PDA

View Full Version : General Politics I'm socially ________ and fiscally ________. (fill in the blanks)


patteeu
01-28-2013, 11:31 AM
We've all heard others describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most of us have described ourselves that way at some point. I've done it before, but I've started avoiding that phrase because I think it means radically different things to different people.

For example, in petez28's recent thread (So, you say you aren't just a party line type of person? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269357)), here's a list of people who embrace the description (so far):

Rain Man
Dave Lane
Mr. Flopnuts
chiefzilla1501
crispystl420
AustinChief
FishingRod
Amnorix

That's a pretty varied group of ideologies. So, vote in the poll and let's find the socially conservative, fiscally liberal people.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 11:36 AM
Here's a Jonah Goldberg column on the subject that might apply to some of you:

Wake Up, Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338011/wake-socially-liberal-fiscal-conservatives-jonah-goldberg)
The GOP isn’t the political party in debt denial.
By Jonah Goldberg

Dear Socially Liberal Fiscal-Conservative Friend,

That’s pretty toothy, so I’m going to call you “Bob.”

But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You’re the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, “I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues.”

When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline, and balanced budgets.
When Colin Powell was on Meet the Press the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

So, Bob, as a “fiscal conservative,” what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork — Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! — from the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

Bob, I’m going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you’re a sucker.

You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.

Well, let’s talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage,” he said. “We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget constituted more than half the U.S. budget (today it’s a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing — fast. The country isn’t going broke, Bob, it is broke.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama’s own convictions, you condemn them.

You nodded sagely when Obama said we needed a “balanced approach” to cut the deficit. He said he couldn’t rein in entitlements without also raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Well, he won that fight. We raised taxes on millionaires and billionaires exactly as much as he wanted. We also raised the payroll tax on everyone.

Obama’s response to getting the tax hikes he wanted? He says we still need a “balanced approach” — i.e., even more tax hikes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple who retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will have paid about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said “we don’t have a spending problem,” it seemed to have no effect on you.

And yet you still think Paul Ryan’s budget was “extreme.” Do you know when it balanced the budget? 2040. What’s a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?

Look, Bob, I don’t want to go spelunking in that cranium of yours. I don’t know why you think you’re a fiscal conservative. The simple fact is, you’re not. The green-eye-shaded Republicans you claim to miss would be scandalized by the mess we’re in, largely thanks to voters like you, Bob. Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today’s Washington.

I don’t expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you’re simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism, particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 11:46 AM
None of those categories apply to me. I support federalism and feel social and morality issues are primarily with the states.
Where does that put me?

Once in the states, I would probably lean to the right but I'd be libertarian on just a few issues. This would mean I don't rely on egalitarian arguments as the left uses (cultural Marxism) but would favor an as close to neutral position for that state govt, which would mean less involvement in that area period.

So I'd be labeled a mix on social, but still lean to the right still. Pro-life, govt out of marriage to be neutral for instance.

You need to add socially moderate fiscally conservative. That would be closer to my category. 'Cept I am not really what one would consider a moderate as I am not between the two most promoted mainstream choices but more a third category.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 11:54 AM
None of those categories apply to me. I support federalism and feel social issues are primarily with the states.
Where does that put me?

Once in the states. I would probably lean to the right be be libertarian on just a few issues—that would mean I don't rely on egalitarian arguments as the left uses ( cultural Marxism) but would favor an as close to neutral position for that state govt, which would mean less involvement in that area period.

So I'd be labeled a mix on social, but still lean to the right.

Yeah, I don't really think they fit anyone very well.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

DementedLogic
01-28-2013, 11:56 AM
The term socially liberal is an oxymoron. Socially liberal means you believe in taking the conservative approach to social issues. That would make you socially conservative, which actually means the exact opposite. It exposes the blatant hypocrisy of traditional conservatives and liberals.

SNR
01-28-2013, 11:59 AM
Yeah, I don't really think they fit anyone very well.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

Theoretically, couldn't somebody be all about balanced budgets, paying down the debt, and getting stuff in order yet support all kinds of social programs and taxes?

That's a realm of fiscal solvency, which is a characteristic of fiscal conservatism.

suzzer99
01-28-2013, 11:59 AM
awkward, irresponsible

Direckshun
01-28-2013, 11:59 AM
I think I vary from subject to subject. It also probably depends how you define these terms.

Broadly, I'm liberal socially and fiscally.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:02 PM
I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

I don't think anyone is going to admit to that. There's some denial going on.
I mean the left can make us pay for everything with draconian taxes everywhere, coupled with lots of money printing and claim that's fiscally conservative. In a certain way, it could be I guess.

I think a clear definition of fiscally conservative should be spending beyond one's means or ability to pay. But even that allows some creep when you consider taxes because we're talking about government. But then you destroy economic growth and the govt winds up with less revenue eventually anyway.

So for me, the Jeffersonian and Madison idea of the "tax-and-spend" clause should be what they said and what was written in the Constitution—only based on the enumerated powers listed under Congress. That's what limits spending.

suzzer99
01-28-2013, 12:03 PM
Also that article is incredibly stupid. The 2000-2006 republican–controlled Congress was an orgy of pork spending. When the National Review comes out and lasts a Republican Congress, you know they gone off the deep end. The Republicans never cared a lick about the debt ceiling until Obama took office. If the author is unwilling to realistically address these sudden changes of heart, than he's just another partisan hack.

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. Why does the author not mention Eisenhower's famous quote about the military-industrial complex? When republicans show some balls on cutting defense spending, then I will consider taking their rhetoric about the debt and debt ceiling seriously. Until then I just have to assume they will keep bloviating about the debt until a Republican takes office again, and then forget about it like they always do - ala Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter".

KC Dan
01-28-2013, 12:04 PM
The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. When republicans show some balls on defense spending, then I will honestly seriously sit up and take notice.The same holds true for Obama and the Dems. When they show some balls on entitlements and actual cuts rather than talking crap about them and provifing ZERO legislation adressing these, then I will honestly seriously sit up and take notice

FishingRod
01-28-2013, 12:05 PM
In today’s terms I would call myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative which honestly was what I was brought up to believe conservatism was. The Job of the Government is to do the Jobs too big for the individuals to take care of such as national defense and natural disasters and, as long as what the citizens chose to do, does not harm someone else, it is not the business of Government to meddle. I realize what constitutes harm is where the debate comes in but, as with all things one must create a balance. My balance is skewed in favor of the individual with a heavy burden of proof on the side of outlawing or regulating an activity.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:08 PM
Also that article is incredibly stupid. The 2000-2006 Congress was an orgy of pork spending. The Republicans never cared a lick about the debt ceiling until Obama took office. If the author is unwilling to realistically address those points, than he's just another partisan hack.

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. When republicans show some balls on defense spending, then I will honestly seriously sit up and take notice.

Grover Norquist and many paleo-conservatives have. The problem is the NeoCon hijack of the GOP.

But, this is also why, one party rule is dangerous these days. The GOP, under a Progressive aka RINO president, expects him to lead by proposing a budget and they just go along. Listen to them, now begging Obama to lead. That's BA! It's the job of Congress. We need to go back to not having presidents craft legislation. Wilson started that trend.

I say, our problems stem from using this idea of a "living Constitution" and not following the original document as intended. ( Of course we have Hamilton to blame for the original hijack because he used that clause expansively. )

Cave Johnson
01-28-2013, 12:09 PM
awkward, irresponsible

/thread

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:11 PM
In today’s terms I would call myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative which honestly was what I was brought up to believe conservatism was. The Job of the Government is to do the Jobs too big for the individuals to take care of such as national defense and natural disasters and, as long as what the citizens chose to do, does not harm someone else, it is not the business of Government to meddle. I realize what constitutes harm is where the debate comes in but, as with all things one must create a balance. My balance is skewed in favor of the individual with a heavy burden of proof on the side of outlawing or regulating an activity.

Where does the Constitution say the federal govt is to take care of natural disasters? Nowhere.
People dealt with them before FEMA and we have states and fundraisers by musicians.

I agree that we could, however, define govt as a sort of aggregate irresponsibility of the people.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 12:23 PM
Also that article is incredibly stupid. The 2000-2006 republican–controlled Congress was an orgy of pork spending. When the National Review comes out and lasts a Republican Congress, you know they gone off the deep end. The Republicans never cared a lick about the debt ceiling until Obama took office. If the author is unwilling to realistically address these sudden changes of heart, than he's just another partisan hack.

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. Why does the author not mention Eisenhower's famous quote about the military-industrial complex? When republicans show some balls on cutting defense spending, then I will consider taking their rhetoric about the debt and debt ceiling seriously. Until then I just have to assume they will keep bloviating about the debt until a Republican takes office again, and then forget about it like they always do - ala Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter".

What was stupid about it, Bob?

patteeu
01-28-2013, 12:33 PM
BTW, out fiscal problems weren't caused by defense spending. Over the past several decades, defense spending has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget. Entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt are where the budget busting growth comes from.

Predarat
01-28-2013, 12:38 PM
Where is the option for "I'm I'm socially awkward and fiscally irresponsible."?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 12:39 PM
patteeu, using the GDP is sleight-of-hand. That gets used to make something seem less bad because it's just a percentage. GDP includes govt spending, and is itself a phony stat, and gets used for such shenanigans.

Chocolate Hog
01-28-2013, 01:17 PM
Liberal and conservative

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 01:21 PM
BTW, out fiscal problems weren't caused by defense spending. Over the past several decades, defense spending has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget. Entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt are where the budget busting growth comes from.

This is usually the kind of argument you make fun of--spending has increased, but it decreased as a percentage of something or other, so therefore the increase in spending, or the spending itself, doesn't matter.

blaise
01-28-2013, 01:27 PM
For cosmo it just comes down to aligning his beliefs with Obama's.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 01:45 PM
This is usually the kind of argument you make fun of--spending has increased, but it decreased as a percentage of something or other, so therefore the increase in spending, or the spending itself, doesn't matter.

No, that's not correct. I'm not suggesting that defense spending has been cut over the past few decades. Try again.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 01:47 PM
For cosmo it just comes down to aligning his beliefs with Obama's.

Ouch, that hurt. :drool:

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 01:53 PM
No, that's not correct. I'm not suggesting that defense spending has been cut over the past few decades. Try again.

I never said you did. What you did do was dismiss defense spending as a fiscal issue because such spending "has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget." As if that means it is not a spending issue.

Spending on something could have increased exponentially, but if as a precentage of something else, it went down--then it is not an issue to you.

A Salt Weapon
01-28-2013, 02:03 PM
I would consider myself socially libertarian and fiscally conservative.
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
01-28-2013, 02:08 PM
I never said you did. What you did do was dismiss defense spending as a fiscal issue because such spending "has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget." As if that means it is not a spending issue.

Spending on something could have increased exponentially, but if as a precentage of something else, it went down--then it is not an issue to you.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about here. If entitlement spending had declined as a fraction of GDP and the federal budget like defense spending has, we'd either be running massive surpluses or we'd have a balanced budget with dramatically lower tax rates.

The defense budget is not a source of our fiscal problems. At all. Principles of good government demand that we constantly review our defense budget against evolving requirements so we can cut unnecessary or wasteful spending and reallocate funding toward effective programs, but there is absolutely no justification for cutting defense in reaction to the fiscal problems we face.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 02:14 PM
You don't seem to know what you're talking about here. If entitlement spending had declined as a fraction of GDP and the federal budget like defense spending has, we'd either be running massive surpluses or we'd have a balanced budget with dramatically lower tax rates.

The defense budget is not a source of our fiscal problems. At all. Principles of good government demand that we constantly review our defense budget against evolving requirements so we can cut unnecessary or wasteful spending and reallocate funding toward effective programs, but there is absolutely no justification for cutting defense in reaction to the fiscal problems we face.

Put aside the actual issue of defense. You are saying that X is not a fiscal issue/problem, despite spending inceases in X, BECAUSE spending on X as a percentage of Y went down. That's a silly argument, and one you have attacked before.

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:35 PM
Here's a Jonah Goldberg column on the subject that might apply to some of you:

The article doesn't fit me, FWIW, because the following aren't true (for me at least).

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

The tea party is whacky, I'll admit that.

So, Bob, as a “fiscal conservative,” what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork — Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! — from the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

I would agree with cutting those items. Amtrak I would need to examine, but we need to trim pretty much everywhere.

I would honestly agree to a -- pick a percentage -- across the board cut right now. 10% on EVERYTHING, starting tomorrow. That's not a good way to govern, and I don't want to double dip, but that's how strongly I feel about cutting.

You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.

errr...no, Obama is not an Eisenhower Republican.

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget constituted more than half the U.S. budget (today it’s a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing — fast. The country isn’t going broke, Bob, it is broke.

Actually, it's not broke, but it's rapidly heading that way. Very rapidly.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”

I haven't yawned, though I do acknowledge the difference in circumstances when Obama came into office, and the classical economic theory that you don't want to go into frugality mode while heading into a recession. Many European countries have introduced austerity, and now are thoroughly rethinking that because it has tanked their economy.

That said, there should be a very define and specific plan to reduce spending, raise taxes, and head back to fiscal solvency. Right now we're a runaway freight train heading for the cliff.

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama’s own convictions, you condemn them.

Not really. Republicans cherry pick what they want to attack, want to ignore the other side of the fiscal coin (taxes) and pretend that somehow there's a plan to return to a balanced budget. Their plan is ever so slightly better than the Democrats', because they are at least acting like they want to do *something*, but it's not much of a plan to be honest.

Romney's math never added up. Never came close. You can't really balance the deficit without touching military spending or taxes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple who retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will have paid about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said “we don’t have a spending problem,” it seemed to have no effect on you.

I could quibble with these numbers, but we do have a spending problem.

Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today’s Washington.

I wonder what Ike, he of the military-industrial-complex, would say about basically unlimited military spending that the Republicans think is an untouchable third rail. Not much.

I tend to agree Ike would take a flamethrower to Washington, but it wouldn't just be the Democrat side of the aisle he would torch...

I don’t expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you’re simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism, particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.[/indent]

I did vote Republican. Both Romney and Scott Brown.

So yeah, fuck off Mr. Goldberg. Your smarmy, know-it-all, condescending article isn't accurate for me, just as it isn't accurate for many other socially liberal / fiscal conservatives who have no party of their own but are lost between two clueless parties who seem hellbent on fiscal insanity.

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:36 PM
Yeah, I don't really think they fit anyone very well.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.


Just "liberal" would fit the bill.

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:36 PM
The term socially liberal is an oxymoron. Socially liberal means you believe in taking the conservative approach to social issues. That would make you socially conservative, which actually means the exact opposite. It exposes the blatant hypocrisy of traditional conservatives and liberals.

Demented indeed.

LiveSteam
01-28-2013, 02:40 PM
Chewy

















































































I love you

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:44 PM
BTW, out fiscal problems weren't caused by defense spending. Over the past several decades, defense spending has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget. Entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt are where the budget busting growth comes from.


And declining tax receipts due to the weakened economy.

Federal spending almost immediately increased by about half a trillion under Obama from Bush's last year, AND THEN REMAINED ROUGHLY FLAT for his first term.

With Bush, it went up by half a trillion after four years, and then kept going up.

But bottom line, after four years, both Presidents increased spending by about half a trillion. The ballooning deficit is due to the increase in spending but also the declining revenues, which haven't rebounded very well at all.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2012/10/sr121/SRfedspendingnumbers2012p11table1.ashx?w=600&h=551&as=1



Side note -- we do need to cut spending, but let's not ignore other causes of the increasing deficits/debt.

oldandslow
01-28-2013, 02:46 PM
Yeah, I don't really think they fit anyone very well.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

You got one...I am also pretty conservative socially.

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:47 PM
You don't seem to know what you're talking about here. If entitlement spending had declined as a fraction of GDP and the federal budget like defense spending has, we'd either be running massive surpluses or we'd have a balanced budget with dramatically lower tax rates.

The defense budget is not a source of our fiscal problems. At all. Principles of good government demand that we constantly review our defense budget against evolving requirements so we can cut unnecessary or wasteful spending and reallocate funding toward effective programs, but there is absolutely no justification for cutting defense in reaction to the fiscal problems we face.

This is the chart you want.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2012/10/sr121/SRfedspendingnumbers2012p12chart1.ashx?w=600&h=531&as=1

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 02:50 PM
Of course, some of the spike in entitlements is due to various factors that, hopefully, will ameliorate over tiem as we get out of the recession. Items like unemployment and various programs for the poor, which increased dramatically as unemployment ballooned and people lost houses, etc.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 02:55 PM
Put aside the actual issue of defense. You are saying that X is not a fiscal issue/problem, despite spending inceases in X, BECAUSE spending on X as a percentage of Y went down. That's a silly argument, and one you have attacked before.

It depends on what Y is. Think about your own (hypothetical) personal situation. Let's say all of your spending is on hookers and blow and that 5 years ago, your personal budget was in balance. If, during that period, your hooker spending has gone up 10% and your income (Y) has doubled, but you're running out of money 10 days before your monthly paycheck and having to borrow from your trust fund to make it to payday. You've got a cocaine spending problem not a hooker spending problem.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 02:57 PM
LMAO

patteeu
01-28-2013, 03:05 PM
So yeah, **** off Mr. Goldberg. Your smarmy, know-it-all, condescending article isn't accurate for me, just as it isn't accurate for many other socially liberal / fiscal conservatives who have no party of their own but are lost between two clueless parties who seem hellbent on fiscal insanity.

I don't know. You're better than most people who have traditionally voted democrat, but you do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to taxes. Republicans aren't against addressing the revenue side of this issue, they just understand that revenues need to come from growth not from squeezing existing income even harder.

That said, I don't think Goldberg is saying that everyone who ever described themselves as socially liberal, fiscally conservative is a Bob. I think he's mainly focused on those who supported Obama or otherwise refuse to accept the need to reverse the trend of the ever expanding entitlement state.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 03:11 PM
And declining tax receipts due to the weakened economy.

Federal spending almost immediately increased by about half a trillion under Obama from Bush's last year, AND THEN REMAINED ROUGHLY FLAT for his first term.

With Bush, it went up by half a trillion after four years, and then kept going up.

But bottom line, after four years, both Presidents increased spending by about half a trillion. The ballooning deficit is due to the increase in spending but also the declining revenues, which haven't rebounded very well at all.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2012/10/sr121/SRfedspendingnumbers2012p11table1.ashx?w=600&h=551&as=1



Side note -- we do need to cut spending, but let's not ignore other causes of the increasing deficits/debt.

Spending a lot year after year is "ROUGHLY FLAT", but it's also spending a lot. It's time to reign it in, not seek to make it a new normal.

I don't see anyone here defending Bush spending.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 03:12 PM
Of course, some of the spike in entitlements is due to various factors that, hopefully, will ameliorate over tiem as we get out of the recession. Items like unemployment and various programs for the poor, which increased dramatically as unemployment ballooned and people lost houses, etc.

Even if you strip those away and just consider SS, Medicare and Medicaid, we've got an entitlement spending problem. The problem existed prior to the economic crisis of 2008, although it was certainly exacerbated by it.

cosmo20002
01-28-2013, 03:16 PM
It depends on what Y is. Think about your own (hypothetical) personal situation. Let's say all of your spending is on hookers and blow and that 5 years ago, your personal budget was in balance. If, during that period, your hooker spending has gone up 10% and your income (Y) has doubled, but you're running out of money 10 days before your monthly paycheck and having to borrow from your trust fund to make it to payday. You've got a cocaine spending problem not a hooker spending problem.

Problem is, hooker spending went up way more than 10%, and despite it going down as a percentage of income, it is still a huge portion of expenses and therefore should be examined for possible cuts.

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 03:30 PM
I don't know. You're better than most people who have traditionally voted democrat, but you do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to taxes. Republicans aren't against addressing the revenue side of this issue, they just understand that revenues need to come from growth not from squeezing existing income even harder.

Dude, until the last election they all acted like Grover Norquist had their nuts in a vice and they would never vote to raise a dime on anyone under any circumstances, ever...

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 03:31 PM
Spending a lot year after year is "ROUGHLY FLAT", but it's also spending a lot. It's time to reign it in, not seek to make it a new normal.

I don't see anyone here defending Bush spending.


I care more about deficits/debt than absolute spending dollars. In the current environment, I'm not sure that a brutal austerity program would be a great idea, for example.

But yes, spending must be rigorously controlled, which is the opposite of what it has been for a very long time now.

CrazyPhuD
01-28-2013, 03:31 PM
Poll fail....no 'I'm Batman' option!

Amnorix
01-28-2013, 03:42 PM
Even if you strip those away and just consider SS, Medicare and Medicaid, we've got an entitlement spending problem. The problem existed prior to the economic crisis of 2008, although it was certainly exacerbated by it.


Yes, I know.

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2012/10/sr121/SRfedspendingnumbers2012p81chart8.ashx?w=600&h=526&as=1

KC Dan
01-28-2013, 03:44 PM
Dude, until the last election they all acted like Grover Norquist had their nuts in a vice and they would never vote to raise a dime on anyone under any circumstances, ever...agreed however they just voted to raise taxes yet still no "real" spending cuts only calls for more taxes from one side of the aisle

FishingRod
01-28-2013, 03:47 PM
Where does the Constitution say the federal govt is to take care of natural disasters? Nowhere.
People dealt with them before FEMA and we have states and fundraisers by musicians.

I agree that we could, however, define govt as a sort of aggregate irresponsibility of the people.

One could argue that providing for the common defense could include defending against the wrath of nature as well as foreign aggression and it certainly does promote the general welfare. More accurately since I don’t see it as something prohibited by the constitution it just seems to be a logical pooling of resources for the greater good.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 05:03 PM
FishingRod you subscribe to the left's idea of a "living Constitution" which expands the Federal govts powers beyond what was delegated.

One could argue that providing for the common defense could include defending against the wrath of nature as well as foreign aggression and it certainly does promote the general welfare.

Yeah, well, national defense never has meant that. I don't even see the faintest penumbra there. Congress declares war and raises armies.

"Promote the general welfare" is in the Preamble which is a general statement of purpose, not a list of powers delegated. I think you mean Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 or the Tax and Spend clause. I know I meant that. Article I, Section. 8 is where the Constitutional Grants of Powers to Congress are listed. It ends with the line:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That power was not vested by the Constitution. And general would apply to all not special interest groups including those that have been victimized by the weather.


More accurately since I don’t see it as something prohibited by the constitution it just seems to be a logical pooling of resources for the greater good.
Well, you don't have to see it. It's whether it's written in the Constitution which states that it is a document of delegated powers. So if something isn't mentioned it doesn't have that power. Period.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — Tenth Amendment

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 05:20 PM
Madison in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. "

Tenth Amendment codified the doctrine of enumerated powers. It was added three years later because the anti-Federalists were afraid the central govt would swallow up the states.

Federalist No. 45 echoed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

"The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers." —Justice Joseph Story (1833)[1]

During the New Deal it was Justice Owen Roberts in the Butler case that turned this idea on it's head for an expansion spending:

...the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
—Justice Owen Roberts (1936)

Roberts was wrong it violates the intent of the Framers and the Constitution. They feared this idea.

There are still justices around that subscribe to this notion that spending was limited to the enumerated grant of power.

Justice O’Connor noted in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent:

“If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality...is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress...to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This...was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

gblowfish
01-28-2013, 05:23 PM
I'm highly irresponsible and poorly coordinated.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 05:32 PM
I noticed.

CoMoChief
01-28-2013, 06:38 PM
I support the Constitution

patteeu
01-28-2013, 06:43 PM
Speak up, fiscally liberal people. Let us know who you are. So far, Direckshun is the only person to admit it.

RaiderH8r
01-28-2013, 06:46 PM
I am socially indifferent and fiscally sick of paying for turdlingers failing at life.

Cannibal
01-28-2013, 06:52 PM
I chose socially liberal, fiscal conservative because I've become more and more fed up with insane tax policies like the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. However, I am also in favor of expiration of the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $400k.

Also think welfare needs tighter control and needs to be looked at again.

BigMeatballDave
01-28-2013, 06:57 PM
Broadly, I'm liberal socially and fiscally.

HUGE government

BigMeatballDave
01-28-2013, 07:00 PM
I chose socially liberal, fiscal conservative because I've become more and more fed up with insane tax policies like the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. However, I am also in favor of expiration of the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $400k.

Also think welfare needs tighter control and needs to be looked at again.

I would agree with your fiscal ideas.

They need to cut out the single parents getting $5000 every year.

Which ends up being $4000 or more than they paid in.

Cannibal
01-28-2013, 07:04 PM
I would agree with your fiscal ideas.

They need to cut out the single parents getting $5000 every year.

Which ends up being $4000 or more than they paid in.

I'm not going to get into specific anecdotes, but these refunds are a lot more than 5k in many cases.

Cannibal
01-28-2013, 07:06 PM
I also think disability needs reform too.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2013, 08:58 PM
I'm socially inimitable and fiscally morose. I'm automotively Japanese and computationally Apple. I'm olfactorily overwhelming and choreographically challenged.

I'm the undercover ubermensch with an Ali Baba alibi, baby.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 09:08 PM
I did vote Republican. Both Romney and Scott Brown.I thought both were declared RINO's by "real" conservatives?

chiefzilla1501
01-28-2013, 09:10 PM
Stop calling this person "Bob." Are Republicans too dense to realize that this person is named "Bonnie" and "Carlos"?

I voted Republican in this election cycle. But I also practically kicked my TV at the clueless lack of social awareness of the Republican party to raise issues out of shit that doesn't matter. There are enough people who are invested in social issues like women's rights, gay rights, and immigration rights to sway the balance.

But by all means... let's blame the moderates for the Republican lack of an identity. And not the Republicans who chose to piss off several factions of voters on issues they didn't even need to speak up about.

Here's a Jonah Goldberg column on the subject that might apply to some of you:

Wake Up, Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338011/wake-socially-liberal-fiscal-conservatives-jonah-goldberg)
The GOP isn’t the political party in debt denial.
By Jonah Goldberg

Dear Socially Liberal Fiscal-Conservative Friend,

That’s pretty toothy, so I’m going to call you “Bob.”

But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You’re the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, “I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues.”

When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline, and balanced budgets.
When Colin Powell was on Meet the Press the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

So, Bob, as a “fiscal conservative,” what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork — Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! — from the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

Bob, I’m going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you’re a sucker.

You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.

Well, let’s talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage,” he said. “We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget constituted more than half the U.S. budget (today it’s a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing — fast. The country isn’t going broke, Bob, it is broke.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama’s own convictions, you condemn them.

You nodded sagely when Obama said we needed a “balanced approach” to cut the deficit. He said he couldn’t rein in entitlements without also raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Well, he won that fight. We raised taxes on millionaires and billionaires exactly as much as he wanted. We also raised the payroll tax on everyone.

Obama’s response to getting the tax hikes he wanted? He says we still need a “balanced approach” — i.e., even more tax hikes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple who retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will have paid about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said “we don’t have a spending problem,” it seemed to have no effect on you.

And yet you still think Paul Ryan’s budget was “extreme.” Do you know when it balanced the budget? 2040. What’s a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?

Look, Bob, I don’t want to go spelunking in that cranium of yours. I don’t know why you think you’re a fiscal conservative. The simple fact is, you’re not. The green-eye-shaded Republicans you claim to miss would be scandalized by the mess we’re in, largely thanks to voters like you, Bob. Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today’s Washington.

I don’t expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you’re simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism, particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 09:18 PM
Speak up, fiscally liberal people. Let us know who you are. So far, Direckshun is the only person to admit it.I can't fit into your narrow definitions.

I want to provide a hand up but not hand out. I would like to see limits on the amount and time someone can stay on the government tit.

I want to have a strong defense and we should spend whatever it takes to keep us safe. But, you have billion $ items that the DOD doesn't even want but are forced to buy.

I think we should continue to have medicare, medicaid and Social Security forever. But, we need to reform all those programs or they won't exist.

chiefzilla1501
01-28-2013, 10:10 PM
Call me "Bob." Sorry that the article above speaks so condescendingly to me as if I don't have a mind of my own.

I hate regulation, but I also understand that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I understand that lack of regulation led to disgusting meat in the meat packing industry and sugar pills passing for tylenol. I understand that some health code standards are necessary. And that de-regulation led to some of the abuses in the financial services industry. I also understand that over-regulation is crippling businesses and Dodd Frank is creating unreasonable procedural requirements for institutions that are mostly in compliance.

I do not favor pet projects, pork, or wasteful spending. However, I have fought against rubber stamp conservatives who spit at every development project or stadium project.

I don't like over-simplified beliefs about spending. I hate Obamacare, but do not understand why conservatives also push back on streamlining healthcare costs and improving transparency in pricing to finally bring health care costs to a reasonable place.

I do not believe in rubber stamping. I believe in cost-benefit (understanding full well that ROI can easily be manipulated). There is no better example than conservatives throwing a shit fit over spending money on additional Census data. Because it costed money. Nevermind that that census data is used by small businesses everywhere to get market intelligence they cannot afford.

I find it insulting that the writer of the article suggested that this moderate faction is mindless. I am fiscally conservative, but I am not going to blindly say all spending is bad.

Taco John
01-28-2013, 10:12 PM
I'm on the right:

http://i.imgur.com/rosiXqn.jpg

BigRedChief
01-28-2013, 10:29 PM
I'm on the right:

I'm assuming this is humor.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 10:43 PM
I can't fit into your narrow definitions.

I want to provide a hand up but not hand out. I would like to see limits on the amount and time someone can stay on the government tit.


Well a hand up shouldn't require much money, it's just a matter of opportunity.

The "hand up" line I'm hearing all over the place from the left. It sounds more like spin. Especially when over 80% liked their healthcare already.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 10:51 PM
I can't fit into your narrow definitions.

I want to provide a hand up but not hand out. I would like to see limits on the amount and time someone can stay on the government tit.

I want to have a strong defense and we should spend whatever it takes to keep us safe. But, you have billion $ items that the DOD doesn't even want but are forced to buy.

I think we should continue to have medicare, medicaid and Social Security forever. But, we need to reform all those programs or they won't exist.

I didn't define anything. I left that up to you and everyone else who responds.

patteeu
01-28-2013, 10:53 PM
Call me "Bob." Sorry that the article above speaks so condescendingly to me as if I don't have a mind of my own.

I hate regulation, but I also understand that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I understand that lack of regulation led to disgusting meat in the meat packing industry and sugar pills passing for tylenol. I understand that some health code standards are necessary. And that de-regulation led to some of the abuses in the financial services industry. I also understand that over-regulation is crippling businesses and Dodd Frank is creating unreasonable procedural requirements for institutions that are mostly in compliance.

I do not favor pet projects, pork, or wasteful spending. However, I have fought against rubber stamp conservatives who spit at every development project or stadium project.

I don't like over-simplified beliefs about spending. I hate Obamacare, but do not understand why conservatives also push back on streamlining healthcare costs and improving transparency in pricing to finally bring health care costs to a reasonable place.

I do not believe in rubber stamping. I believe in cost-benefit (understanding full well that ROI can easily be manipulated). There is no better example than conservatives throwing a shit fit over spending money on additional Census data. Because it costed money. Nevermind that that census data is used by small businesses everywhere to get market intelligence they cannot afford.

I find it insulting that the writer of the article suggested that this moderate faction is mindless. I am fiscally conservative, but I am not going to blindly say all spending is bad.

If you don't think Goldberg was accurately describing you, why do you identify with Bob and take so much offense?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2013, 10:59 PM
Call me "Bob." Sorry that the article above speaks so condescendingly to me as if I don't have a mind of my own.

Well, you seem to have adopted a number of economic fallacies that get spun from the left academia and media.

I hate regulation, but I also understand that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I understand that lack of regulation led to disgusting meat in the meat packing industry and sugar pills passing for tylenol. I understand that some health code standards are necessary.
What Republican or Conservative ever advocated for zero regulation?

They usually are against over-regulation—especially for egalitarian and social justice reasons. Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world and even they have some regulation but it's simple and straightforward. Some regulations do not make an economy unfree. It's when you have too many and they destroy incentive or stop good action. It's also when you over regulate for the public good, such as egalitarian purposes, you wind up having fascism because the appearance of ownership is maintained. There's just no way for one central bureaucracy to regulate every abuse.


And that de-regulation led to some of the abuses in the financial services industry.

Why do you cite left-wing progressive economic fallacies? It was just new and untried regs that were put in while some of the older, and better ones were removed.

I also understand that over-regulation is crippling businesses and Dodd Frank is creating unreasonable procedural requirements for institutions that are mostly in compliance.

Good

I do not favor pet projects, pork, or wasteful spending. However, I have fought against rubber stamp conservatives who spit at every development project or stadium project.
Stadium project? That's a pet project too. Seriously, this is crony capitalism aka corporatism. America is about individuals developing such things and making it on their own.

I don't like over-simplified beliefs about spending. I hate Obamacare, but do not understand why conservatives also push back on streamlining healthcare costs and improving transparency in pricing to finally bring health care costs to a reasonable place.
Seriously, you don't understand the problem was actually created by govt intervention in healthcare markets that led to its greater expense. You think govt is going to be able to make cost more reasonable. This is why you're really on the left.


I find it insulting that the writer of the article suggested that this moderate faction is mindless. I am fiscally conservative, but I am not going to blindly say all spending is bad.

Fiscally conservative would be following the Constitution. Just because you're a mix of the current two parties doesn't make you a fiscal conservative. At least say you are a fiscal moderate or moderately liberal. A true fiscal conservative would be more like Scrooge. You're not that guy.

Taco John
01-28-2013, 11:17 PM
I'm assuming this is humor.

No. I want to give a hand up, not a hand out.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2013, 11:24 PM
Socially liberal on most stuff except abortion, which is never going to change no matter how many people I count as murderers. Fiscally not as conservative as I used to be. At some point during the house fire you just have to stop throwing cupfuls of water and resign yourself to the fact that the motherfucker is going to burn to the ground.

PaulAllen
01-28-2013, 11:28 PM
Blackbob votes for socially conservative

listopencil
01-29-2013, 01:34 AM
I'm a modern man,
A man for the millennium,
Digital and smoke free.
A diversified multicultural postmodern deconstructionist,
Politically anatomically and ecologically incorrect.
I've been uplinked and downloaded.
I've been inputted and outsourced.
I know the upside of downsizing.
I know the downside of upgrading.
I'm a high tech lowlife.
A cutting edge state-of-the-art bicoastal multitasker,
And I can give you a gigabyte in a nanosecond.
I'm new wave but I'm old school,
And my inner child is outward bound.
I'm a hot wired heat seeking warm hearted cool customer,
Voice activated and biodegradable.
I interface from a database,
And my database is in cyberspace,
So I'm interactive,
I'm hyperactive,
And from time-to-time,
I'm radioactive.
Behind the eight ball,
Ahead of the curve,
Riding the wave,
Dodging a bullet,
Pushing the envelope.
I'm on point,
On task,
On message,
And off drugs.
I got no need for coke and speed,
I got no urge to binge and purge.
I'm in the moment,
On the edge,
Over the top,
But under the radar.
A high concept,
Low profile,
Medium range ballistic missionary.
A street-wise smart bomb.
A top gun bottom feeder.
I wear power ties,
I tell power lies,
I take power naps,
I run victory laps.
I'm a totally ongoing bigfoot slam dunk rainmaker with a proactive outreach.
A raging workaholic.
A working ragaholic.
Out of rehab,
And in denial.
I got a personal trainer,
A personal shopper,
A personal assistant,
And a personal agenda.
You can't shut me up,
You can't dumb me down.
'Cause I'm tireless,
And I'm wireless.
I'm an alpha male on beta blockers.
I'm a non-believer and an over-achiever.
Laid back but fashion forward.
Up front,
Down home,
Low rent,
High maintenance.
Super size,
Long lasting,
High definition,
Fast acting,
Oven ready,
And built to last.
I'm a hands on,
Foot loose,
Knee jerk,
Head case.
Prematurely post traumatic,
And I have a love child who sends me hate mail.
But I'm feeling,
I'm caring,
I'm healing,
I'm sharing.
A supportive bonding nurturing primary care giver.
My output is down,
But my income is up.
I take a short position on the long bond,
And my revenue stream has its own cash flow.
I read junk mail,
I eat junk food,
I buy junk bonds,
I watch trash sports.
I'm gender specific,
Capital intensive,
User friendly,
And lactose intolerant.
I like rough sex.
I like tough love.
I use the f word in my email,
And the software on my hard drive is hard core, no soft porn.
I bought a microwave at a mini mall.
I bought a mini van in a mega store.
I eat fast food in the slow lane.
I'm toll free,
Bite sized,
Ready to wear,
And I come in all sizes.
A fully equipped,
Factory authorized,
Hospital tested,
Clinically proven,
Scientifically formulated medical miracle.
I've been pre-washed,
Pre-cooked,
Pre-heated,
Pre-screened,
Pre-approved,
Pre-packaged,
Post-dated,
Freeze-dried,
Double-wrapped,
Vacuum-packed,
And I have an unlimited broadband capacity.
I'm a rude dude,
But I'm the real deal.
Lean and mean.
Cocked, locked and ready to rock.
Rough tough and hard to bluff.
I take it slow.
I go with the flow.
I ride with the tide.
I got glide in my stride.
Drivin' and movin',
Sailin' and spinnin',
Jivin' and groovin',
Wailin' and winnin'.
I don't snooze,
So I don't lose.
I keep the pedal to the metal,
And the rubber on the road.
I party hearty,
And lunch time is crunch time.
I'm hanging in,
There ain't no doubt.
And I'm hanging tough,
Over and out.

Fat Elvis
01-29-2013, 01:37 AM
I think a lack of universal healthcare is morally and fiscally insane.

Fat Elvis
01-29-2013, 01:43 AM
I'm on the right:

http://i.imgur.com/rosiXqn.jpg

More rungs? Keep pulling; if they grab that bottom one, they will destroy us all....

listopencil
01-29-2013, 02:10 AM
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, "liberal" and "conservative" have all but lost their meaning in modern political terms. I believe that the government's job is to empower its citizens mostly by staying the **** out of the way. When that is not possible, enforce a system of laws that help protect individuals and their property. I don't believe in victimless crime. I think the only people who should be imprisoned are those that have demonstrated that they view their fellow humans as prey. I think fines should also be in place for those that display willful and/or dangerous neglect. I think that our laws should reflect those two principles. Individuals, or groups of consenting individuals, should be allowed to participate in any activities outside of those principles. That includes recreational drug use, gambling, prostitution, any form of marriage as a social contract between any number of adults, assisted suicide, abortions as determined by the mother and her physician, pornography and probably others that have slipped my mind. I am willing to accept socialist/collectivist programs that serve a clear and definite purpose. Public schools. The reduced/free school lunch program. Aid and counseling for the abused, handicapped or elderly. The military. Police forces, fire fighters and other emergency personnel. I have described myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in the past because it's hard to really describe my stances in modern terms. Probably because the Republican'ts and the Democraps have bastardized any and every ideological identifier that ever had any positive connotations. Like I said, it's hard to describe my stances with a few buzz words or catch phrases. Most of all, I know what I want America to be. The bucket of shit that we have right now...this ain't it folks.

listopencil
01-29-2013, 02:13 AM
I think a lack of universal healthcare is morally and fiscally insane.

How about eliminating the system of state insurance commissioners, and allowing insurance companies to act across state lines?

FishingRod
01-29-2013, 08:17 AM
FishingRod you subscribe to the left's idea of a "living Constitution" which expands the Federal govts powers beyond what was delegated.


That power was not vested by the Constitution. And general would apply to all not special interest groups including those that have been victimized by the weather.




"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — Tenth Amendment

So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

ClevelandBronco
01-29-2013, 03:40 PM
So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

You nailed it. That's exactly the scenario that we fear most.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 03:50 PM
Socially liberal on most stuff except abortion, which is never going to change no matter how many people I count as murderers.

You are pro choice, are you not?

You've said as much.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 04:00 PM
So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

That's not the scenario I commented on based on what you stated.

A navy ship is federal property under the Constitution. That is with a capital "C" not a lower case "c" which you used.


Article I, Section. 8

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

It helps to read the list of enumerated powers.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 04:09 PM
I'm a modern woman
Of the millennium,
Kept but free
Buyin' freeze-dried
Vacuum-packed goods
I will survive


:p

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 04:13 PM
I think a lack of universal healthcare is morally and fiscally insane.

Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Chavez agree with you. :(

ClevelandBronco
01-29-2013, 04:31 PM
You are pro choice, are you not?

No. I see no choice.

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 04:32 PM
Well a hand up shouldn't require much money, it's just a matter of opportunity.

The "hand up" line I'm hearing all over the place from the left. It sounds more like spin. Especially when over 80% liked their healthcare already.I would envision it as a limit on $ we will help you out get back on your feet.

It's in the taxpayer/society's interest to get that person off the taxpayer dime and onto the tax paying rolls.

But, just because you lost a job, got a divorce, lost your home or whatever caused you to be down on your luck doesn't mean society owes you years or thousands of $'s of support why you get back on your feet.

I could envision a scenerio where we will put you on welfare, sign for a loan to take a CNA course or some field that there is a shortage of qualified people. Some type of training that takes 6-8 months. After you graduate, start paying taxes, you can continue your education at night to something better on your own.

You just want to take cash, or not go to school or better yourself. You don't get shit.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 04:37 PM
You are pro choice, are you not?

No. I see no choice.

*scratches head*

Do you believe that abortion should remain legal?

EDIT: Here's why I'm confused. This is from a previous thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268776) on the issue:

You are not pro-life?

Not politically or legally.

So you do not describe yourself as pro-choice or pro-life. How would you describe your position?

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 04:54 PM
I would envision it as a limit on $ we will help you out get back on your feet.

It's in the taxpayer/society's interest to get that person off the taxpayer dime and onto the tax paying rolls.

It's also in the Fed's interest to not give them anything and leave it to the states, where it would be temporary because they can't print money to keep the game from expanding.

Now, if you're arguing for limits, then we can't keep expanding the welfare state with things like Obamacare where there's even more subsidies for the most expensive item a person needs.

So if you really feel this way, BRC, then I don't understand how Obama is your man.

Direckshun
01-29-2013, 04:56 PM
For what it's worth, there's not a lot of information on the internet in general about fiscal liberalism. Try googling it.

I've defined what I believe to be fiscal liberalism before on this forum, before. Here's how I phrased it:

I'm a supporter of capitalism and private-owned enterprise over government-owned industry. I believe a free market is the engine of a progressive society, and the invisible hand can not only drive forward the quality of life for everybody in that market, it can also empower a nation to the extraordinary extent that it can serve as a powerful guide for other nations attempting to do the same.

At the same time, I believe that there are in-built defects of capitalism -- it is a competition, after all. And you're going to have people who win, and people who don't win. People who thrive, people who get by, and people who struggle. It's impossible to have a capitalist system where you don't also have poverty, homelessness, unemployment, starvation... So I do believe in a safety net provided by those who are getting by to help out those who aren't. This does necessitate more collective action through the government, but that's why I also believe in separation of powers, checks and balances, and absolute government accountability and hate any organizations (including the White House itself) that resist any of these.

Capitalism in general is an inequality creator, which isn't inherently bad but inequality can have some poisonous defects, some of which I highlighted in the above paragraph. Inequality can, for instance, put people in extreme positions of power over others, and allow some entities to openly abuse others. In these instances I favor strong, reasonable, accountable regulation of these entities to protect the least of our brothers and sisters.

I believe this is "fiscal liberalism."

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 05:01 PM
It's also in the Fed's interest to not give them anything and leave it to the states, where it would be temporary because they can't print money to keep the game from expanding.

Now, if you're arguing for limits, then we can't keep expanding the welfare state with things like Obamacare where there's even more subsidies for the most expensive item a person needs.I know you have states on the brain. You haven't heard of anything that shouldn't be at the states.

Sorry not in favor to take it to the states. It benefits everyone, it needs to stay at the federal level.

Taco John
01-29-2013, 05:03 PM
So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

I like how he prefixed this bogus scenario with a "So for the sake of clarity..."

Taco John
01-29-2013, 05:06 PM
So for the sake of clarity - let's say a chinese dog was running across the US/Mexico border to attack a playground full of 3 year olds. Congress hasn't declared war on that dog, but a soldier shoots him anyway. Should that soldier go to Jail for breaking the constitution? For the sake of clarity...

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 05:20 PM
I know you have states on the brain. You haven't heard of anything that shouldn't be at the states.

Sorry not in favor to take it to the states. It benefits everyone, it needs to stay at the federal level.

That's not an argument. It's ignorance.

I don't mean that as an insult it's just what it is. Ignorance can be handled with education.

There's no Constitutional authority for the Feds to be involved in welfare for any special interest group. That includes victim groups. General as in the "general welfare" refers to the nation as a whole. Spending is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers under Congress, not just because someone likes the idea something would benefit every individual. That's collectivist thinking.

BigRedChief
01-29-2013, 05:38 PM
That's not an argument. It's ignorance.

I don't mean that as an insult it's just what it is. Ignorance can be handled with education.

There's no Constitutional authority for the Feds to be involved in welfare for any special interest group. That includes victim groups. General as in the "general welfare" refers to the nation as a whole. Spending is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers under Congress, not just because someone likes the idea something would benefit every individual. That's collectivist thinking. Your interpretation of the constitution is not the final authority on how to interpret the constitution. And the fact that no Republicans are saying welfare is unconstitutional even though they hate it says your interpretation is wrong.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2013, 05:54 PM
Your interpretation of the constitution is not the final authority on how to interpret the constitution.

I don't interpret it. I simply read what it says.

And the fact that no Republicans are saying welfare is unconstitutional even though they hate it says your interpretation is wrong.

Then you don't know many Republicans.They have just resigned themselves to the New Deal court decisions which turned things upside down.

listopencil
01-29-2013, 07:27 PM
So for the sake of clarity - let's say a chinese dog was running across the US/Mexico border to attack a playground full of 3 year olds. Congress hasn't declared war on that dog, but a soldier shoots him anyway. Should that soldier go to Jail for breaking the constitution? For the sake of clarity...

Is the Chinese dog running across the border into Mexico or into the US?

ClevelandBronco
01-29-2013, 08:09 PM
*scratches head*

Do you believe that abortion should remain legal?

EDIT: Here's why I'm confused. This is from a previous thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268776) on the issue:





So you do not describe yourself as pro-choice or pro-life. How would you describe your position?

Disgusted and resigned.

FishingRod
01-30-2013, 07:54 AM
That's not the scenario I commented on based on what you stated.

A navy ship is federal property under the Constitution. That is with a capital "C" not a lower case "c" which you used.


Article I, Section. 8

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

It helps to read the list of enumerated powers.

It is just a really small natural disaster what is the difference?

PaulAllen
02-02-2013, 08:38 AM
Man, I miss Carlin.

patteeu
02-02-2013, 08:39 AM
Man, I miss Carlin.

Why? If it makes you feel any better, you can watch him on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carlin&page=&utm_source=opensearch).

PaulAllen
02-02-2013, 08:47 AM
Why?

He died.