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.
So you believe there should be no laws prohibiting and mitigating murder until after it happens.
Okay.
I think everyone agrees with laws prohibiting murder.
I also don't think you can "mitigate" murder, and you certainly shouldn't take away freedoms just because somebody might commit a murder. If you follow that logic you would take all knives away from people.
No, they're not. Government can provide anything AND pay for it responsibly if it's done right. It's simply a matter of prioritizing where the available money goes.
.
If you believe that, you are not a fiscal conservative.
If you believe that, you are not a fiscal conservative.
Of course I am.
Suppose I wanted to spend $500 billion on social programs. That would be irresponsible and hardly fiscally conservative UNLESS I cut spending from something else to pay for it, leaving the impact on the budget at a zero sum.
How is that not being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?
Umm... supporting reasonable controls on a dangerous product is what I believe. I also support airbags and mandatory safety regulations in automobiles ... because of what "might" happen.
Thank you for proving my point,you do NOT believe what you wrote earlier at all,you believe in demanding other conform to your way of thinking.
You are free to call yourself whatever makes you happy,it doesn't change the fact you believe in forcing your beliefs on others because of what MIGHT happen.
I think you have some wires crossed. A social liberal advocates freedom and things like legalized abortion, prostitution, drugs, gun ownership, gambling and gay marriage. In other words, no big government telling people how to live their lives.
A social liberal advocates for a socialist nanny state. They want less freedom and more government. Exactly the opposite of a social conservative. In order to pay for their social re-engineering these social liberals must be fiscally liberal as well. Otherwise why would they advocate for something but oppose funding it? That makes no sense (except to Libertarians perhaps). The more they want government to do, the more fiscally liberal they must be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
A fiscal conservative advocates as little government spending as possible. They support the elimination of price controls, farm subsidies, social security, welfare, medicaid, etc.
The two come together nicely as outlined on the Libertarian Party web site.
A fiscal conservative advocates a limited constitutional federal government, so that only those powers granted by the US Constitution are funded. All of those items in your list are not powers granted by the US Constitution, therefore, no true fiscal conservative could support spending on those unconstitutional programs. Since the US Constitution does not grant Congress the power to socially re-engineer society, only a fiscal liberal could advocate for such spending.
As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned they are nothing more than closet anarchists, and a political joke that nobody ever takes seriously.
Suppose I wanted to spend $500 billion on social programs. That would be irresponsible and hardly fiscally conservative UNLESS I cut spending from something else to pay for it, leaving the impact on the budget at a zero sum.
How is that not being socially liberal and fiscally conservative?
Fiscal conservatives are less concerned about the deficit than the total amount of government spending. They do not think government should spend money on any social programs, regardless of the deficit or lack thereof.
Here is one fiscal conservative definition: "Governments only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud."
The focus is government programs and spending. Not the deficit.
A social liberal advocates for a socialist nanny state. They want less freedom and more government. Exactly the opposite of a social conservative. In order to pay for their social re-engineering these social liberals must be fiscally liberal as well. Otherwise why would they advocate for something but oppose funding it? That makes no sense (except to Libertarians perhaps). The more they want government to do, the more fiscally liberal they must be.
You can believe what you want, but I have never seen your definition. In fact, it's 180 degrees out.
Libertarians and social liberals focus on FREEDOM and a lack of big government telling us how to live. Just the opposite of your post.
Do some research. The Libertarian byline is "Maximum freedom, Minimum Government"
A fiscal conservative advocates a limited constitutional federal government, so that only those powers granted by the US Constitution are funded. All of those items in your list are not powers granted by the US Constitution, therefore, no true fiscal conservative could support spending on those unconstitutional programs. Since the US Constitution does not grant Congress the power to socially re-engineer society, only a fiscal liberal could advocate for such spending.
I agree with that part of your post, as does the Libertarian Party.
How about a fourth party: fiscally conservative AND socially conservative?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
