The problem with being "Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal" (vote, gun)
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 do you figure that? Married gays will tend to have both higher household incomes and pay taxes on larger percentages of those incomes.
Are you thinking that gay marriages would reduce the number of children being born? No, they wouldn't. Those gays would not have had children in heterosexual marriages anyway--and those who would have wanted children enough to do so would still adopt as gay couples.
What is paid to SS is capped. Gay people are already paying into SS now they have an extra benefit. Married people are entitled to survivor's benefits. I support it, but gay marriage will have a unwanted impact on government unfunded liabilities.
I say I am. I want laizee-fair economics so long as it doesn't hurt the interests of society at large (for instance pollution and to limit as much spending as possible but be flexible enough to give a leg-up (NOT a hand-out.) I am for healthcare but if it single-payer and NOT ACA, why because ACA is restrictive and counter-productive to increasing jobs in a recovering economy unless you want small businesses with under 50 employees.
not in my opinion. To be liberal socially you have to believe in wealth sharing .Conservative believe wealth should be earned. Many try but if you look deep down its a illusion has they try everything they can to earn more wealth. Hollywood is a good example. Stars surely knew by wanting more of the take of movies it would result in cut such as looking for cheaper places to film a movie. That cut a lot of people out as actors of lessor earnings. But nothing is wrong with it others than portraying it has other then it is.
Not even remotely true. Democrats want to change the definition of marriage, not eliminate government control over it. The only people I hear talking about eliminating government control of marriage are libertarians. Conservatives do not want to change the definition of marriage.
Umm, nope. By the end of the 60s, there were the fewest laws defining or restricting marriage. The only restrictions were on ages of majority and prohibitions of bigamy. There were no laws restricting marriage to males and females.
Liberals want no new definitive laws and no casual enforcement of any "traditional" practices restrictive of the current laws. Until 1973, there was no restriction on gender in any marriage statute in any state within the U.S. In other words, start with what the laws actually said in 1970, enforce what the laws actually said in 1970, and don't add to them.
It's conservatives who want to add restrictions to the laws.
Quote:
I look at marriage as a fiscal issue as well. Increasing the types of marriages increases costs (e.g. Social Security) so I do not support an overhaul of our definition of marriage. Beyond that, I do not care one bit what gay people do. They want that lifestyle, they're welcome to it but I don't want to spend money on it. See? Fiscal first. Pretty easy to understand really.
No, if the government got totally out of the marriage business and only enforced legally binding domestic partnership contracts, the burden on the courts would fall dramatically. The reason divorce is so legally messy is because a marriage license is the most lousy "contract" that is commonly promulgated.
People who want the government to enforce property settlements after the dissolution of a domestic partnership should have legal contracts written beforehand, as is customary with other types of partnerships.
If a couple (or quartet or whatever) also want to be known socially as "husband and wife," then they should find an appropriate clergycritter willing to perform the social ceremony.
If I believed this I would have all my investments in the pharmaceutical sector. I do not. Do you have all your investments in the pharmaceutical sector?
Off-label use is the use of pharmaceutical drugs for an unapproved indication or in an unapproved age group, unapproved dosage, or unapproved form of administration. In other words, they were bribing doctors to administer drugs to people who shouldn't have been put on them in the first place.
Off-label use is the use of pharmaceutical drugs for an unapproved indication or in an unapproved age group, unapproved dosage, or unapproved form of administration. In other words, they were bribing doctors to administer drugs to people who shouldn't have been put on them in the first place.
See, you're coming at this from a purely emotional standpoint. I leave the emotion aside completely. My first question is can we afford it before I will support any 'social' issue. Sure, some things are nice to have but if we can't afford it, then no I do not support it. Does that mean some people may suffer? Yep. Except that's the thing - most of the social issues are based on peoples' choices and if those people do not want to suffer, they just need to make better choices. Plus, there's always charity.
The sad part is that you think you're making a good point. The reality is that you simply do not get it. All those social issues sound warm and fuzzy when a politician suggests them but if you can't afford them, those same social issues could be the downfall of everyone. If we have a strong fiscally responsible government, there is more money in the private sector, more jobs, and more money for those charities that help those down on their luck. The opposite is to bleed everyone dry so no one ever has enough except for the government which has proven time and again to be the most wasteful, bloated entity out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That is one of the most effective ways to insulate one's self from the obligations of human decency.
Once again bUU, using nebulous terms and emotion to some how take the non existent moral high ground.
Forced obligations have term to describe it, its called slavery.
How is of any decency to commit generational theft to help politicians elected?
By the way bUU, What do you do for a living?
How much do you earn?
How many do you pay in taxes?
Where do you send your kids to school?
What car do you drive? How much did that cost you?
What cell phone do you have? How much did that cost you?
What part of town do you live on? How much does that cost you?
Everyone feel free to ask bUU those questions, I have and he does not seem willing to share that information...How greedy of him.
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.
