The conservatives on the board would say I skew liberal, I suppose, so that must be what I am. I think there are more “liberals” than “conservatives.”
. . . on the SDMB, I mean.
I’m afraid I suffer a disconnect when I see that phrase. How can you be both? Being socially liberal requires you advocate government spending.
Socially liberal as in “keep the government out of personal decisions”. The matter of government spending for social programs falls under fiscal policy as it is primarily an economic decision.
Though, on second thoughts, I agree it is impossible to separate economic and social aspects of any decision.
Re: the orientation of the board, I would say most are indeed fiscally conservative (believe in capitalism and free trade) and socially liberal (as less govt. intervention in personal life).
As some poster pointed out, reservations against the Bush admin’s actions (especially in Iraq) makes the board appear skewed to the “liberal” side. This perception will continue to exist as long as there are shrill (sometimes knee-jerk “you right-wing Haliburtonists!”) opponents of the Bush administration and shrill (sometimes knee-jerk “you lefties gang up”) proponents of the Bush administration.
I completely don’t understand US politics, but:
-
fiscally conservative means the govt. should not spend more than it gets.
-
socially liberal means the govt. and anyone else should keep their noses out of other peoples’ business.
Since sticking your unwanted nose in other people’s business costs a lot of money, the two positions are quite compatible. For instance, the US could easily finance the reconstruction of the basic infrastructure it destoyed in Iraq by abandoning its “war against drugs” or its insane tax cuts for the idle rich. It’s all about moral choices and fiscal responsibilty.
Hands up, all of you ‘fiscally conservative’ types that support socialized medicine.
I don’t believe those two things can coexist. Health care spending is one of the biggest sectors of the economy. No one who wants the goverment to fund it, control it, organize it, or direct it meets my definition of “fiscal conservative”.
I actually believe there may be a roughly equal distribution of consertives and liberals, but I believe the liberals are more vocal than the conservatives.
Clearly the big divide on this Board is between the libertarian-types and the liberal-types. The religious-conservatives are not well-represented here. A few show up but very few stay very long. It makes for an interesting mix because the religious-conservatives have a pretty strong stranglehold on the U.S. political party that controls Congress and the Presidency at the moment and yet have very little representation here on the SDMB. I.e., I don’t think you have very many people here who are big fans of Tom DeLay and Trent Lott although they may agree with them on the economic issues.
Oh my Lord. Hand up. It’s called “health insurance,” and in Canada the people fund it. Through our government, since that’s pretty much the only thing our government does. It costs a lot less this way, and everyone has contentment and assuredness that they will be taken care of in their time of need.
I said, “fiscal conservatism” means the govt. does not spend more than it has. That means: no tax cuts for the idle rich, no subsidies to welfare-bum corporations, no foreign wars, no atanding army. Then, you can pay for health care, no problem. Capiche? It’s a moral choice.
(Flap flap flap) “Well, maybe they’re not very fond of you, either!” (Opus)
Libertarian here. Not that it matters.
I think many, if not most, of the conservatives who post in GD are more libertarian than conservative. While there is generally a more hawkish view, militarily, than true libertarians, the social and economic views of the overall group are pretty close to those of libertarians.
A silent majority of conservatives … hmm, where have I heard THAT before?
I think it’s fair to say that except for a few vocal notables, it appears to me that most conservatives here are very socially liberal on many issues, such as lesbian/gay issues and 1st/4th/5th/9th/10th Amendment issues.
Fiscal conservatism does not mean that the government does not spend more than it has. The government can always raise more money either by raising taxes, printing more money, or taking on more debt. Fiscal conservatism means seeking to minimize the amount of government activity in the economy, and leaving, to the greatest extent possible, the market to seek its own level. Neither US party does a very good job at this, as they both tend to increase government spending at a rate higher than inflation, only the Dems. tend to be worse about it. Under your definition of fiscal conservatism, I fail to see how any of your examples make a difference. If the government decides to give a tax cut to the “idle rich” (whatever that means, are there tax cuts that go to the “busy rich” too?) and thereby reduces its income, under your theory of fiscal conservatism the government simply must adjust expenditures to reflect the net decrease in income. In short, under your approach fiscal conservatism means simply balancing the books without taking into account the policy decisions that effect and determine the amount to be balanced, ie. net income against the amount to be spent.
As to this board, I would say it is fairly balanced, but the lefties here are much further to the left than the righties are to the right. Like someone said, the far fringe right (in which I include the Christian Coalition and the “there is no income tax” crowd) is, to a large extent, missing here. I also think the far left people around here tend to be closeminded zealots. Just MHO. The libertarians make it an interesting mix, and I agree with whoever said that there are more libertarians here than one commonly encounters in every day life.
Hands up, all of you ‘fiscally conservative’ types that support the current level of military spending.
I don’t believe those two things can coexist. War spending is one of the biggest parts of the budget. No one who wants the goverment to fund it to the extent it is doing so today meets my definition of “fiscal conservative”.
Neither US party does a very good job at this, but the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats. The proof is in the crushing debt levels we’ve been handed, for no good reason.
Hands up, pragmatists.
Hello? Anyone?
/Raises hand and notes that true Scotsmen eat hagas. So, Humpty Dumpty, do you want to tell us what your definition of fiscal conservative is? It is rather hard to respond to someone who claims that all x are not y without knowing what the definition of y is.
I’m a libertarian for the most part, although I guess I’d be a conservative on foreign policy.
I see the board as being slightly more socially liberal than conservative.
And, for the record, I’m a conservative republican.