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.

[Fat Elvis]

I think a lack of universal healthcare is morally and fiscally insane.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm on the right:

More rungs? Keep pulling; if they grab that bottom one, they will destroy us all....

[listopencil]

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, "liberal" and "conservative" have all but lost their meaning in modern political terms. I believe that the government's job is to empower its citizens mostly by staying the **** out of the way. When that is not possible, enforce a system of laws that help protect individuals and their property. I don't believe in victimless crime. I think the only people who should be imprisoned are those that have demonstrated that they view their fellow humans as prey. I think fines should also be in place for those that display willful and/or dangerous neglect. I think that our laws should reflect those two principles. Individuals, or groups of consenting individuals, should be allowed to participate in any activities outside of those principles. That includes recreational drug use, gambling, prostitution, any form of marriage as a social contract between any number of adults, assisted suicide, abortions as determined by the mother and her physician, pornography and probably others that have slipped my mind. I am willing to accept socialist/collectivist programs that serve a clear and definite purpose. Public schools. The reduced/free school lunch program. Aid and counseling for the abused, handicapped or elderly. The military. Police forces, fire fighters and other emergency personnel. I have described myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in the past because it's hard to really describe my stances in modern terms. Probably because the Republican'ts and the Democraps have bastardized any and every ideological identifier that ever had any positive connotations. Like I said, it's hard to describe my stances with a few buzz words or catch phrases. Most of all, I know what I want America to be. The bucket of shit that we have right now...this ain't it folks.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

I think a lack of universal healthcare is morally and fiscally insane.

How about eliminating the system of state insurance commissioners, and allowing insurance companies to act across state lines?

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

FishingRod you subscribe to the left's idea of a "living Constitution" which expands the Federal govts powers beyond what was delegated.


That power was not vested by the Constitution. And general would apply to all not special interest groups including those that have been victimized by the weather.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — Tenth Amendment

So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

You nailed it. That's exactly the scenario that we fear most.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Socially liberal on most stuff except abortion, which is never going to change no matter how many people I count as murderers.

You are pro choice, are you not?

You've said as much.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

That's not the scenario I commented on based on what you stated.

A navy ship is federal property under the Constitution. That is with a capital "C" not a lower case "c" which you used.

Article I, Section. 8

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

It helps to read the list of enumerated powers.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I'm a modern woman
Of the millennium,
Kept but free
Buyin' freeze-dried
Vacuum-packed goods
I will survive

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

I think a lack of universal healthcare is morally and fiscally insane.

Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Chavez agree with you.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You are pro choice, are you not?

No. I see no choice.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well a hand up shouldn't require much money, it's just a matter of opportunity.

The "hand up" line I'm hearing all over the place from the left. It sounds more like spin. Especially when over 80% liked their healthcare already.

I would envision it as a limit on $ we will help you out get back on your feet.

It's in the taxpayer/society's interest to get that person off the taxpayer dime and onto the tax paying rolls.

But, just because you lost a job, got a divorce, lost your home or whatever caused you to be down on your luck doesn't mean society owes you years or thousands of $'s of support why you get back on your feet.

I could envision a scenerio where we will put you on welfare, sign for a loan to take a CNA course or some field that there is a shortage of qualified people. Some type of training that takes 6-8 months. After you graduate, start paying taxes, you can continue your education at night to something better on your own.

You just want to take cash, or not go to school or better yourself. You don't get shit.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You are pro choice, are you not?

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

No. I see no choice.

*scratches head*

Do you believe that abortion should remain legal?

EDIT: Here's why I'm confused. This is from a previous thread on the issue:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You are not pro-life?

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Not politically or legally.

So you do not describe yourself as pro-choice or pro-life. How would you describe your position?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I would envision it as a limit on $ we will help you out get back on your feet.

It's in the taxpayer/society's interest to get that person off the taxpayer dime and onto the tax paying rolls.

It's also in the Fed's interest to not give them anything and leave it to the states, where it would be temporary because they can't print money to keep the game from expanding.

Now, if you're arguing for limits, then we can't keep expanding the welfare state with things like Obamacare where there's even more subsidies for the most expensive item a person needs.

So if you really feel this way, BRC, then I don't understand how Obama is your man.

[Direckshun]

For what it's worth, there's not a lot of information on the internet in general about fiscal liberalism. Try googling it.

I've defined what I believe to be fiscal liberalism before on this forum, before. Here's how I phrased it:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm a supporter of capitalism and private-owned enterprise over government-owned industry. I believe a free market is the engine of a progressive society, and the invisible hand can not only drive forward the quality of life for everybody in that market, it can also empower a nation to the extraordinary extent that it can serve as a powerful guide for other nations attempting to do the same.

At the same time, I believe that there are in-built defects of capitalism -- it is a competition, after all. And you're going to have people who win, and people who don't win. People who thrive, people who get by, and people who struggle. It's impossible to have a capitalist system where you don't also have poverty, homelessness, unemployment, starvation... So I do believe in a safety net provided by those who are getting by to help out those who aren't. This does necessitate more collective action through the government, but that's why I also believe in separation of powers, checks and balances, and absolute government accountability and hate any organizations (including the White House itself) that resist any of these.

Capitalism in general is an inequality creator, which isn't inherently bad but inequality can have some poisonous defects, some of which I highlighted in the above paragraph. Inequality can, for instance, put people in extreme positions of power over others, and allow some entities to openly abuse others. In these instances I favor strong, reasonable, accountable regulation of these entities to protect the least of our brothers and sisters.

I believe this is "fiscal liberalism."