Maybe Somebody Can Explain To Me....

[boedicca]

how some people claim they're "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? I understand it's a neutral position to take...one that doesn't really offend either side... But they seem to say that without realizing they're saying they want OTHER PEOPLE to pay for the social programs they say they support.

How can a person justify being careful with their own money while the country spirals into uncontrolled debt? Hello? $18T as of a few days ago.....expected to be almost $21T when the Kenyan is finally impeached.. Nobody but a drug addict would spend themselves into oblivion so why is it alright for the society they are a part of to do it?

How did these mugwumps get disconnected from common sense?

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative does not mean Neutral. It's a way of saying that one favors limited government that leaves one alone. Government should stay out of the bedroom and out of one's wallet.

Does that mean stay out of the bedroom, but, pay for our neighbor's BC?

No. "Staying out of one's wallet" covers not paying for other people's personal expenses.

 

[BullKurtz]

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative does not mean Neutral. It's a way of saying that one favors limited government that leaves one alone. Government should stay out of the bedroom and out of one's wallet.

I didn't say it did mean neutral, I said it was intended to sound neutral to either change the subject or avoid the subject of debt. Folks who say this in my experience look at you like you're crazy when you suggest cutting social programs. But if you ask them how much they donated to charity, they'd suddenly remember they left the iron on or claim they were late to an appointment. Your libertarian definition rarely fits those who use this cowardly phrase.

 

[BullKurtz]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????

The village idiot appears.

Can't deal with facts so you call names.

Typical.

I doubt the idiot BullSkirtz out the source much less read the article. I thought it was interesting:


#10 Most Socialist State – Wisconsin — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 16.2%

SWING STATE, leaning BLUE — Though you wouldn’t know it, considering how red the mid-terms went this year.

#9 Most Socialist State – Rhode Island — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 16.3%

DEEP BLUE — For a long, long time now.

#8 Most Socialist State – Hawaii — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 16.5%

BLUE — Obama’s home state, when he’s not from Kenya. Job situations and opportunities are terrible on this far-flung Pacific Island chain. People help each other, or they starve.

#7 Most Socialist State – New Mexico — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 17.2%

BLUE — Expected to go blue in 2016, and has gone blue three out of the last four presidential elections.

#6 Most Socialist State – Vermont — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 17.9%

BLUE — Though Bernie Sanders alone probably turns the whole place slightly pinko.

#5 Most Socialist State – Arkansas — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 18.6%

RED — Republicans have carried Arkansas in every single presidential election since Clinton left office.

#4 Most Socialist State – Mississippi — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 20.0%

RED — Has been hard red since the last of the Dixiecrats died or took flight to the GOP.

#3 Most Socialist State – Wyoming — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 21.8%

HARD RED — If the Neo-Confederates didn’t prefer the weather in Florida, they’d live in Wyoming. This state is about as hard right as it gets.

#2 Most Socialist State – Alaska — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 23.6%

RED — Number two on the list of most socialist. Blame proximity to Canada and Russia, which we hear Sarah Palin can see from her house. Alaska’s had a temporary blue swing, but is expected to go full crimson next election.

#1 Most Socialist State – West Virginia — Expenditures as Proportion of GDP: 34.1%

RED — And our winner for this year’s Lenin award is…WEST VIRGINIA! This most Appalachian of states has gone red in every presidential election since 2000. But that wasn’t always the case; unions have long been a driving force in West Virginia, and its swing to the Red side has only been fairly recent. Locally, West Virginians tend to vote Blue; it’s at the Federal level where they fight back agin’ th’ gummint.

That probably has something to do with the fact that most of the state’s economy is based on coal, and Big Coal’s been buying a lot of GOP lately. It’s likely West Virginians vote federally to secure their energy and economic interests, but locally to secure their personal interests in terms of employment and government benefits.

But you know the old corporate conservative motto: “Socialism for us, capitalism for everyone else.”

^^^^^^^^^

Communists - they think the presence of military bases is "socialists..."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

how some people claim they're "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? I understand it's a neutral position to take...one that doesn't really offend either side... But they seem to say that without realizing they're saying they want OTHER PEOPLE to pay for the social programs they say they support.

How can a person justify being careful with their own money while the country spirals into uncontrolled debt? Hello? $18T as of a few days ago.....expected to be almost $21T when the Kenyan is finally impeached.. Nobody but a drug addict would spend themselves into oblivion so why is it alright for the society they are a part of to do it?

How did these mugwumps get disconnected from common sense?

You don't understand.

One can be 'socially liberal' and 'fiscally conservative' because he supports the right of gay Americans to marry, the right of women to privacy, the right of citizens to vote absent burdensome ID laws, and recognizes the right of immigrants to due process – all having nothing to do with traditional, responsible conservative fiscal policy.

Public assistance programs have nothing to do with being 'socially liberal,' these are policies advocated by both republicans and democrats, such as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you have a problem that tax funds are used to promote/encourage/supplement programs like these?

Programs like what?

I would defund 90% of all federal programs and departments. Does that answer your question?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does that mean stay out of the bedroom, but, pay for our neighbor's BC?

Nope, that means stay out of our neighbor's bedroom, and if he gets AIDS or hep-C, it's his own fucking problem.

 

[BullKurtz]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

You got a pretty high opinion of yourself for being a moron. I understand my OP completely....I wrote it remember? The phrase is a dodge....if it had a literal translation it would be "I hate conversations like this so I'm going to bail out of it". Now do YOU understand?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

You got a pretty high opinion of yourself for being a moron. I understand my OP completely....I wrote it remember? The phrase is a dodge....if it had a literal translation it would be "I hate conversations like this so I'm going to bail out of it". Now do YOU understand?

No, I actually have no idea what this post is supposed to mean.

Are you still confused as to how someone can be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"?

 

[Asclepias]

how some people claim they're "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? I understand it's a neutral position to take...one that doesn't really offend either side... But they seem to say that without realizing they're saying they want OTHER PEOPLE to pay for the social programs they say they support.

How can a person justify being careful with their own money while the country spirals into uncontrolled debt? Hello? $18T as of a few days ago.....expected to be almost $21T when the Kenyan is finally impeached.. Nobody but a drug addict would spend themselves into oblivion so why is it alright for the society they are a part of to do it?

How did these mugwumps get disconnected from common sense?

You must have gotten lost in school when they stopped letting you read the books with pictures if you dont understand this concept. You are a dumb billy goat.

 

[Roadrunner]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

That would be fine, if socially liberal had not meant spending us into trillions of debt over the last 60 years.

But you knew that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

That would be fine, if socially liberal had not meant spending us into trillions of debt over the last 60 years.

But you knew that.

No, I don't "know that". In fact, it's entirely wrong.

How does "socially liberal" mean spending us into trillions of debt?

 

[Roadrunner]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

You got a pretty high opinion of yourself for being a moron. I understand my OP completely....I wrote it remember? The phrase is a dodge....if it had a literal translation it would be "I hate conversations like this so I'm going to bail out of it". Now do YOU understand?

No, I actually have no idea what this post is supposed to mean.

Are you still confused as to how someone can be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"?

It's called being a hypocrite.

Point out social liberals that did not also support massive social spending, in Congress or the White House.

You don't debate, you just make shit up, and define things contrary to popular usage.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You must have gotten lost in school when they stopped letting you read the books with pictures if you dont understand this concept. You are a dumb billy goat.

Yes Asslips; no doubt superior Africans invented social programs a million years ago, but the white devils stole them and claimed them for their own...

 

[BullKurtz]

You don't understand.

One can be 'socially liberal' and 'fiscally conservative' because he supports the right of gay Americans to marry, the right of women to privacy, the right of citizens to vote absent burdensome ID laws, and recognizes the right of immigrants to due process – all having nothing to do with traditional, responsible conservative fiscal policy.

Public assistance programs have nothing to do with being 'socially liberal,' these are policies advocated by both republicans and democrats, such as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

I "understand" completely....the phrase is a cop out...either you are a person who practices what you preach or you aren't. All the catch phrases in the world pale compared to this one. If you believe what's good for you isn't good for your country you shouldn't have a vote.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

You got a pretty high opinion of yourself for being a moron. I understand my OP completely....I wrote it remember? The phrase is a dodge....if it had a literal translation it would be "I hate conversations like this so I'm going to bail out of it". Now do YOU understand?

No, I actually have no idea what this post is supposed to mean.

Are you still confused as to how someone can be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"?

It's called being a hypocrite.

Point out social liberals that did not also support massive social spending, in Congress or the White House.

You don't debate, you just make shit up, and define things contrary to popular usage.

Ron Paul, and Rand to a lesser extent.

 

[Roadrunner]

It's really not hard to understand, but if you really want I'll explain it.

"Socially liberal" means liberal on social issues, like gay marriage, prostitution, drugs, etc. It doesn't refer to "social" programs.

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

That would be fine, if socially liberal had not meant spending us into trillions of debt over the last 60 years.

But you knew that.

No, I don't "know that". In fact, it's entirely wrong.

How does "socially liberal" mean spending us into trillions of debt?

I don't piss into the wind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's called being a hypocrite.

Point out social liberals that did not also support massive social spending, in Congress or the White House.

You don't debate, you just make shit up, and define things contrary to popular usage.

Libertarians.

I'm socially liberal and support spending ONLY for courts to decide disputes between states, a military to defend our borders (but not police the world) and an interstate highway system.

All else should be private.

 

[Roadrunner]

So where's the explanation? You don't even mention the "fiscally conservative" half....Oh you live around Berkeley?....never mind.

I thought that "Fiscally conservative" is rather self-explanatory, but if you still don't understand it, I'm happy to explain.

"Fiscally conservative" means wanting fiscal responsibility, such as cutting government spending and austerity.

Do you understand why the two are not contradictory?

You got a pretty high opinion of yourself for being a moron. I understand my OP completely....I wrote it remember? The phrase is a dodge....if it had a literal translation it would be "I hate conversations like this so I'm going to bail out of it". Now do YOU understand?

No, I actually have no idea what this post is supposed to mean.

Are you still confused as to how someone can be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"?

It's called being a hypocrite.

Point out social liberals that did not also support massive social spending, in Congress or the White House.

You don't debate, you just make shit up, and define things contrary to popular usage.

Ron Paul, and Rand to a lesser extent.

There goes all your cred.

The fuckin' Paul's belong in a looney bin.