‘Fiscal Conservative’ means more than that. It also means “spend no more money than you have to”, or “be frugal with the people’s money”.
Your definition allows a tax-and-spend politician to raise taxes wildly while blowing money on every harebrained scheme he can think of, then call himself a ‘fiscal conservative’. Hey, he’s paying for it, right?
Silly Dave, the point isn’t that I want to make the best use of MY resources, it’s that they are MY resources to make what use I want of in the first place. The state of Alaska has stolen that right from me. Or do you claim the theft doesn’t count because they’re doing better with MY oil than I could individually? The later sounds a lot like an argument in favor of a socialistic nanny state.
I was being somewhat facetious with BOTH parties engaging in spending sprees. Better I should have said, “If you believe this program, mandate, war, series of new regulations, etc… is really essential to the security and well-being of the USA; raise the required money”.
A fiscal conservative shouldn’t be afraid to spend money, or raise taxes; just have a justification for doing same. Balance the books; I have to and most states have to as well.
Guys, I’m an Alaskan. And the state certainly does use the oil revenue to fund social programs. And of course, Alaska has the highest per capita rate of Federal spending in the country. And well over 90% of the state is public land of one kind or another–national parks, state parks, national forests, state forests, wildlife refuges, native lands, national monuments, military bases, and on and on.
Nice try of wiggling out of a dumb statement. If you only cared about the ability to make your own choices, then why did you say you wanted to sell 100 years from now when the oil would be worth much more? Seems clear that you thought that made some sort of economic sense to do so.
“Who is the face of the Republican party?” Joe the Plumber. Dumb guys suckered into shouting nonsense against their own best interests because lobbyists bought and paid for their representatives.
Sure. Why don’t you tell what exactly I bit on since all I did was point out an incorrect statement that you made. Better yet, you could just admit that you were wrong and move on.
Harry Reid, but you could never see his face because he was always ducking for cover and hiding under his desk. Pretty much the same as he’s still doing.
The key here is that the republican policies were redistributive. Tax breaks and tax loopholes to the rich resulted in the redistribution of the general wealth to a concentration at the top . It just goes up instead of across the board. The republican policies of Bush accomplished a huge concentration of wealth to the top.
Strange that none of these people are involved in the Republican platform, goals and policies. They are just noisemakers. The real power is Cheney, Kristol, Pearle, Wolfowitz and other neocons who draft the policies in the background. Add Rupert Murdoch and a few in control of TV and radio and you have those who are the party. They hire the people on that list.