I'm socially ________ and fiscally ________. (fill in the blanks)

[patteeu]

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?), 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.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

FishingRod you subscribe to the left's idea of a "living Constitution" which expands the Federal govts powers beyond what was delegated.

Originally Posted by FishingRod

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]

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]

I'm highly irresponsible and poorly coordinated.

[BucEyedPea]

I noticed.

[CoMoChief]

I support the Constitution

[patteeu]

Speak up, fiscally liberal people. Let us know who you are. So far, Direckshun is the only person to admit it.

[RaiderH8r]

I am socially indifferent and fiscally sick of paying for turdlingers failing at life.

[Cannibal]

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.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Broadly, I'm liberal socially and fiscally.

HUGE government

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

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]

Originally Posted by Dave

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]

I also think disability needs reform too.