Thank you, Tea Party (yes, I'm being sarcastic).

The far right in this country have driven home their stupid Ayn Rand message and too many people have listened. We now have the most polarized government since the Civil War.

The right believe that their way is the only way. To them everything is a zero sum game.

I would settle for a Scandinavian or Swiss-style system. The older I get, the less I like capitalism as described by the right.

I think Tea Party has lost all meaning. For me, it started when Ron Paul ran for President in '08. Forget the rhetoric for a second and just look at the bills he sponsored:

- Make college tuition tax deductible

- Don't tax SS income

- Don't tax tips

- Bar surveillance of protests

- Make sure members have time to read legislation

Most everyone I've met thinks these are good ideas.

Anyway, what was inspired by a man that wanted to keep taxes and government power in check was commandeered by low class opportunist like Palin and other neo-cons. This was helped along by the press. The neolib side like MSNBC and the neocon side like Fox News were all to happy to reshape the message. They did this because at the end of the day, neither of these groups liked what the Tea Party originally stood for...less federal government power.

Still, you're point stands. I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand and I think Ayn Rand's concept of good intentions with unintended consequences can and does lead to disaster. Though, dismissing them as stupid is a little childish.

Full list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_b...

Most of the right in the US prescribe a less powerful government and more choice for individuals. Social conservatives want to force their morals on everyone, but with less government, wanted by fiscal conservatives who and make up the majority of the Tea Party and "the right", that's not possible.

Class warriors believe in zero-sum games. Wealth inequality to them means that if the rich are getting richer, then everyone else must be getting poorer; never mind that living standards have been improving for virtually everyone over the last 50 years (stagnant in closed societies, but those are far and few).

Also, please don't use terms like "far right". It could mean Ayn Rand or Hitler, and they don't have a thing in common.

Basic income is not a left vs right issue. Lots of libertarians (including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) support basic income as a more efficient safety net than government-run programs.

Uh... how exactly do they see "basic income" and "government-run" as opposites?

Here's an example: vouchers vs. one size fits all public schools. They're not opposites; vouchers just free up resources by using market forces to prevent good money to go to bad schools.

There's two sides:

(1) Collecting the money used, and (2) And choosing how to spend money for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

Both basic income and traditional welfare rely on government for #1, true. The difference is in #2.

It has less knobs for politicians to twiddle.

> Basic income is not a left vs right issue.

Yes, it is.

> Lots of libertarians (including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) support basic income as a more efficient safety net than government-run programs.

Well, first, "libertarian" says nothing about left vs. right. "Lots of libertarians support one side of the issue" doesn't mean it doesn't split left vs. right.

Second, neither Milton Friedman nor Friedrich Hayek can be counted as current supporters of, well, anything.

> The right believe that their way is the only way.

To be fair, the left feel this way too.

If that were true a conservative based healthcare reform like the ACA would never have been passed by a democratic controlled congress. For better or for worse the left has been much more open to compromise

If ACA is a conservative solution, then I have a bridge to sell you.

> the left has been much more open to compromise

Both sides compromise, but only when they think they are getting the better deal. There are moderates on both sides who get things done, and there are extremists on both sides that stifle progress. One side is not better at compromise than the other, in any regard. They are all politicians, and they are all motivated by the same thing: power and self fulfillment.

The angle to take would be that this system, being much simpler than our current network of welfare & social security systems - would require a vastly smaller government to administer it.

Don't worry, an obvious solution will present itself as soon as unemployment reaches 50% of the voting population.

Unfortunately, that obvious solution is usually War.

yeah this

public opinion is plastic, especially when faced with real world pain

Such a reform would be difficult since it would require substantial compromise from both sides of the aisle, but some of the conservatives' favorite economists have endorsed the idea. Also certain tax credits and Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend resemble the concept of a guaranteed minimum income on lesser scale.