I came into this thread after it had already been going for a little while. I’ve made no particular claims; not taken a side in the debate. I’m not here to explain what fiscal liberals (if, indeed, there are such people) think.
I’m still allowed to critique your points, or more specifically, your tactics. You take umbrage when someone else wishes to categorize fiscal conservatives. I can understand why. For you to then lay out, in your very next post, what fiscal liberal do and how they think is a bullshit tactic. I’m the friend who’s here trying to explain that to you.
In the case of the poor urban mothers, you might as well say I don’t give a shit how the kid get treated for pneumonia.
I don’t know how it is where you live but in large cities, the only people that poor people know are other poor people. They don’t have a network of middle class family members that can chip in, her neighbors all live in the projects with her and unless they are catholic, the church does not serve as a vehicle for redistributing wealth.
When you take that sort of attitude, you aren’t saying I want the child to die, you are merely saying you don’t give a shit.
Well, in 2011 deficits DO matter more than in 1981-1989, when the total debt was ~40% of GDP. Now the debt is a bit higher (around 96% of GDP) and climbing rapidly due to the deficit, for which there is plenty of blame to go around.
The deficit was a big issue under Bush, it will be for the remainder of Obama’s administration, and it will be under the next President’s administration.
The real irony of the situation is that we have to run deficits even under the best of circumstances. There will come a day that we will find ourselves owing so much money that we’re simply unable to pay it back, and at $1+ trillion per annum it would seem that the time is coming much faster than before (note the last 2 years). But that’s for the politicians to decide. All I can do is deal with the consequences of their decisions.
It’s a clever quip, and I do somewhat agree with the sentiment, but throwing money at schools hasn’t exactly been the answer either. I suppose that’s a matter for another thread, so I’ll stop there.
Good idea! Am I correct to think that you “true fiscal conservatives” approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?
Yes? Great news!! :smack: I think you’re the first “true fiscal conservative” we’ve seen here. I’m sure you prefer Presidents who reduce debt to those who increase it, but the “false fiscal conservatives” don’t. That’s why some thought “fiscal conservative” was a synonym of “hypocrite.”
And since you agree with that, I’m sure you know the deficit reduction under Clinton began with the 1993 budget which passed Congress without a single Republican vote, rather than, as “false fiscal conservatives” often say, due to the unrelenting efforts of American patriots like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.
Finally, because of your detailed analogy with a family’s budget, I’ve no doubt you understand that when laid-off from a job, it’s appropriate to run a short-term deficit, spending the surplus one wisely saved and perhaps even building up debt to pay for the car repairs and training you may need to look for a new job. If so, congratulations! You understand Keynesian, a word that is anathema to the “false fiscal conservatives.”
Off topic? I replied to your comment about “proper areas” with what I think government should do.
The list of things government should do is not finite. As the needs of society change, the responsibilities of government should change.
Your terminology doesn’t even make sense because you’re using terms that obscure your real intent.
You hide behind the term fiscal conservatism because the truth is, you want a system that impacts you as minimally as possible. Of course, you can’t say that because it’s not easy to argue that the other side wants to be impacted as much as possible. So you pretend it’s about keeping government to a minimum when it’s really all about minimizing the hit to you.
You even acknowledge that different positions have different views of what government should be involved in and yet you think you have the ability to claim the net result of this support for "small"government among all these positions would still be small.
It’s as absurd as the poll results saying that people hate the Congress but love their congresscritter, or think that cuts in government expenses should be the way to balance the budget, but that none of the government programs should be cut - just find the deficit fix in the “waste”.
This is your entire problem. I find it absolutely incredible that you think that was off-topic to the discussion as it has evolved. It’s just mind-boggling.
You live in a society, Rand. You are not a lone wolf barbarian of the Hill People, bravely defending your personal rights. You’re just a crank and a misanthrope who doesn’t think he owes anything to society.
By that definition, no one is a fiscal liberal–I have yet to meet even the most pie-in-the-sky patchouli-smelling hippie who didn’t have SOME concept for what the government should and should not be allowed to do.
This thread is about why fiscal conservatives are hypocrites on the subject of deficit spending, with the OP taking the affirmative and me the negative. However, the OP appears to have given up.
Right now I don’t really feel like hashing out the same tired points that you and most others here have already closed your minds to, but if the OP continues to abndon this thread I may change my mind and decide to fight this same old ignorance once again.
“Fiscal Conservative” is essentially about small government and that the free market is more efficient than government. Sam Stone can weigh in much more eloquently than I about the basic beliefs.
“Fiscally Conservative” would be more along the lines of accounting balance. Eg, if you’re going to spend more (say on the invasion and nation building of Iraq) then you also need to raise taxes/redirect spending from elsewhere to pay for it (instead of putting it off balance sheet and pretending that the trillions in deficit spending that caused somehow were not part of the budget equation).
The two terms are generally not synonmous. But don’t let me put words in the mouths of Fiscal Conservatives since I am in the Fiscally Conservative Camp.
Rand Rover - the key point is that while Fiscal Conservatives may theoretically be for all sorts of responsible things that reasonable minds can agree on, in practice Fiscal Conservatives at least at the national level don’t have a good track record. As **Cosmic Relief **pointed out upthread: “true fiscal conservatives” approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?"
In the context of the other presidencies mentioned, that question is best asked after Obama completes his second term factoring in the state of the union after it was handed to him.
That’s a fair question. And if one is fiscally conservative, the answer is probably not as bad as it should be (eg, Keynesian stimulous should be much greater thus blowing out the debt to GDP ratio further).
But rather than cherry pick on benchmarks, how about sharing a couple of benchmarks that “fiscal conservatives” think are a good standard and then we can look at them across Presidencies.
One thing so lovable about right-wing idiots: If you prove them wrong, they just change the subject.
Learn to crawl before you try to walk, Ten-Kyu. Prove you know how to click a URL, read a table, report back which of the seven named Presidents decreased the relative debt and which didn’t.
If you demonstrate you can do that much successfully, then we’ll try to teach you a little about Keynesianism.
