Anonymous wrote:My brother. Doesn't care about other people's sex lives. But doesn't want to pay taxes.

He is a government employee!

And he doesn't connect the two, does he?

Anonymous wrote:I always interpret it as "I'm fine with letting people do their own thing, but I want to keep more of my money!!!" I.e., in THEORY I care about a social safety net but in practice I care about my own (already significant) bank account more.

This is the most accurate response in here, after all, even one of the Koch brothers described himself as "a conservative on economic matters and I’m a social liberal."

You can't separate fiscal issues from social issues. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies can do social harm, even if you're a social liberal who just wants the mildest version of "fiscal conservatism" (low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market). Even these policies make life harder for people who already have hard lives.

Let's start with poverty, and the cycle of poverty, which is a social issue.

If you're poor, there's about a 2/3 chance:

- that you're going to stay poor for at least a year,
- that if you do pull out of poverty you'll be poor again within five years, and
- that your children are going to be poor.

Among other things: Being poor makes it much harder to get education or job training that would help you get higher-paying work. Even if you can afford job training or it's available for free -- if you have more than one job, or if your work is menial and exhausting, or if both of those are true (often the case if you're poor), there's a good chance you won't have the time or energy to get that training, or to look for higher-paying work. So, government programs that provide support for people to get free/low-cost education and to get free/low-cost child care while they are taking those classes are essential to breaking the cycle of poverty - and someone has to pay for it.

Being poor typically means you can't afford to lose your job, which means you can't afford to antagonize your employer by trying to unionize, or otherwise push back against your wages and working conditions. But the Republicans have been pushing back on union power for decades, with the perplexing acquiescence of union members and those who are benefitting from union activities. The incoming administration will support "right to work" laws that weaken unions even more, decreasing unions' ability to help their members get higher wages and benefits, both of which help people get out of poverty and were critical to the creation of the middle class in this country.

Being poor means that a temporary crisis -- sickness or injury, job loss, death in the family -- can destroy your life: you have no cushion, nobody you know has a cushion, a month or two without income and you're totally screwed. If you do lose your job, or if you're disabled, the labyrinthine bureaucracy of unemployment and disability benefits is exhausting: if you do manage to navigate it, it can deplete your ability to do much of anything else to improve your life -- and if you can't navigate it, that's very likely going to tank your life. A few missed payments is all it takes to ruin your credit score, increasing the cost of what credit you have (if any) and making it more difficult to get housing (since landlords check credit scores). Suddenly, a family is out on the street living out of the limited space in a homeless shelter.

Also, ironically, being poor is expensive. You can't buy high-quality items that last longer and are a bargain in the long run. You can't buy in bulk and you might not even be able to afford a membership to Costco. You can't buy a house, even though, depending on where you live, monthly mortgage payments might be lower than the rent you're paying, but you can't afford a down payment, and chances are a bank won't give you a mortgage anyway. You can't afford the time or money to take care of your health -- which means you're more likely to get sick, which is expensive. If you don't have a bank account (which many poor people don't), you have to pay high fees at check-cashing joints. If you run into a temporary cash crisis, you have to borrow from price-gouging payday-advance joints. If your car breaks down and you can't afford to repair or replace it, it can mean unemployment. If you can't afford a car at all, you're severely limited in what jobs you can take in the first place -- a limitation that's even more severe when public transportation is wildly inadequate. If you're poor, you may have to move a lot -- and that's expensive. These aren't universally true for all poor people -- but way too many of them are true, for way too many people.

Being poor doesn't just mean you're likely to stay poor. It means that if you have children, they're more likely to stay poor. It means you're less able to give your children the things they need to flourish -- both in easily-measurable tangibles like good nutrition, and less-easily-measurable qualities like a sense of stability. The effect of poverty on children -- literally on their brains, on their ability to literally function -- is not subtle, and it lasts into adulthood.

So, for all you "socially liberal" types who just want lower taxes, small government and less regulation, poverty is perpetuated or alleviated, worsened or improved, by fiscal policy. The ability of people to break the cycle of poverty is affected by:

- Tax policy (Earned Income Credit, tax rates at all levels, "sin" taxes, sales taxes, etc.)
- Minimum wage (duh)
- Funding of public schools and universities (so that they can offer free/low-cost classes)
- Unionization rights (see above)
- Banking and lending laws (protecting people from predatory lenders and also preventing financial institutions from discriminating)
- Labor laws and workplace safety regulations (Those who like the idea of "less regulation" seem to keep forgetting what happened when the banking and financial industries were deregulated. Deregulation of environmental standards, workplace safety standards, utilities, transportation, media have made things better for the people who own the businesses, and worse for the people who patronize them and work for them.)
- Funding of public transportation (so poor people can get to their jobs and so they have more opportunity to be mobile - because they can't afford to buy a car or call an Uber)
- Public health care (because medical expenses and the lack of health insurance affects not only the adults but also children in poverty, increasing the likelihood that the children will be trapped in the cycle of poverty for another generation)
- Unemployment benefits (so that loss of a job isn't a one-way ticket to poverty)
- Welfare policy (duh)
- Access to birth control and sex ed that doesn't rely on abstinence (especially when those programs have been proven less successful)
- And other safety net programs.

Fiscal policy affects poverty. And in the United States, "fiscally conservative" means supporting fiscal policies that perpetuate poverty. "Fiscally conservative" means slashing support systems that help the poor, lowering taxes for the rich, cutting corners for big business, and screwing labor -- policies that both worsen poverty and make it even more of an inescapable trap. Second chances, once considered a hallmark of American culture and identity, have become a luxury. One small mistake, even simply the mistake of being born poor, can trap you there forever thanks to "fiscally conservative" policies.

None of these things are free. They all cost money. So if you want to say, "I'm socially progressive because I went to my gay friends' wedding," good for you, but that cost you nothing. It wasn't brave and, unless you work for Liberty University, it was unlikely to cost your job.

My brother. Doesn't care about other people's sex lives. But doesn't want to pay taxes.

He is a government employee!

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.

Really? What about all of Paul Ryan's rapid followers? They'd love nothing more than to gut SS and Medicare.

Anonymous wrote:I always interpret it as "I'm fine with letting people do their own thing, but I want to keep more of my money!!!" I.e., in THEORY I care about a social safety net but in practice I care about my own (already significant) bank account more.

Gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree 100%.

Leave you alone until something happens and *you* need something.

You are so incredibly self-absorbed.

I always interpret it as "I'm fine with letting people do their own thing, but I want to keep more of my money!!!" I.e., in THEORY I care about a social safety net but in practice I care about my own (already significant) bank account more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And Clinton wanted to make college free for lower six figure income families and have free child care. Who would pay for that?

? No one here has stated that as a "fiscal conservative/socially progessive" liked this plan.

I also want to add that I don't agree with the Libertarian platform on foreign policies because I don't think it helps our economy. Their platform seems quite isolationsist and extreme to me.

Anonymous wrote: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.

And Clinton wanted to make college free for lower six figure income families and have free child care. Who would pay for that?

Anonymous wrote: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+.

Tax cuts are not fiscally conservative. And I believe it means the reverse

It means people who do care about social issues, but might be ok with entitlement reform, defense cuts, etc. . . Mostly centrist democrats these days, or a Rockefeller republicans from those long ago,days when there use to be pro choice republicans.

Anonymous wrote: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+.

So, you have a straight, white, rich, Christian friend. Congratulations.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree 100%.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is that the same thing as a Rockfeller Republican? Because I kind of thought I was getting into that territory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agreed.

I am one of the PPs who explained why I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal and neither I, nor most of my friends who label themselves that voted for Trump. There is a reason libertarians did so well in this election.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agreed.