Social or Fiscal Conservative?

[Missourian]

This is going nowhere, Missourian. Good luck in your efforts; I'll be manning the barricades against you but I still like you lots.

You know I like you too Madeline...I could have told you this would go nowhere...I've had this debate at least 1,000 times.

I appreciate your civility. Rep coming your way.

 

[Madeline]

This is going nowhere, Missourian. Good luck in your efforts; I'll be manning the barricades against you but I still like you lots.

You know I like you too Madeline...I could have told you this would go nowhere...I've had this debate at least 1,000 times.

I appreciate your civility. Rep coming your way.

Awwww.....thankies.

 

[Missourian]

Well crap...I'm out of rep for the moment, I'll shoot you some tomorrow.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm the only social/fiscal conservative? I find that hard to believe.

First and foremost, the federal government has usurped the power of the states.

But I'm also 100% pro-life and oppose gay marraige.

Yep, only one so far. I cannot reconcile how someone could be fiscally conservative wanting a smaller government and then go socially conservative that requires a larger government and restrictions on freedoms. Don't worry though, there are a few other social cons here too, you're not alone

I don't see how opposing killing the unborn grows government...do 100% fiscal conservatives oppose government protection of the right to live?

I noticed how you selected the first statement and not the second, how convenient. As a matter of fact, I am not referring to you pro-life stance nut to the general religious and 'moral' laws that the conservative right want to push on the people. You may disagree on whether those are conservative social values or not but I see that the general conservative individual that is a social conservative sees blue laws as good things, prayer in schools as a must and in general wants the government MORE involved in our lives in social and moral aspects. I find this in STARK contrast to the conservative fiscal beliefs where we want fewer government and less intrusion. I have never understood how the average republican is able to reconcile those two ideas. OTOH, liberals are the EXACT opposite wanting the government completely out of our morals and values but wanting it to control virtually all other aspects of our lives.

 

[Missourian]

Yep, only one so far. I cannot reconcile how someone could be fiscally conservative wanting a smaller government and then go socially conservative that requires a larger government and restrictions on freedoms. Don't worry though, there are a few other social cons here too, you're not alone

I don't see how opposing killing the unborn grows government...do 100% fiscal conservatives oppose government protection of the right to live?

I noticed how you selected the first statement and not the second, how convenient. As a matter of fact, I am not referring to you pro-life stance nut to the general religious and 'moral' laws that the conservative right want to push on the people. You may disagree on whether those are conservative social values or not but I see that the general conservative individual that is a social conservative sees blue laws as good things, prayer in schools as a must and in general wants the government MORE involved in our lives in social and moral aspects. I find this in STARK contrast to the conservative fiscal beliefs where we want fewer government and less intrusion. I have never understood how the average republican is able to reconcile those two ideas. OTOH, liberals are the EXACT opposite wanting the government completely out of our morals and values but wanting it to control virtually all other aspects of our lives.

I selected the first and not the second simply because continuing the status quo by definition obviously cannot grow government.

As for the rest of your post, there seems to be some confusion...the two points I outlined consist of the entirety of my social conservatism. I don't want prayer in schools or blue laws or any of the rest of that. You choose how you are going to live your life and I'll choose how I want to live mine.

Abortion ends the life of a human being who has no voice. Society has determine as a whole that innocent life is worthy of protection. That does not conflict with fiscal conservatism.

Gay marriage should be left up to the states...my state has spoken with a constitutional amendment...enough said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a fiscal conservative. I'd close 50% or more of government agency offices. I am also a social liberal. I oppose using the power of government merely to assure that Citizen A lives his private life in a way that Citizen B "needs" him to in order for Citizen B to be comfy.

You do realize social liberal's need big governmant to be able to dole out those funds for the hand outs. Yoiu cannot have a small government and be able to give handouts.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I once talked to a man who said he was a "fiscal conserevative, but a social liberal."

"Oh," I said. "A hypocrite."

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?" He demanded.

"Simple," I responded. "You want to make money, you just don't want anyone else to."

To which he had no good reply, and that's what I think of the fiscal conservative/social liberal.

 

[gautama]

What is the inherent danger of Obama's policies as you see it, gautama?

The EXPOSED MONUMENTAL FRAUD OBAMBO IS A MARXIST.

That is going to be CRYSTAL CLEAR if Obambo gets re-elected. Presently OBAMBO is a "STEALTH MARXIST". A significant number of Americans STILL do not believe OBAMBO is a stone cold COMMIE because Obambo feels it's not the correct time to admit it.....even though his policies are exuding the unmistakabke stench of MARXISM.

The other danger of MARXIST OBAMBO is given in my signature statement where his record of an ongoing binge of destroying America is not exactly a secret. It's just that Obamarrhoidal LIEBturds like you seem to approve of his perfidious agenda.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't see how opposing killing the unborn grows government...do 100% fiscal conservatives oppose government protection of the right to live?

I noticed how you selected the first statement and not the second, how convenient. As a matter of fact, I am not referring to you pro-life stance nut to the general religious and 'moral' laws that the conservative right want to push on the people. You may disagree on whether those are conservative social values or not but I see that the general conservative individual that is a social conservative sees blue laws as good things, prayer in schools as a must and in general wants the government MORE involved in our lives in social and moral aspects. I find this in STARK contrast to the conservative fiscal beliefs where we want fewer government and less intrusion. I have never understood how the average republican is able to reconcile those two ideas. OTOH, liberals are the EXACT opposite wanting the government completely out of our morals and values but wanting it to control virtually all other aspects of our lives.

I selected the first and not the second simply because continuing the status quo by definition obviously cannot grow government.

As for the rest of your post, there seems to be some confusion...the two points I outlined consist of the entirety of my social conservatism. I don't want prayer in schools or blue laws or any of the rest of that. You choose how you are going to live your life and I'll choose how I want to live mine.

Abortion ends the life of a human being who has no voice. Society has determine as a whole that innocent life is worthy of protection. That does not conflict with fiscal conservatism.

Gay marriage should be left up to the states...my state has spoken with a constitutional amendment...enough said.

If that is how you stand then I would say that social conservative is an inaccurate term as there are FAR more social issues that the conservatives wish to impose on people other than pro life.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am a fiscal conservative. I'd close 50% or more of government agency offices. I am also a social liberal. I oppose using the power of government merely to assure that Citizen A lives his private life in a way that Citizen B "needs" him to in order for Citizen B to be comfy.

You do realize social liberal's need big governmant to be able to dole out those funds for the hand outs. Yoiu cannot have a small government and be able to give handouts.

I once talked to a man who said he was a "fiscal conserevative, but a social liberal."

"Oh," I said. "A hypocrite."

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?" He demanded.

"Simple," I responded. "You want to make money, you just don't want anyone else to."

To which he had no good reply, and that's what I think of the fiscal conservative/social liberal.

The both of you seem to miss what that actually means. I cannot speak for maddie but I can say that for myself, social liberal means that I do not want your conservative values pushed on anyone else. As I pointed out earlier, blue laws are an excellent example of this. I consider those programs that require money in the effort to redistribute wealth a fiscal concern and the laws that limit social behaviors the social concern. In that regard, I cannot agree with the idea that conservatives push on fiscal freedom without social freedom.

 

[code1211]

I'm the only social/fiscal conservative? I find that hard to believe.

First and foremost, the federal government has usurped the power of the states.

But I'm also 100% pro-life and oppose gay marraige.

I don't agree with either of those positions, but I just have to ask why you might oppose Gay marriage. What possible harm can two people who are married, whether a mixed gender or same gender couple, do to you simply by being married?

I don't agree with extending that word to single gender couples simply because there are religious conotations that would make it offensive to some, but extending the legal and tax advantages of marriage to same gender couples seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Toro]

Generally, the less government in our lives, the better. That more readily applies to fiscal conservatives than social conservatives.

 

[code1211]

I'm the only social/fiscal conservative? I find that hard to believe.

First and foremost, the federal government has usurped the power of the states.

But I'm also 100% pro-life and oppose gay marraige.

Yep, only one so far. I cannot reconcile how someone could be fiscally conservative wanting a smaller government and then go socially conservative that requires a larger government and restrictions on freedoms. Don't worry though, there are a few other social cons here too, you're not alone

I don't see how opposing killing the unborn grows government...do 100% fiscal conservatives oppose government protection of the right to live?

On a personal level, I find this to be reprehensible. From a social view point, I am not personally willing to raise the unwanted child from an unwanted pregancy of someone that I never met and I suspect that there are many who would not step up even after demanding that the pregnacy be brought to term.

What is your solution to this on a societal level?

 

[uscitizen]

This is why I go libertarian every time.

There's nothing inherently "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) about so-called "social conservatives"...They're just as strident a brand of small-minded do-gooder nanny statists, as any Fabian socialist/progressive out there.

I took a test once it said I was a libertarian , that is if you believe in that kind of stuff.

LOL, Believe it or not those tests put me as a libertarian as well.

 

[Paulie]

Libertarians want to sell off the national parks?

Yes, that is how they intend to pay for setting up their free government. All federal lands will be sold to the highest bidder, which includes parks, military bases, building, lakes, damns, etc. DC is the stronghold they will keep. Spend some time reading their plank. I have followed it for years, and it has changed and become more subtle as they attempt to hide what a Libertian government is.

Statement of Principles
(3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

2.2 Environment
Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife.

2.3 Energy and Resources
We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.


2.4 Government Finance and Spending
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Here we go lumping every libertarian into one tiny little neatly defined label again.

 

[Londoner]

Read Christopher Lasch, the brilliant right wing commentator (who published "The Culture of Narcissism" in the 80s, a scathing critique of the permissive liberal social movements which hurt the backbone of our culture, the family, and eroded our moral fiber).

As a social conservative, Lasch believed that the market, in its omnivorous drive for cheap labor, destroyed the high wages of the postwar years. This economic factor, along with feminism, not only forced woman into the workplace, but also required more work from the working class father. Consequently, there was less time to raise the children and focus on the family, leaving children to be reared by MTV and other corrupting elements. For these reasons, Lasch almost comes off as a reactionary, with his attempts to prioritize tradition over unregulated profit seeking. Lasch also has a problem with greed and endless consumption because he thinks these things are not virtuous, and they lead one down the path of sin and moral confusion. He thinks capitalism profits from change and endless novelty, which sometimes take people away from the "values of the old world". He wants the political economy to reward and exemplify good Christian behavior and strong families; therefore, he would place more controls on Hollywood smut peddlers, for example. The measure of a product's value should not only be its profitability, but whether or not it is...[well] good. Ultimately, Lasch echoes Teddy Roosevelt's fear over "the great malefactors of wealth". (Jesus anyone?)

Lasch's feeling are somewhat echoed in the book of another famous conservative, Daniel Bell: "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". This book discusses what happens when the drive for profits results in sinful outcomes, like the relentless marketing of sex and violence. Free market logic holds that if selling outlaw RAP is profitable, than the Government should get out of the way and defer to the freedom of buyers and sellers. Bell thinks this creates problems for a class of old time conservatives who place certain values higher than profit.

Is there a contradiction between the market and culture? -profit and values? Consider: as a California businessman you might benefit from cheap illegal labor (see profit!), but as a Conservative you might want to close the border in order to protect the primacy of your culture and language. As a result, the businessman is caught in a contradiction between profit and something "higher" aka non-market values (i.e., values the Libertarian is less likely to recognize or care about).

Bell argues that libertarianism has actually made the current crop of conservatives incapable of imagining that there is a higher value than short term "profit seeking", which itself is so foundational that all else flows from it. He says the New Right uses the word "freedom" with such strategic vagueness that nobody sees the potential value conflicts that it is designed to conceal. Bell thinks the cultural contradictions of capitalism are no longer a problem for the Right because the movement has drained the base of the requisite analytical rigor to see the contradictions. They live at the level of pre-programmed slogans, not realizing the contradiction between open markets and closed borders. Capital has won the war over "higher values", which "higher values" are now only used as manufactured wedge issues to fool voters into supporting the anti-conservative march of neoliberalism and globalization.

 

[FA_Q2]

Read Christopher Lasch, the brilliant right wing commentator (who published "The Culture of Narcissism" in the 80s, a scathing critique of the permissive liberal social movements which hurt the backbone of our culture, the family, and eroded our moral fiber).

As a social conservative, Lasch believed that the market, in its omnivorous drive for cheap labor, destroyed the high wages of the postwar years. This economic factor, along with feminism, not only forced woman into the workplace, but also required more work from the working class father. Consequently, there was less time to raise the children and focus on the family, leaving children to be reared by MTV and other corrupting elements. For these reasons, Lasch almost comes off as a reactionary, with his attempts to prioritize tradition over unregulated profit seeking. Lasch also has a problem with greed and endless consumption because he thinks these things are not virtuous, and they lead one down the path of sin and moral confusion. He thinks capitalism profits from change and endless novelty, which sometimes take people away from the "values of the old world". He wants the political economy to reward and exemplify good Christian behavior and strong families; therefore, he would place more controls on Hollywood smut peddlers, for example. The measure of a product's value should not only be its profitability, but whether or not it is...[well] good. Ultimately, Lasch echoes Teddy Roosevelt's fear over "the great malefactors of wealth". (Jesus anyone?)

Lasch's feeling are somewhat echoed in the book of another famous conservative, Daniel Bell: "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism". This book discusses what happens when the drive for profits results in sinful outcomes, like the relentless marketing of sex and violence. Free market logic holds that if selling outlaw RAP is profitable, than the Government should get out of the way and defer to the freedom of buyers and sellers. Bell thinks this creates problems for a class of old time conservatives who place certain values higher than profit.

Is there a contradiction between the market and culture? -profit and values? Consider: as a California businessman you might benefit from cheap illegal labor (see profit!), but as a Conservative you might want to close the border in order to protect the primacy of your culture and language. As a result, the businessman is caught in a contradiction between profit and something "higher" aka non-market values (i.e., values the Libertarian is less likely to recognize or care about).

Bell argues that libertarianism has actually made the current crop of conservatives incapable of imagining that there is a higher value than short term "profit seeking", which itself is so foundational that all else flows from it. He says the New Right uses the word "freedom" with such strategic vagueness that nobody sees the potential value conflicts that it is designed to conceal. Bell thinks the cultural contradictions of capitalism are no longer a problem for the Right because the movement has drained the base of the requisite analytical rigor to see the contradictions. They live at the level of pre-programmed slogans, not realizing the contradiction between open markets and closed borders. Capital has won the war over "higher values", which "higher values" are now only used as manufactured wedge issues to fool voters into supporting the anti-conservative march of neoliberalism and globalization.

And all of this misses the point of GOVERNMENT and CAPITALISM. They are not the same thing. The government's role is to protect the people and their way of life and in this regard, has NOTHING to do with business other than protecting the people from exploitation. It can do this with simple things like requiring companies to be truthful and not allowing slave labor as well as the grater needs like the military. Capitalism is another thing all together that deals with how our economic system works. They are separate entities. Also, the idea that the government should be legislating your values is rather repulsive to me. If companies want to market with sex and people are willing to swallow the swill and fund it, it is the right of those to do so and is not a government matter to deal with. The border that is cited is the opposite of this because that is a security and stability issue. As such, business should have no influence in the control of the border and government should not be taking the 'cheap' labor into account when designing border law. Our current system is corrupted by the relationship business, special interests and unions have within government and the little that they actually represent the people anymore. Hopeful that will change but I do not see that happening. Even with this corruption that does not mean the answer is to become a veritable theocracy that makes sure that your values are reflected and enforced throughout law. The only values that need to be made law are those that make this country grate and the needs to limit your freedoms that are infringing on mine.

hmmm, might be getting off on a tangent here but I am always incensed when someone puts a case forward that my freedom needs to be limited by some others vaunted 'values' and forgets the value that I hold most dear, freedom.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is why I go libertarian every time.

There's nothing inherently "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) about so-called "social conservatives"...They're just as strident a brand of small-minded do-gooder nanny statists, as any Fabian socialist/progressive out there.

yeah what he said.

 

[Madeline]

I am a fiscal conservative. I'd close 50% or more of government agency offices. I am also a social liberal. I oppose using the power of government merely to assure that Citizen A lives his private life in a way that Citizen B "needs" him to in order for Citizen B to be comfy.

You do realize social liberal's need big governmant to be able to dole out those funds for the hand outs. Yoiu cannot have a small government and be able to give handouts.

Yes, I know bigrebnc. I am a pro-universal health care lady because I think that is also "fiscally conservative" but I see your point about entitlement programs in general.

I'm not a Democrat because they never met a problem they did not want to create a permanent government agency to correct -- I mean embed.

 

[Madeline]

I once talked to a man who said he was a "fiscal conserevative, but a social liberal."

"Oh," I said. "A hypocrite."

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?" He demanded.

"Simple," I responded. "You want to make money, you just don't want anyone else to."

To which he had no good reply, and that's what I think of the fiscal conservative/social liberal.

We obviously do not belong in the same party. You shove off; I was here first.