Both liberals and conservatives think about that.
Can you think of any problems where liberals think that the government should not provide a solution?
Sure. I don’t know any liberals who think the government should help me with my golf score.
Even limiting the answer to things that conservatives do think government is the solution for, it is easy to make a list of things that liberals generally think government is not the solution for (or when government is the problem) or for which government should be less involved than conservatives generally want:
Declining marriage rates
Abortions
The power of unions
Flag desecration
Illicit drug use
Gay sex
Management of spent nuclear fuel
Federal crop insurance
Providing seniors with cheap medical devices
Pornography
Stability of the Iraqi government
There’s a theme, of course, which is that many of those issues are social issues. But you cannot be the party of less government and only apply that philosophy narrowly to economic regulation. Then you’re just the party of laissez faire economics, not small government.
Also, is it really a difference in government philosophy when conservatives say that government programs are what create poverty and similar problems so we should get rid of the government to deal with those problems? That’s just as much a government-centric worldview that ignores the fact that changing the government cannot solve all of our problems.
Um . . . in this thread we are talking about FISCAL conservatives.
You’re free to junior mod **puddleglum **all you like. But since you don’t even know what a fiscal conservative is, you might want to read more than you post.
Huh? I didn’t junior mod anyone, and I’m fully aware of what a fiscal conservative is. You are quite confused.
You defined fiscal conservative as one who wants smaller government and is skeptical of new government programs. That’s an incorrect definition for several reasons, but we ran with it.
Snarky_Kong correctly pointed out that both liberals and conservatives think about whether any given program is merited for solving a given problem. In reply **puddleglum **asked “Can you think of any problems where liberals think that the government should not provide a solution?”
Now your position is that pointing out all the areas in which conservatives want a bigger government than liberals is off-topic. Well, it may well be off the topic of fiscal conservatism as the term is properly defined, but if so, you’ve only yourself to blame.
Yes, we know you are confused. No need for you to display it so prominently.
Most of these things are not considered problems by liberals, I have heard some liberals thing that abortions are a problems and the solution is government provided birth control but I was not aware liberals thought of any of the other things as problems.
I don’t think that’s a fair point for two reasons. First, a lot of those are problems acknowledged by liberals. Most liberals would prefer fewer abortions, they just don’t think this should be accomplished by making it harder for poor people or women in Kansas to get one. And nuclear waste, drug abuse, expensive medical devices, and declining marriage rates are all problems. It’s just that conservatives want specific big government programs to solve them and liberals generally do not. (Respectively, liberals typically want the industry to pay for and solve the waste issue; for drug abuse to be seen as more of a social problem than a government problem; for seniors to stop getting such large government subsidies for medical devices; and that government has no business trying to engineer an increase in marriages.)
But the second point is that if conservatives get small government credit for saying the government should not attempt to criminalize predatory lending, then liberals should get small government credit for saying that the government should not attempt to criminalize marijuana possession. In other words, if conservatives think something isn’t a problem and therefore oppose government intervention, we generally credit that toward their small government mindset. The same should be true for liberals.
The liberal answer to too many abortions is free contraception and more sex ed, the liberal answer to nuclear waste is not to let industry handleit, liberals have spent all of my life trying to scare old people that republicans are going to take their stuff away, and that all family types are equally healthy and valid.
You seem to have an odd idea of what issues divide the parties.
You’re making two errors here. First, you’re conflating the liberal position with the position that some liberals take. If I’m permitted to make whomever I want the standard-bearer of the conservative position, I can prove whatever proposition you want. Obviously, some liberals want the government to pay for contraception instead of private insurers, and some liberals are against nuclear power outright and want the government to intervene. I don’t think either is a majority position. Whereas the actual RNC platform calls for banning abortion and instituting a massive new federally-funded program to deal with nuclear waste.
The second error is to mistake my particular point–medical devices for seniors–with a general argument about liberals supporting Medicare. The truth is, both parties support Medicare. The part of it that conservatives wildly demagogue is the part Obama tried to reform–namely, payments for expensive medical devices and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka death panels). Similarly, you conflate the problem of fewer married households with general acceptance for and tolerance of different family structures. The two things are quite different.
Another option: don’t try to fit your opinions within a label.
Depends on what your priorities are. A true fiscal conservative cares about a balanced budget, and is willing to combine tax increases and spending cuts to get it. A regular conservative wants smaller government, and is quite happy with deficits as long as it can be used as leverage to shrink government.
Anyone who refuses deals that would cut 4 or 5x the tax increase isn’t a fiscal conservative. Anyone who signs the Norquist pledge isn’t a fiscal conservative.
Says the person who then posted this:
In other words, get out the shotguns, right? You think forcing people to marry will improve anything? And I say that as someone solidly behind marriage, more than most. Including SSM.
The studies I’ve seen say that most people do not stay on welfare forever, but go in and out of it. Excepting of course those too mentally ill to really survive in our society, for a variety of reasons.
Government aid does not get you to the level of the people you see on TV. The system is not the most pleasant thing to be a part of.
The one thing you didn’t mention here is jobs. It is kind of cruel to be criticizing a person for being on welfare with a 20% unemployment rate in her neighborhood.
How about somehow setting up jobs that people on welfare can do, with support for those with emotional issues from a lifetime of poverty or FAS? We’d at least get the people who can succeed at work immediately out of the system, and maybe free up some resources to work on the rest. I’ve been around way too long to think that the solution is to just send someone who hasn’t worked for three years off to a job and expect it all to be wonderful. But let’s at least start with letting anyone who is willing to and can work work.