Originally Posted by Myghost
It means "balance the budget" and "make sure that if someone consistently puts in an honest days work (at a relevant job) that they can support their family without welfare".
If I were running on a platform of fiscal conservatism, I'd start with reducing CORPORATE welfare. I would not give tax breaks to companies who pay such low wages that their employees live in poverty. I'd quit pandering to special interests, and speak the hard truth that some industries are not going to succeed in the USA. We need to stop protecting jobs in coal and in old-school textiles (for example), and retrain those people to thrive in the tech-sector where there is a shortage of skilled workers in high paying jobs. It's tough, as a politician, to tell people that their cheese is moving, but it has to happen.
I'd put an immediate end to Citizens United, and other loopholes that allow special interests to fund a candidate.
I might lift some regulations, but would make penalties for the remaining ones stiffer. For example, instead of blathering about deporting 11 million people, I'd still focus on border security (more of it, not less), but I'd immediately toughen laws and ENFORCE them for people who employ illegals.
With regards to Corporate Welfare, I'd seek to end the private prison industry, and I'd decriminalize harmless drugs such as Marijuana. I'd treat that no harsher (probably less-so) than alcohol, which would free up a lot of wasted money in our judicial system.
I'd be honest with people about the mess that is our healthcare system. I'd level with them that it was F'd up before Obamacare, and it's STILL F'd up during/after it. It is one system that I'd socialize, because (even though I'm a staunch Capitalist), it does not make sense to incent companies to make money by denying coverage, and that's exactly what happens.
I'd figure out a way to have bills introduced on single issues, eliminating pork, which comes from both parties. If there is a vote about funding the border, it would not be loaded up with crap about unrelated projects, so when a congress-person votes, their record is tied to something we can trace, and they will have a meaningful voting history.
I'm pretty sure I'd advocate for term limits, and would also try to find a way to limit elected officials from any form of lobbying, at least for a period of time.
I would be pro-oil, but have HUGE penalties for natural disaster, which required paying the full cost of clean-up, plus more, and I'd invest heavily in alternative energy, as Arab countries have done, and are doing.
I could go on for a while. I'm not terribly educated in politics, but there are a lot of simple fixes that can be done. I think the mass-appeal of Trump (whom I absolutely dispise as a candidate) is his position of NOT being status quo. The time is ripe for electing an outsider, but it has to be someone who is not scurge of the earth.
Fiscally conservative means ACTUALLY DOING WHAT MANY GOP CANDIDATES CLAIM THEY'D DO, and dropping all of the social policing agenda, as most people don't want to be told what to do in their bedrooms or with their bodies.
EDIT: Sorry, I did not answer your question... I would not go after disabled people. I would do my best to 'minimize' abuse of the system, but the reality is that the real waste is not from people cheating the Gov't $600 at a time. The real waste, and the biggest gains, can be realized at test of millions of dollars at a time. No, I would not stop taking care of our disabled people.
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
