Fiscally Conservative & Social Liberal?
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-26-2004 - 9:55pm |
Perhaps you could be
A. Conservative on Both
B. Moderate fiscally and moderate socially
C. Liberal on Both.
It just seem difficult if not impossible to be Fiscally conservative and socially liberal and here is why.
Most liberal programs increase gov't control over private institutions, increase spending on issues, or increase red tape, etc. This all adversly affects efficiency or causes increases in gov't spending. Both of which a fiscal conservative would be against. Yet I hear this uddered all the time. I wonder if it is a way of presenting yourself as not one of the extremes on either side. You certainly can get labeled when you say I'm a conservative or I'm a liberal. So you play both sides of the fence.
I'm not convinced it is not possible it just seems unlikely. It would seem in every case you would end up being a moderate or liberal if you support liberal social programs because of their restriction on the free market or their inherent cost from tax payer coffers.

Pages
It does not compute."
It would if you have read enough of hayashig's posts. They are constantly talking about greedy corporations and people. How people, mostly rich conservatives are not concerned with anyone else. That liberals and socialism will save the day.
The comment about people living together not having the ability to help each other was a setup to come back with "well only the poor live together so they can't help each other and the rich dont want to help so bring in the government."
I've been down this debate and don't want to go there again.
Compute now?
It would if you have read enough of hayashig's posts. They are constantly talking about greedy corporations and people. How people, mostly rich conservatives are not concerned with anyone else. That liberals and socialism will save the day.
Compute now?
--
Absolutely not, especially not in the context of this thread.
Of course it doesn't that's why I called it propaganda. However, I was responding to Vadar's belief that we should eliminate the welfare state and have local charities take of the needy. (This is a long standing conservative position--get rid of government.) This discussion has been going on for some time. My contention is that local charaties don't have the reach to take care of the needy. The rest is gut reaction. But I suspect you knew this; I answered anyway in case you didn't.
What is this suppose to mean?????
--
Absolutely not, especially not in the context of this thread. "
Well if you don't understand I dont have the inclination to go through all of the debates we've been through to explain the nature of our debates.
I suggest reading them...then the context will become clear...if you want it to.
"What is this suppose to mean????? "
Which part don't you understand?
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
Do you know the history on these words and why they were included in the Pledge? Did you live through the Mc Carthy era? And how many lives were wrongfully ruined by the same anti-communistic frevor that put those words in the Pledge? They are not part of our American Heritage.Personally I do not care anymore if they stay or go, but back then it was a different story.
Barb
To be a Gardener is to believe in tomorrow
As far as I am concerned there is not a fiscally conservative body left in Washington--even Alan Greenspan seems to be getting off kilter!!!!
Oh yes--I am a Libertarian!!!
Barb
To be a Gardener is to believe in tomorrow
Edited 8/4/2004 9:36 am ET ET by ashalynnmac
>"ONE NATION UNDER GOD"<
Why is this even in a discussion about being
Pages