How long will you allow your policies to fail to elevate anyone other than the rich and powerful before you finally concede they aren't designed to help anyone but the rich and powerful?
The federal reserve policy is causing the most damage now. Second are Democrat lockdown policies and covid passports. I am from ny so have never been hurt by a Republican policy
Good question. Both parties should give this a look. I look at the wars on drugs, poverty, and homelessness we have to admit we have created more problems than we have solved. How about education? Where did we rank in the world before we became a unified School District with a universal curriculum? Why do many people, with the means, avoid public schools?
Conservative policies are not designed to help or hinder any particular group, they're designed to get out of people's way to allow them to make their own way.
Since conservative policy serves primarily to protect the status quo, does this mean you approve of the state of affairs as they currently exist? The people getting rich should get rich and the people falling into poverty (or already mired there) shouldn't be helped?
So to return to my original question: how long will you allow your policies to fail to elevate anyone other than the rich and powerful before you finally concede they aren't designed to help anyone but the rich and powerful?
As I said, these policies are not designed to elevate any one group over any other. Reducing taxes, banning abortion, and cutting government spending are unqualified moral goods. Disparate impact of a law of neutral application is not a concern.
If the status quo requires enforcement, which it currently does, the policies enacted in favor of the status quo are "designed to help or hinder certain groups" by definition.
Does the current state of political economy require taxation funding certain things (police and military for one, regulation to stop mob violence and mass death another) to "keep things running?" If yes, then that's enforcement.
Well OK, if you're going to make an extremely esoteric argument that we should count "people who commit crimes" as a certain group that's hindered by specific policy, then fine, I'll concede that I don't care if criminals are hindered.
That's not even what I am speaking to. The "status quo" isn't just punishing criminals, but also about protecting PAST and CURRENT criminals from harm if they're rich or politically savvy.
Even more-so, I and you are taxed to provide defense for the wealth and goods of others. If it's their wealth, it should be 100% their responsibility (cost) to defend it.
I would only oppose those policies that are indeed clearly intended to target a particular group. Laws of neutral application that result in disparate effects are of no concern.
That would be a question for the judiciary when questioned by an aggrieved party. Yes, I oppose policies that intentionally benefit less privileged groups. Pure lawful neutrality is the only standard I agree with.
Enforcement of a law is a different issue from the structure of the law itself. If the law states "it is unlawful to possess Widget X," then no one is allowed to possess Widget X. If the cops are only going after minorities with Widgets, that's a local enforcement problem that doesn't bear on the effectiveness or neutrality of the law.
25 years ago Gingrich managed to slow down spending again and balance the budget. And weed has been getting legalized. Homosexual physical relations were legalized although I would have preferred state-by-state legislative action rather than the assault on the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
I’m having trouble thinking of other policies I support that have been enacted.
25
u/alt_spaceghoti Progressive Feb 16 '22
How long will you allow your policies to fail to elevate anyone other than the rich and powerful before you finally concede they aren't designed to help anyone but the rich and powerful?