Define "fiscally conservative, but socially progressive"

[Anonymous]

How about this, OP: I describe myself as fiscally liberal but socially conservative.

[Anonymous]

It means they're not true Republicans since every elected Republican seems to expend massive amounts of energy on trying to ban or throw up obstacles to abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, even when the first two should have been settled 40 years ago or more. Elected Republicans are seriously obsessed with sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means they don't get worked up over things like gay marriage or right to abortion or things like that because it doesn't really matter to them and they are mostly concerned with the government's responsibility to maintain a low amount of debt (or lower the debt) and control spending in bloating or unnecessary areas. Frankly, they are preferable to the ones who want sweeping legislation over people's rights to healthcare choices or partnership based on their own religious beliefs.

I get that. But what I've observed is that they tend to want cuts to the social programs that don't affect them: don't cut SS and Medicare; instead, cut food stamps, TANF and subsidized housing.

What I do get is how they think SS and Medicare don't affect them. If my mother lost any of her benefits, she'd be living in my guest room. That affects me.

Precisely, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's more of a libertarian point of view. Less government. Don't regulate social behavior like gay marriage. But they don't care very much about our social safety nets.

I like the saying "fiscally responsible" better. Really dig into expenditures, and results based budgeting. See what works, instead of just passing legislation (and funding) to try out ideas that may or may not work. Because honestly, both conservatives and liberals spend a LOT. Just on different things. Trump wants to increase spending in the military. Why not figure out how to spend "better" first? We all know there is tons of waste in military spending. Focus on cutting waste and re-appropriating savings where it's needed most.

I think this is a good description of what people mean. And I agree with you about "fiscally responsible", though that's not what people who describe themselves as OP says mean. I have no problem with large amounts of government spending if it achieves good outcomes, but there is a lot of waste and bad policy. Frankly, the private sector wastes as much, if not more, but that's not necessarily an excuse. Part of the problem is that people on both sides think that spending on "administration" and "oversight" is wasted money (they think this about charity as well). So these important functions get underfunded, and it's a self-fulfilling argument that government spending is ineffective and wasteful. But, ultimately, entitlements like SS have done more for poverty-reduction than maybe any program in human history. But when things work, it's easy to take them for granted and poke holes at the inevitable weaknesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would describe myself this way. Another term would be "Rockefeller republican", with the idea being that one needs to invest in U.S. infrastructure writ large (i.e., actual roads, public transportation, telecoms, environmental protection, work with labor, education, schools, etc.) and protect U.S. interests overseas - to include business ones (i.e., level playing field, protection of trade routes, etc.). But then, with appropriate regulation and investment, let the market work. And, as pp pointed out, not concerned about who is sleeping with whom and so forth.

+1 but I've never felt like that is a Republican mindset and I mostly identify as a Democrat.

[Anonymous]

This is the most sane topic in political section I've seen in a while.

[Anonymous]

My friend does not care about social issues but is willing to sacrifice them (i.e. abortion rights) if that means less taxes for her and her DH. They make 500K+.

[Anonymous]

Define "fiscally conservative, but socially progressive"



Leave me alone and I leave you alone. We live in peace because we're not trying to get into each other's thoughts, lives and business.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Goldwater Republican, born after he died.

Just LEAVE ME ALONE.

Don't take my money and I don't care what you do with yours.

[Anonymous]

It means "I'm not actually familiar with the economic reality of either party but describing myself this way sounds cool and smart."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means they don't get worked up over things like gay marriage or right to abortion or things like that because it doesn't really matter to them and they are mostly concerned with the government's responsibility to maintain a low amount of debt (or lower the debt) and control spending in bloating or unnecessary areas. Frankly, they are preferable to the ones who want sweeping legislation over people's rights to healthcare choices or partnership based on their own religious beliefs.

I get that. But what I've observed is that they tend to want cuts to the social programs that don't affect them: don't cut SS and Medicare; instead, cut food stamps, TANF and subsidized housing.

I don't get worked up over social issues either. I have had gay friends since high school. I've been to weddings. It's no big deal to me o be honest b/c to me, friends are friends.

But to cut SS and Medicare is unacceptable. People who have paid into the system deserve to be cared for. My parents worked their asses off to maintain a small business. So yes, they deserve the best care in my opinion.

And while I don't know the percentage of people who ARE trying to get ahead while taking subsidies, I do know that their children suffer whether they're working hard or not. So I"m torn over the issue. But if I had to choose between cutting medicare or cutting other subsidies, I'd choose the latter. If you're young, you should be able to manage, I'll add. But people who are retired and who may have some health issues should have THE RIGHT to relax and enjoy the remainder of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't get worked up over social issues either. I have had gay friends since high school. I've been to weddings. It's no big deal to me o be honest b/c to me, friends are friends.

But to cut SS and Medicare is unacceptable. People who have paid into the system deserve to be cared for. My parents worked their asses off to maintain a small business. So yes, they deserve the best care in my opinion.

And while I don't know the percentage of people who ARE trying to get ahead while taking subsidies, I do know that their children suffer whether they're working hard or not. So I"m torn over the issue. But if I had to choose between cutting medicare or cutting other subsidies, I'd choose the latter. If you're young, you should be able to manage, I'll add. But people who are retired and who may have some health issues should have THE RIGHT to relax and enjoy the remainder of their lives.

Different PP. To me, this is the problem with spending policy in America. From a purely fiscal perspective, it makes no sense to only provide universal, single-payer, high quality healthcare to the elderly. People may go a lifetime with inadequate care, leaving chronic illnesses un- or undertreated, and then end up using government largesse to pay for the expensive consequences. Frankly, the hodge-podge American system even disincentivizes insurers from paying for preventive care in young people, because they are not going to reap the actuarial benefit of those expenditures in the form of lower costs in old age.

But people make emotional appeals to policy and denigrate technocrats...so you end up with the most expensive and least efficient government programs. And then anti-government propagandists decry the inevitable result as proof of government incompetence.

To be fair, I think your opinions are much kinder and more generous than the average Americans, but the net result is we're invariably treating symptoms in the US instead of solving problems (same is true for poverty and drugs).

[Anonymous]

Different poster here.

Another problem is that the party of fiscal conservatism GOP, always campaigns on it but never actually do, in part because the electors put up a fit when they try (remember Bush's attempt at privatization of SS?).

People live too long now for Medicare and SS as they were structured. So either taxes have to go up or benefits cut. Shoe me the fiscal conservatives who will done one or the other and I'll show you a loser of the next election cycle.

[Anonymous]

Spending big on infrastructure while cutting taxes for the rich by 15% like Trump wants to do isn't fiscally responsible. It will add almost 6 trillion to the deficit. I can't understand why any fiscal conservatives voted for such a fiscally irresponsible candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It means "I'm not actually familiar with the economic reality of either party but describing myself this way sounds cool and smart."

It means "I want to have my cake and eat it too"