policies do conservatives support?

By definition if you support a nannystate policy, you aren't conservative.

[midcan5]

care to cite examples? or are you satisfied with a general blanket conclusory statement? i'm guessing you are, given how often you reply to posts which challenge your assertions.....

Examples abound, here are a few, check out Baker's site as well.


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fcf390b0-8eba-495e-a672-bcdb5dcf45e9
http://www.counterpunch.org/kampmark03272008.html
http://www.counterpunch.com/nader04052008.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/morici03282008.html


the top ten percent pay 70% of taxes, instead of making them pay more, wouldnt it make sense to help the other 90% make more so they can pay more taxes

glen beck

yesterdays show

Beck is an ideologue but so what. The rich make lots, I know many and none suffer. That they pay more would be obvious since if they make 2 million dollars and you make 40k the percent would be higher, again so what.


and what nannystate policies do conservatives support?

By definition if you support a nannystate policy, you aren't conservative.

Only if you are so deep in your ideological frame that fresh air and another view is impossible.


seems the conservative system works and the liberal one doesn't.....

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

[red states rule]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Why do libs constantly open their mouths and insert their foot?

Tax cuts have always increased revenues to the government

They did for JFK, Reagan, and now for Pres Bush

[midcan5]

Why do libs constantly open their mouths and insert their foot?

Tax cuts have always increased revenues to the government

They did for JFK, Reagan, and now for Pres Bush

Huh! You can read right? Reagan made our nation a debtor nation for the first time in history, but I have to give him some credit as he recognized that and thus had the greatest tax increase in history.

[red states rule]

Huh! You can read right? Reagan made our nation a debtor nation for the first time in history, but I have to give him some credit as he recognized that and thus had the greatest tax increase in history.

Revenues during the 8 years of Pres Reagan DOUBLED to ober $1 trillion

Currently, revenues to the US government are at record levels

Both to tax cuts which do increase revenues to the government

[actsnoblemartin]

beck an idealogue, :laugh2:
how often do you actually watch his show, cause if you didnt, you wouldnt make such un-true statements about him


Beck is an ideologue but so what. The rich make lots, I know many and none suffer. That they pay more would be obvious since if they make 2 million dollars and you make 40k the percent would be higher, again so what.

[red states rule]

beck an idealogue, :laugh2:
how often do you actually watch his show, cause if you didnt, you wouldnt make such un-true statements about him

Beck tends to yell a bit much for me

I love to listen to Rush and Sean

[Mr. P]

How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

The Conservative Nanny State, by Dean Baker

"In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care."

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

There's yer "Nanny State" ninny. "harness the market"? Is that like "I'll take those profits"? Yup, that's it. :slap:

[5stringJeff]

Examples abound, here are a few, check out Baker's site as well.


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fcf390b0-8eba-495e-a672-bcdb5dcf45e9

Firms act in their best interest. Sometimes, their best interest is to get the government to regulate the market so they can protect their market share. It's still a bad policy.


http://www.counterpunch.org/kampmark03272008.html
http://www.counterpunch.com/nader04052008.html

The Bear Stearns bailout was a bad idea, but you'll have to blame Ben Bernanke for that one.


http://www.counterpunch.org/morici03282008.html

Yawn. Typical anti-trade rhetoric.

[avatar4321]

Only if you are so deep in your ideological frame that fresh air and another view is impossible.

By definition if you are a conservative you are for lower government. Conservatism is an idealogy. And its an easily defined one.

In order to take "another view" on it you have to redefine conservatism. Because as it currently stands a person who supports the nanny state isnt conservative.

[avatar4321]

Huh! You can read right? Reagan made our nation a debtor nation for the first time in history, but I have to give him some credit as he recognized that and thus had the greatest tax increase in history.

Debt is completely irrelevant to Revenue. RSR is correct. Tax cuts have always brought in more revenue. The debt being increased is completely irrelevant to the debate. but then i think you knew that before you brought it up.

[5stringJeff]

Debt is completely irrelevant to Revenue.

I wouldn't quite go that far. Revenue is half the story, but the other half is Congress spending like drunken sailors at a whorehouse.

[avatar4321]

I wouldn't quite go that far. Revenue is half the story, but the other half is Congress spending like drunken sailors at a whorehouse.

if you are talking about the fiscal policy of this nation, then i agree. But I was refering to the calculation of revenue. Debt just doesnt come into play.

[midcan5]

Revenues during the 8 years of Pres Reagan DOUBLED to ober $1 trillion

Currently, revenues to the US government are at record levels

Both to tax cuts which do increase revenues to the government

Your saying something doesn't have much weight here as reality has a differnt view. And even if you are right the economy plunged during Reagan and then Bush senior's administration. You do remember, 'it's the economy stupid.'


You all are missing the point here, if we bail out corporations, then why not our citizens. Seems the moral, American thing to do. And you missed Reagan's tax increases, funny how I never hear about them??? But again I give Reagan, the man, credit, he realized his error - his myth is another story.

"By either measure, Reagan's 1982 increase was larger than Clinton's 1993 increase."

http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

"In October 2003, conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote a detailed review of Reagan’s tax increases. For the record, he referred to Reagan’s 1982 hike as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

[Mr. P]

Your saying something doesn't have much weight here as reality has a differnt view. And even if you are right the economy plunged during Reagan and then Bush senior's administration. You do remember, 'it's the economy stupid.'


You all are missing the point here, if we bail out corporations, then why not our citizens. Seems the moral, American thing to do. And you missed Reagan's tax increases, funny how I never hear about them??? But again I give Reagan, the man, credit, he realized his error - his myth is another story.

"By either measure, Reagan's 1982 increase was larger than Clinton's 1993 increase."

http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html

"In October 2003, conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote a detailed review of Reagan’s tax increases. For the record, he referred to Reagan’s 1982 hike as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

Reagan started a recovery after the destruction caused by Carter.

I'm not for bail-outs but to answer your question....It makes more sense in the case to help a company than an individual citizen. After all, the companies PROVIDE jobs for the individual. The individual doesn't employee anyone.

[midcan5]

Reagan started a recovery after the destruction caused by Carter.

Sorry friend I was alive then and Nixon/Ford started stagflation and the mess Carter inherited. Carter also had an oil embargo to contend with, while I don't give Carter much credit for helping, blame can hardly be all his.

Reagan used good old Keynesian economics, you know that bad liberal idea that government spending will help things out to bring a temporary improvement. But Reagan's firing of the air traffic controller started the downfall of the American worker and the middle class. Corporate respect for the worker started to diminish and today with outsourcing and the lack of union representation you see the results.

[Mr. P]

Sorry friend I was alive then and Nixon/Ford started stagflation and the mess Carter inherited. Carter also had an oil embargo to contend with, while I don't give Carter much credit for helping, blame can hardly be all his.

Reagan used good old Keynesian economics, you know that bad liberal idea that government spending will help things out to bring a temporary improvement. But Reagan's firing of the air traffic controller started the downfall of the American worker and the middle class. Corporate respect for the worker started to diminish and today with outsourcing and the lack of union representation you see the results.

I was alive then too..At the time Reagan fired the controllers I was a professional pilot. It WAS the best thing that happened to the system! Things got much better. SCREW UNIONS! What job does a union provide? ZIP, NONE.

[red states rule]

Sorry friend I was alive then and Nixon/Ford started stagflation and the mess Carter inherited. Carter also had an oil embargo to contend with, while I don't give Carter much credit for helping, blame can hardly be all his.

Reagan used good old Keynesian economics, you know that bad liberal idea that government spending will help things out to bring a temporary improvement. But Reagan's firing of the air traffic controller started the downfall of the American worker and the middle class. Corporate respect for the worker started to diminish and today with outsourcing and the lack of union representation you see the results.

Pres Peanut Carter was a failed one term President

and Pres Reagan did such a great job he was reelected with a 49 state landslide win over Walter Mondull

[midcan5]

I was alive then too..At the time Reagan fired the controllers I was a professional pilot. It WAS the best thing that happened to the system! Things got much better. SCREW UNIONS! What job does a union provide? ZIP, NONE.

Sorry you feel that way, but unions have a long good history, it is why the Northeast states do so well. It is why Americans have had the highest standard of living until recently when European nations passed our working classes.

How do you feel about deregulation of airlines, was that a good thing too?

[red states rule]

Sorry you feel that way, but unions have a long good history, it is why the Northeast states do so well. It is why Americans have had the highest standard of living until recently when European nations passed our working classes.

How do you feel about deregulation of airlines, was that a good thing too?

Funny how the US economy grew by leaps and bounds as union membership sank to its lowest levels ever

Very telling on how unions screw up companies. Look at Detroit and the auto industry

[Mr. P]

Sorry you feel that way, but unions have a long good history, it is why the Northeast states do so well. It is why Americans have had the highest standard of living until recently when European nations passed our working classes.

How do you feel about deregulation of airlines, was that a good thing too?
Tell it to the folks in the rust belt or those in Detroit.

Yes, deregulation of the airlines was a good thing.

[midcan5]

Funny how the US economy grew by leaps and bounds as union membership sank to its lowest levels ever

Very telling on how unions screw up companies. Look at Detroit and the auto industry


I only buy American cars so I'm the wrong person to ask. But this is not hard as our wages and benefits have always been very good and it is those costs that are hurting the automobile makers. Many in GM, I know a few, have been retired longer than they worked. I do not begrudge them that but it adds to costs.

[midcan5]

Tell it to the folks in the rust belt or those in Detroit.

Yes, deregulation of the airlines was a good thing.

Deregulation seems to be a mixed bag, you have any concrete links or info?

[red states rule]

Deregulation seems to be a mixed bag, you have any concrete links or info?

It is because of sky high taxes, and government interfernece

A liberal nanny state has destroyed the state of MI

[Mr. P]

Deregulation seems to be a mixed bag, you have any concrete links or info?

Deregulation allowed competition, created more jobs in the aviation industry and provided the public with lower costs to fly. What links are needed for that..I lived it.

[midcan5]

De-regulation, another POV.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/082700-101.htm

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/priv.html

[Mr. P]

De-regulation, another POV.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/082700-101.htm

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/priv.html

What's your POV?

[midcan5]

What's your POV?

I think regulation is one of those essentials things, sorta like police or the military or even the tax collector. I don't assume my business partner or the car salesman is a saint and as such we need to regulate their activities with laws and limitations. I know several lawyers, a few of whom are so honest they tell you how businesses steal and cheat, my point is it would be nice if everyone were as nice and honest as we are but they aren't. And power to do these things has to reside in an institution with power to enforce them and we need to regulate that institution too.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

[Said1]

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

Marx's 'iron law of wages' is long dead. I bet you love Henry George too. :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

Sorry you feel that way, but unions have a long good history, it is why the Northeast states do so well. It is why Americans have had the highest standard of living until recently when European nations passed our working classes.

How do you feel about deregulation of airlines, was that a good thing too?


Deregulation seems to be a mixed bag, you have any concrete links or info?


Deregulation allowed competition, created more jobs in the aviation industry and provided the public with lower costs to fly. What links are needed for that..I lived it.


I think regulation is one of those essentials things, sorta like police or the military or even the tax collector. I don't assume my business partner or the car salesman is a saint and as such we need to regulate their activities with laws and limitations. I know several lawyers, a few of whom are so honest they tell you how businesses steal and cheat, my point is it would be nice if everyone were as nice and honest as we are but they aren't. And power to do these things has to reside in an institution with power to enforce them and we need to regulate that institution too.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

Deregulation of the airlines did nothing but remove the chains placed on the aviation industry by government, thus allowing free market compitition. It did not affect the regulations they ALL must abide by in place for public safety then and now.

[midcan5]

RSR and others forgot that socialism is for the rich capitalism is for the poor working people. In another thread he is defending the rich, given their resources he reminds me of those cheering on Granada against Uncle Sam.

So bump and read:

"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."

[avatar4321]

RSR and others forgot that socialism is for the rich capitalism is for the poor working people.

Your absolutely right. Its the rich elitists who want socialism. Why? Because it prevents the working poor from achieving wealth and challenging their power. That is why they take from the producers. After all, the rich already have their money.

Socialism has nothing to do with helping the poor. Just about the rich hurting the poor while pretending to help them.

[LOki]

Oh, and no 'social outcome' is desirable if it involves forcefully seizing wealth from somebody who earned it and giving it to somebody who didn't.
Right...

the fuck...

ON! :clap:

[5stringJeff]

WRONG! The market should be left alone. 'Decent' wages are a function of the market. If you want a decent wage, make your labor valuable. If you want 'good' pay, make your labor worth 'good' pay, and if you want 'affordable' health care, then either get an employer that grants benefits or stop support legislators who drive up health care costs by making sure nobody ever has to pay them directly and that people are covered for option or foreseeable costs, such as child-bearing, aromatherapy, and regular checkups.

Oh, and no 'social outcome' is desirable if it involves forcefully seizing wealth from somebody who earned it and giving it to somebody who didn't.


Right...

the fuck...

ON! :clap:

Indeed. This reminds me of one of my all-time favorite quotes:
"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." - Lord Acton

[midcan5]

There's a simple law that fits all simple laws, the proof is in the pudding. America since Reagan has gone downhill except for the wealthy and the top classes. But one has to give the conservative media credit, they choose a few topics and pinned any fault on the opponent. The moonies as noted above still follow their sect's commands. It worked but the results are coming in and now independents and even republicans are no longer republicans. They recently told members of congress to pretend they were something else. That is so funny it is hard to believe it wasn't dreamed up on comedy central.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/america-since-1980-a-right-turn-leading-to-a-dead-end/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

[avatar4321]

There's a simple law that fits all simple laws, the proof is in the pudding. America since Reagan has gone downhill except for the wealthy and the top classes. But one has to give the conservative media credit, they choose a few topics and pinned any fault on the opponent. The moonies as noted above still follow their sect's commands. It worked but the results are coming in and now independents and even republicans are no longer republicans. They recently told members of congress to pretend they were something else. That is so funny it is hard to believe it wasn't dreamed up on comedy central.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/america-since-1980-a-right-turn-leading-to-a-dead-end/

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Exactly how has life for the poor gotten worse? How do you have less than no money?

[midcan5]

Exactly how has life for the poor gotten worse? How do you have less than no money?

You gotta be kidding me? WTH does that even mean?

[avatar4321]

You gotta be kidding me? WTH does that even mean?

It's not really that difficult. The poor have no money. How can you get worse than that?

[Mr. P]

You gotta be kidding me? WTH does that even mean?

Good question, but WTH define "poor".

Thanks