Check out number 4.
The same way you judge anyone’s level of understanding. You note their relevant actions.
Does this mean you don’t have any cites? I ask only because I interact on a regular basis with many people who call themselves conservatives and they never talk about any of those things you list in your post.
Your anecdotal experiences are utterly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if everyone you know only has a boy puppy. Girl puppies still exist.
But since you want cites:
Global Warming: Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics | Scientific American
Do you find that persuasive?
Do you really not know that conservatives in America largely think Climate Change isn’t real? Those beliefs are driven by misinformation that pulses through RW American media.
Interesting article; didn’t realize defense spending was only 20% of the budget; thought it was more than that. Know what you mean about “level of understanding.” I sometimes have to remind myself that just because people disagree with me doesn’t mean they don’t understand me.
Emphasis on the word everything.
You are mistaken: you listed a number of beliefs you claim conservatives have; I simply pointed out to you that I know a number of people who consider themselves conservative and who do not seem to have those beliefs; thus, my anecdotal experiences in this regard belie your claim, and properly so. Moreover, the conservatives I know believe the climate has been changing. And yes, given your propensity to pigeon-hole people (or at least those you call conservative) my anecdotal experiences in this regard are relevant.
Okay, let me be sure that I’ve got this.
-
Liberals view spending as a means to an end.
-
I just shouldn’t ask what the end is.
Personally, my reason for wanting to cut spending is to avoid a catastrophic downward spiral into ever greater debt. There are many examples of nations that have suffered such a thing. I’d rather not see the USA become the next one.
Private schools are nonprofits. They don’t make any money. They also don’t have any political power, while unionized public school teachers do.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. My primary goal is the very long-term financial health of the nation. I don’t care what some stripes of conservatives believe about global warming or creationism. I am not one of them. I do know that indefinite deficit spending is at least as big a threat as anything else in the medium term and catastrophic in the long-term and I will do anything in my power to stop it.
There are a few true fiscal conservatives around and there no need to extrapolate those to other beliefs. I believe it is the safest and most responsible action you can have whether it is managing a household or a nation and everything else is just piles of excuses with heaps of needless risk stacked on. It WILL blow up if you let it fester and mismanage it long enough. Most people now know that but they are just hoping they die before that happens. I think that is horribly irresponsible and negligent to future generations.
If you want to know how to identify a true fiscal conservative, I can tell you. It is someone who is willing to take a proportionate personal financial hit to their own fiances with the goal of making the nation stronger overall in the long-term. I would be willing to do that myself in many ways as long as the money is truly used for that purpose and not to expand any other programs. For example, I would be all for an income (inclusive of all types of income) whose sole purpose is to pay down the national debt over a few decades but brings absolutely no direct benefits to anyone outside of that goal.
I’ve yet to see a criticism of one side in this thread that couldn’t apply to the other.
Wow this wasn’t the response I was expecting at all. I was just hoping for a comment or 2 from some conservative-leaning posters, most likely disputing the strawman I had erected. Instead I find almost universal support for the idea that liberals just want to spend. I don’t get that. Why would people choose to believe others are evil or deficient somehow rather than accepting it as mere policy disagreement, as Mdcastle says?
Two clarifications before I comment on a recent post.
-
Last week I stopped at my firm’s petty cash desk to trade a $100 banknote for five $20’s. Should the firm now add $100 to its income ledger, with a corresponding $100 entry under expenses? If you answer ‘No,’ you have the right idea. Yet Social Security is just a simple transfer program, which more-or-less pays its own way, which could have been administered by Halliburton Private Annuities instead of the U.S. government. Obviously SocSec isn’t exactly the same as making change at the petty-cash desk, but the analogy should clarify that inclusion/exclusion from the “budget” is not a trivial decision.
-
While SocSec thus should be irrelevant to this discussion, it is worth pointing out that right-wingers – likely to object to the “pays its own way” above – are quite mistaken about its present status: “In 2010, total income to SSDI was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion.”
You were better informed when you followed my figure of 52% of non-mandatory spending. The “budget” you now follow includes interest on the debt, SocSec (see above), etc. “Non-mandatory” or “discretionary” spending is a more reasonable figure to use as a basis for understanding.
True, there are arbitrary-seeming divisions between “mandatory” and “discretionary” spending. For example, as mentioned upthread, benefits to our veterans are categorized as “discretionary non-military spending.”
But the important point is: To pretend defense spending is “only 20% of the budget” when the “budget” is defined to include SocSec etc. is very misleading.
The vast majority of posts in this thread do not support your conclusion, but do just the opposite. Therefore, I have to ask: are you being disingenuous again? If so, why?
That 20% figure comes from the Washington Post article cited by another poster earlier in this thread. Maybe you should write a letter to the editor of that right-wing rag to set them straight.
The idea that liberals want to expand government spending for its own sake tracks a historical trend since the beginning of the twentieth century. We started with “you’re on your own” more or less, and have moved to government spending more and more on social programs. Conservatives fear that it isn’t just for the sake of achieving particular goals but to fundamentally alter the relationship between government and society; to establish a government that uses redistribution and indoctrination (“education”) to create a collectivist society administered by a caste of philosopher-kings. In this view, the “welfare state” is just the most moderate version of a spectrum that goes on to socialism and ultimately to a Soviet/Maoist-type socially engineered state. And that’s the idealist version. The cynical version is that demagogues are taxing the producers to buy the votes of the lumpenproletariat and establishing themselves as the heads of bureaucratic fiefdoms. At the hard-right end of the spectrum you get people who basically believe that Atlas Shrugged is coming true.
If a firm has a pension fund, and a petty cash fund, and moves some money from one to another, do think the firm would record the movement of funds? If you answer ‘Yes,’ you have the right idea.
If you read post #6, you’ll see that I explained why I believe what I believe. On the other hand, if you keep saying “Why?” but refuse to read the explanations that people have given you, you’re going to look a bit silly.
The end is that the government is allowed to take less money from people in the form of taxes in order to spend on programs of dubious worth.
What’s next, will you ask if I’ve stopped beating my wife? 
I wasn’t trying to trick anyone. I was genuinely interested in why people such as you are choosing to believe that there is something wrong with liberals rather than that this is simple disagreement. And it is a choice, it seems to me. There is nothing in this thread proving that people on the left are indeed for spending in and of itself. On the contrary, those claims that have been made are so lame that they fall over as soon as you look at them. ITR champion believes that he has given an explanation in post #6 yet if you read his words he is blaming liberal support for education spending on teachers unions and others who receive that money. I happen to believe that he is wrong about that reason but it is, nonetheless, a reason. He is not arguing that liberals just want more spending. He’s saying some of them want to profit off of it.
**Shagnasty ** believes liberals just want to spend but his reason for this belief seems to be that he (and not they) find governmental programs inefficient. Not particularly convincing. Shodan ridiculed the idea that spending itself isn’t a goal with no justification whatsoever. **smiling bandit ** (post #28) says that liberals love spending because it buys votes. Again I would disagree but again it is unarguably true that he has provided a motive other than simply wanting to spend more. The closest that you yourself have come to outlining your own reason is that liberals want governmental spending increased again and again. Again this is nonsensical. That’s exactly the behavior you would expect from liberals if it were a genuine policy disagreement.
So no, the vast majority of posts here do not contradict my conclusion. Unless I’ve missed something absolutely none of them do. There is no proof that people on the left love spending in and of itself. Nor, for that matter, is there any proof that they don’t. Neither proposition is demonstrated to be true yet conservative posters are not only choosing to believe the worst of their adversaries but have seemingly convinced themselves that, contrary to the evidence at hand, they have provided strong reasons for this belief. I am curious as to why.
**Do Conservatives Understand That Liberals Don’t Really Like Government Spending?
**
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.
I look back at history and I look at the current administration. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, whenever libs are in power. Needless, frivolous and mostly unconstitutional spending, just to buy votes and stay in power.
Let’s bring it down to the lowest common denominator here. There is such a thing as ‘tax and spend’ fiscal liberals. That is actual political rhetoric that has been used in speeches as a selling point. I can provide hundreds of cites if you want but it should be common knowledge.
How do they fit into the OP’s argument?