I'm socially ________ and fiscally ________. (fill in the blanks)

[patteeu]

We've all heard others describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most of us have described ourselves that way at some point. I've done it before, but I've started avoiding that phrase because I think it means radically different things to different people.

For example, in petez28's recent thread (So, you say you aren't just a party line type of person?), here's a list of people who embrace the description (so far):

Rain Man
Dave Lane
Mr. Flopnuts
chiefzilla1501
crispystl420
AustinChief
FishingRod
Amnorix

That's a pretty varied group of ideologies. So, vote in the poll and let's find the socially conservative, fiscally liberal people.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Also that article is incredibly stupid. The 2000-2006 republican–controlled Congress was an orgy of pork spending. When the National Review comes out and lasts a Republican Congress, you know they gone off the deep end. The Republicans never cared a lick about the debt ceiling until Obama took office. If the author is unwilling to realistically address these sudden changes of heart, than he's just another partisan hack.

The Ryan budget doesn't call for any decreases in defense spending. That's just not realistic. Why does the author not mention Eisenhower's famous quote about the military-industrial complex? When republicans show some balls on cutting defense spending, then I will consider taking their rhetoric about the debt and debt ceiling seriously. Until then I just have to assume they will keep bloviating about the debt until a Republican takes office again, and then forget about it like they always do - ala Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter".

What was stupid about it, Bob?

[patteeu]

BTW, out fiscal problems weren't caused by defense spending. Over the past several decades, defense spending has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget. Entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt are where the budget busting growth comes from.

[Predarat]

Where is the option for "I'm I'm socially awkward and fiscally irresponsible."?

[BucEyedPea]

patteeu, using the GDP is sleight-of-hand. That gets used to make something seem less bad because it's just a percentage. GDP includes govt spending, and is itself a phony stat, and gets used for such shenanigans.

[Bo's Pelini]

Liberal and conservative

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

BTW, out fiscal problems weren't caused by defense spending. Over the past several decades, defense spending has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget. Entitlement spending and interest payments on the debt are where the budget busting growth comes from.

This is usually the kind of argument you make fun of--spending has increased, but it decreased as a percentage of something or other, so therefore the increase in spending, or the spending itself, doesn't matter.

[blaise]

For cosmo it just comes down to aligning his beliefs with Obama's.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

This is usually the kind of argument you make fun of--spending has increased, but it decreased as a percentage of something or other, so therefore the increase in spending, or the spending itself, doesn't matter.

No, that's not correct. I'm not suggesting that defense spending has been cut over the past few decades. Try again.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

For cosmo it just comes down to aligning his beliefs with Obama's.

Ouch, that hurt.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, that's not correct. I'm not suggesting that defense spending has been cut over the past few decades. Try again.

I never said you did. What you did do was dismiss defense spending as a fiscal issue because such spending "has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget." As if that means it is not a spending issue.

Spending on something could have increased exponentially, but if as a precentage of something else, it went down--then it is not an issue to you.

[A Salt Weapon]

I would consider myself socially libertarian and fiscally conservative.
Posted via Mobile Device

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I never said you did. What you did do was dismiss defense spending as a fiscal issue because such spending "has generally been declining as a fraction of both GDP and the federal budget." As if that means it is not a spending issue.

Spending on something could have increased exponentially, but if as a precentage of something else, it went down--then it is not an issue to you.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about here. If entitlement spending had declined as a fraction of GDP and the federal budget like defense spending has, we'd either be running massive surpluses or we'd have a balanced budget with dramatically lower tax rates.

The defense budget is not a source of our fiscal problems. At all. Principles of good government demand that we constantly review our defense budget against evolving requirements so we can cut unnecessary or wasteful spending and reallocate funding toward effective programs, but there is absolutely no justification for cutting defense in reaction to the fiscal problems we face.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You don't seem to know what you're talking about here. If entitlement spending had declined as a fraction of GDP and the federal budget like defense spending has, we'd either be running massive surpluses or we'd have a balanced budget with dramatically lower tax rates.

The defense budget is not a source of our fiscal problems. At all. Principles of good government demand that we constantly review our defense budget against evolving requirements so we can cut unnecessary or wasteful spending and reallocate funding toward effective programs, but there is absolutely no justification for cutting defense in reaction to the fiscal problems we face.

Put aside the actual issue of defense. You are saying that X is not a fiscal issue/problem, despite spending inceases in X, BECAUSE spending on X as a percentage of Y went down. That's a silly argument, and one you have attacked before.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Here's a Jonah Goldberg column on the subject that might apply to some of you:

The article doesn't fit me, FWIW, because the following aren't true (for me at least).

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

The tea party is whacky, I'll admit that.

So, Bob, as a “fiscal conservative,” what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork — Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! — from the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

I would agree with cutting those items. Amtrak I would need to examine, but we need to trim pretty much everywhere.

I would honestly agree to a -- pick a percentage -- across the board cut right now. 10% on EVERYTHING, starting tomorrow. That's not a good way to govern, and I don't want to double dip, but that's how strongly I feel about cutting.

You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.

errr...no, Obama is not an Eisenhower Republican.

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget constituted more than half the U.S. budget (today it’s a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing — fast. The country isn’t going broke, Bob, it is broke.

Actually, it's not broke, but it's rapidly heading that way. Very rapidly.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”

I haven't yawned, though I do acknowledge the difference in circumstances when Obama came into office, and the classical economic theory that you don't want to go into frugality mode while heading into a recession. Many European countries have introduced austerity, and now are thoroughly rethinking that because it has tanked their economy.

That said, there should be a very define and specific plan to reduce spending, raise taxes, and head back to fiscal solvency. Right now we're a runaway freight train heading for the cliff.

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama’s own convictions, you condemn them.

Not really. Republicans cherry pick what they want to attack, want to ignore the other side of the fiscal coin (taxes) and pretend that somehow there's a plan to return to a balanced budget. Their plan is ever so slightly better than the Democrats', because they are at least acting like they want to do *something*, but it's not much of a plan to be honest.

Romney's math never added up. Never came close. You can't really balance the deficit without touching military spending or taxes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple who retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will have paid about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said “we don’t have a spending problem,” it seemed to have no effect on you.

I could quibble with these numbers, but we do have a spending problem.

Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today’s Washington.

I wonder what Ike, he of the military-industrial-complex, would say about basically unlimited military spending that the Republicans think is an untouchable third rail. Not much.

I tend to agree Ike would take a flamethrower to Washington, but it wouldn't just be the Democrat side of the aisle he would torch...

I don’t expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you’re simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism, particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.[/indent]

I did vote Republican. Both Romney and Scott Brown.

So yeah, **** off Mr. Goldberg. Your smarmy, know-it-all, condescending article isn't accurate for me, just as it isn't accurate for many other socially liberal / fiscal conservatives who have no party of their own but are lost between two clueless parties who seem hellbent on fiscal insanity.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yeah, I don't really think they fit anyone very well.

I'm anxious to find someone who describes themselves as a fiscal liberal.

Just "liberal" would fit the bill.