Hundred million contracts with zero results. Conservative ideology is based on the idea that certain people is just above others and they deserve more for free meanwhile working class health expenses are a luxury and need to be cut down.
One example: $42.5B in the infrastructure bill to expand high speed internet access to rural communities.
Four years later, this funding is still in proposal stages, with final proposals due (not approved) at the end of this year. Absolutely nothing has been spent on broadband access, and it is likely to take at least another year or more before any real spending starts.
In the meantime, what has happened so far: - $810M spend on admin costs. Over $200M a year to run a program that does nothing. - there is a cap of 2% or $850M for admin costs, so there is already legislation on the way to exapnd this cap so that the program can continue.Admin costs will only increase after projects are underway because they need to be closely monitored. - Inflation has been 25% since this was approved, inflation for internet infrastructure has been 50%, so already, only half of the infrastructure envisioned will be implemented, but it will end up being more like 25% will see the light of day due to inflation and admin costs.
There are many other examples. Look up EV charging stations. Look were ARPA funds have gone.
Proceeds to discuss politics...
I am not sure how to address such a blanket statement as "Hundred million contracts with zero results. Conservative ideology is based on the idea that certain people is just above others" without providing counter examples.
I can also find plenty of examples from the other "side"
Point is, our government system is broken and is not able to do or build anything except keep to keep itself growing, and the fault is shared across the political spectrum.
The only thing the politics seem to be good for is to keep everyone appalled, in rage, and entertained with the idea that if only the "other" was not so inept, stupid, or ideological, things would be better.
Bread and circuses.
Congress is full of politicians getting rich off of investments that almost certainly are informed by insider information.
During the pandemic we saw plenty of examples across the political spectrum of those in charge pushing harsh rules and lockdowns on the public while ignoring it themselves.
The list could go on, bit this isn't a conservative problem even if it may be more prevalent there.
Any ideology that accepts taxation - practically all of them - believes this. It is impossible [0] to come up with a system that taxes one group without accepting that there is another group who are above them (who impose & enforce the taxes) and a group that is more deserving of the wealth (hence the taxes).
As far as practical results go it isn't possible to describe a flat society where everyone is equal. It doesn't even work on a micro scale, let alone a macro one. And everyone has an opinion on what the ideal wealth distribution looks like too.
[0] Not technically impossible, an island of extremely obese rationalists who approximate friction-less spheres might be able to roll with the idea.
Only if you anchor the baseline of "deserve" to private property rights and open markets. It's a fine foundation for civilization, but it's still "just like your opinion man". You could have different viewpoints of deserving, such as strongest-wins: "If I can steal 'your' stuff, I deserve it". This is how things work in nature. On the other extreme, you can say "everyone deserves exactly the same" (as in equal outcome). For the former, being imprisoned for theft is an intervention in their moral code, whereas for the latter, protecting free (in their view exploitative) markets is an intervention. Property rights fundamentalism is kind of radical centrism in the grand scheme of things.
> Only if you anchor the baseline of "deserve" to private property rights and open markets.
Say someone has an ideology where they believe 70 year olds shouldn't have to work and need to be provided for by the community. What aspect of that would be anchored to private property and open markets? You could believe that and also believe in communal property and closed markets.
