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.
yeah, my family pretty much is along those lines back in southern indiana. All retired baptist who love unions, minimum wage, etc. . but hate gay marriage and whatever else
Yeah....i've noticed that people in the Midwest can somehow EASILY hold the socially conservative and fiscally liberal viewpoint. Lots of Arizonans are like that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Socially liberal stance mixed with fiscal conservatism is a contradiction, because social liberalism demands fiscal socialism like wealth redistribution through welfare.
It would seem that way, but i've met lots of people who hold both views contemporaneously with ease.
Yeah....i've noticed that people in the Midwest can somehow EASILY hold the socially conservative and fiscally liberal viewpoint. Lots of Arizonans are like that too.
That is easy indeed. Christians who vote Democrat are like that. There are millions of people like that.
Quote:
It would seem that way, but i've met lots of people who hold both views contemporaneously with ease.
Maybe they are fiscal conservatives in their own eyes, but if they support liberal ideas like wealth distribution, then are they really fiscal conservatives? I guess people are what they claim to be.
Socially liberal stance mixed with fiscal conservatism is a contradiction, because social liberalism demands fiscal socialism like wealth redistribution through welfare.
No, it doesn't. That's just your own nanny state politically correct social liberalism. Educated people, on the other hand, realize that if you redistribute wealth then you end up without the capital base for generating new wealth. Those types of people are perfectly capable of advocating for socially liberal things like the legalization of drugs, marriage equality, abortion rights, etc without the disastrous debt exploding Keynesian economics that people like you advocate.
Yeah....i've noticed that people in the Midwest can somehow EASILY hold the socially conservative and fiscally liberal viewpoint. Lots of Arizonans are like that too.
It would seem that way, but i've met lots of people who hold both views contemporaneously with ease.
If you have ever played a SIM game on the computer, you will understand economics a little better and how the two mind sets politically, come at it to achieve their greatness.
In those games there is always a way to raise revenues or resources. Then you spend those resources to build your farm, town/city, village, military base, or apartment building.
Here is were the two mindsets and political ideas come into play:
Person A.) They will get some resources and search around to see where they can spend it.
Person B.) They will get some resources. They have already assessed the situation and where the first improvements need to be made. It may take more money, but they save it, so that purchase will bring in more resource quicker and be able to afford all the other stuff quicker.
Take my city. They spend it as fast as they can get it. Frilly stuff and beautification. Then when the roads are really getting bad needing fixing, we also have a boom making the roads very congested. They have no money to upgrade and add. NONE. So out goes the call to raise property taxes and bonds. Then after all that, they bring in a private company from China, to build toll roads and own them for 100 years, with the city/county responsible for repairs(which they already need) The only revenue off these roads are the speeding tickets the cops issue.
The democrats pretend like it's a sim game that has no real world consequences. They think they can jsut vote debt and shut down the computer.
No, it doesn't. That's just your own nanny state politically correct social liberalism. Educated people, on the other hand, realize that if you redistribute wealth then you end up without the capital base for generating new wealth. Those types of people are perfectly capable of advocating for socially liberal things like the legalization of drugs, marriage equality, abortion rights, etc without the disastrous debt exploding Keynesian economics that people like you advocate.
I don't remember advocating such, nor am I a social liberal in any other sense either, but that's besides the point. People like you can label yourselves social liberals based on support for abortion, SSM and drugs, but since those things are only a small part of social liberalism, then I wonder why you would do that. But like I said, people are free to label themselves any way they want.
I run across a lot of people that describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The general mindset of this group is, "I don't care who marries whom, as long as I don't have to pay for the wedding." This falls pretty well in line with libertarian principles.
There are also many people who are committed conservatives and committed liberals across the board.
However, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that they are socially conservative but support more liberal fiscal policies. I have two questions:
Is it just me, or do these people not exist?
If not, why do social conservatism and fiscal liberalism appear to be mutually exclusive?
Obama is socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
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.
