Define "fiscally conservative, but socially progressive"

[Anonymous]

I've had a number of friends/colleagues say this IRL or post it on FB, and I'm not sure what it means. Based on admittedly limited follow up conversations and personal observations, I have an opinion on what it actually means...and it's not very positive. So I'm curious if anyone who actually considers themselves fiscally conservative but socially progressive to say what it means to them?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

food stamps, TANF and subsidized housing.


Do you ever expect users of these programs to be audited or to be on them for decades or generations? Or life, for that matter?

[Anonymous]

"I hate the problems, but the causes of the problems? Those are good."

[Anonymous]

That's me. I have no interest in legislating morality, including gay marriage, non-violent drug use and sale, or abortion.

I think government should be fiscally responsible and not get us into giant debt (yes, that means not sticking us into unnecessary wars like Iraq) or create giant entitlement or administrative programs (I believe SS age needs to be moved way up, military spending needs to be cut, and welfare-type programs to be more limited and tighter screened.)

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's me. I have no interest in legislating morality, including gay marriage, non-violent drug use and sale, or abortion.

I think government should be fiscally responsible and not get us into giant debt (yes, that means not sticking us into unnecessary wars like Iraq) or create giant entitlement or administrative programs (I believe SS age needs to be moved way up, military spending needs to be cut, and welfare-type programs to be more limited and tighter screened.)

This I should me, too. I understand people may need financial help, but at some point I expect that most of them will be physically and/or mentally capabake to contribute at some level.

As for social/moral issues, I fall into the 'if you aren't hurting anyone, then you have the right to choose to live the way you want.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's me. I have no interest in legislating morality, including gay marriage, non-violent drug use and sale, or abortion.

I think government should be fiscally responsible and not get us into giant debt (yes, that means not sticking us into unnecessary wars like Iraq) or create giant entitlement or administrative programs (I believe SS age needs to be moved way up, military spending needs to be cut, and welfare-type programs to be more limited and tighter screened.)

+1

[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.

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.

[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 this is me. I think especiallly in today's global economy, the US shouldn't be putting up barriers to trade. I think able bodied unemployed people should conribute to society by doing some community service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's me. I have no interest in legislating morality, including gay marriage, non-violent drug use and sale, or abortion.

I think government should be fiscally responsible and not get us into giant debt (yes, that means not sticking us into unnecessary wars like Iraq) or create giant entitlement or administrative programs (I believe SS age needs to be moved way up, military spending needs to be cut, and welfare-type programs to be more limited and tighter screened.)

This I should me, too. I understand people may need financial help, but at some point I expect that most of them will be physically and/or mentally capabake to contribute at some level.

As for social/moral issues, I fall into the 'if you aren't hurting anyone, then you have the right to choose to live the way you want.'

Just a thought on this. I get the idea of moving it up for reasonably healthy people, but I grew up working class, and blue collar workers like construction, etc. wear out their bodies fast. Far before 62. They cannot work for 50 years doing the physical work they do. Part of the reason the SS age is not increased is because of this. It's very different than my 75 year old boss who sits behind a desk for a living, instead of throwing a knee kicker carpet tool for 10 hours a day.

[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.

Well it's more than they think government shouldn't be spending as much on areas like that that bloat the budget. They usually also don't agree with costly wars FWIW. It's not that they don't care per se, they just think a robust surplus is more beneficial than a government that works like a socialist society and funds tons of social issues.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

I think most Americans are this, but the fringes of both parties drive the agenda. Hence the gay marraige and pro-life issues pertain when there are much much more pressing issues to address.

Neither party's centrist or moderate voices are heard.