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.
How exactly does it make you a statist to say that its none of government's business ?
Welfare is none of the government's business? I wish!
Means-tested social welfare programs spending is our governments' biggest budget item, topping $1 trillion annually. That's statist through and through.
Welfare is none of the government's business? I wish!
Means-tested social welfare programs spending is our governments' biggest budget item, topping $1 trillion annually. That's statist through and through.
You are a prime example of a conservative liberal who tries to support and oppose the same issues.
This is what the American Thinker, a conservative source says about people like you:
Quote:
My conservative liberal friends brag that they are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Like being socially liberal is a sign of enlightenment, of liberal wisdom.
Conservatives try to appeal to their liberal friends by saying
that they are socially liberal. For some reason, social liberalism has
become a good regardless of its results.
It makes social liberals feel open-minded and good. It gives them
the illusion that the highway to hell is paved with squishy left-wing
rhetoric
Welfare is none of the government's business? I wish!
Means-tested social welfare programs spending is our governments' biggest budget item, topping $1 trillion annually. That's statist through and through.
What are you saying? That the government is statist or supporting programs is statist? Neither makes much sense. Does supporting the military make one a statist? How 'bout the space program? Interstate highway system?
Furthermore, since welfare and other programs are largely controlled by state and county governments, such programs are not statist by definition.
What are you saying? That the government is statist or supporting programs is statist? Neither makes much sense. Does supporting the military make one a statist? How 'bout the space program? Interstate highway system?
Furthermore, since welfare and other programs are largely controlled by state and county governments, such programs are not statist by definition.
He realized that his comments make him a lefty, so he is trying to distance himself from them by labeling them something else, while re-defining the concept of "social liberal" to sound like a conservative stance.
He realized that his comments make him a lefty, so he is trying to distance himself from them by labeling them something else, while re-defining the concept of "social liberal" to sound like a conservative stance.
Many socially liberal positions were the conservative stance at one time. William F. Buckley, Jr. always supported drug legalization, and he was the preeminent conservative thinker of his time.
What are you saying? That the government is statist or supporting programs is statist? Neither makes much sense. Does supporting the military make one a statist? How 'bout the space program? Interstate highway system?
The military is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. As for the others, are they not controlled by the state (the government)?
Quote:
Furthermore, since welfare and other programs are largely controlled by state and county governments, such programs are not statist by definition.
Statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of government. Any form of government, local, state, or federal.
Yes. As someone who is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I find that it is very possible to be both and not be conflicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
A lot of people say they are both, but if you are a fiscal conservative you should probably oppose drug legalization and other socially liberal ideals, which will do nothing but cause a need for more law enforcement, rehab, welfare etc other tax payer funded actions. Why would a fiscal conservative support actions which will put more people on welfare?
The war on drugs results in more broken homes than drug use itself does. Legalizing marijuana would result in more men - especially black men - being available to help raise their children. This would reduce, not increase, the need for welfare in poor communities. Also, ending the idiotic war on drugs would free up law enforcement officers to deal with important crimes, and hopefully result in fewer police officers needed. That doesn't even begin to address the savings to the American taxpayer that would be seen from the closure of prisons. Hence, it's socially liberal but also fiscally conservative to support the legalization of drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The social liberal stance sabotages the fiscal conservative stance, so it makes no sense to promote both.
No, it doesn't. Part of being socially liberal involves getting the government out of our private lives and letting people make their own decisions. Want to do drugs? Fine with me, as long as you aren't forcing them on others. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Also fine with me. For that matter, if you want to marry 20 different people and live in a commune I couldn't care less. No law should exist which seeks to protect adults from their own decisions, ever. With fewer social policies to pursue, there is less need for a large government and therefore a theoretical reduction in the cost of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Do you support ACA? Universal Healthcare is a classic example of something social liberals would support, but it is also a classic example of something fiscal conservative would oppose. How can one person be both a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal? It seems many within the GOP are trying to be both in order to attract more independent vote, but I think they are eroding the conservative foundation their party is built upon.
Not all social liberals support the ACA, just as not all fiscal conservatives oppose it. It isn't a black and white issue, but instead is an issue that is covered with shades of gray. I oppose Obamacare because in my opinion it is directly opposed to my belief as a social liberal that the government should have less involvement in everyday life. I also oppose Obamacare because as a fiscal conservative I see that it is costing Americans far more than what was proposed and promised.
It seems many within the GOP are trying to be both in order to attract more independent vote, but I think they are eroding the conservative foundation their party is built upon.
Sounds to me just a fancy way of them saying they are sitting on the fence.
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.
"squishy left-wing rhetoric" 
