Fiscal conservative ,Social Progressive..

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpaer
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 105
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
mpaer

mpaer

Iconic Member
ZZL Supporter
Messages
1,381
I don't get this mantra. You either fund programs for Food , Healthcare,Housing Teacher and other Civil Servants pay-or you don't. And when you don't it has real consequences. I understand folks not liking taxes-but don't pretend you are a Social Progressive if you vote for low taxes at any level of gov't
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
People who use this label are meaning things like gay marriage, abortion rights, marijuana, etc.

They definitely don't want to pay taxes even if it's for free school lunches. If someone else pays for it, fine. But not them.
Click to expand...
Okay
That makes sense
 
mpaer said:
I don't get this mantra. You either fund programs for Food , Healthcare,Housing Teacher and other Civil Servants pay-or you don't. And when you don't it has real consequences. I understand folks not liking taxes-but don't pretend you are a Social Progressive if you vote for low taxes at any level of gov't
Click to expand...
People could make the argument that funding such programs is fiscally conservative, couldn’t they?
As long as you make the argument that investment in these things brings dividends later, or will cost less in the long run than the alternative.
Also, couldn’t one make the argument that raising taxes is fiscally conservative if you believe taxes are too low and leading to massive deficit spending?
 
The same people who complain most loudly about the traffic issues in Charlotte are the ones voting against the Transportation bonds. The estimated increase in property tax is $1 per $100,000 of assessed value, so if you have a $1 million house you can expect a property tax increase of $10 a year for the 20 year life of the bonds. They oppose public transportation, they want more roads, better roads, bigger roads but don't want to pay for it.
 
Nothing has made me have disdain for the fiscally conservative crowd than having a child with severe cognitive issues. These people would want to leave someone like my child on the street begging for food as an adult. It disgusts me.

I am doing all I can do to make sure that my son will be cared for. I am hoping to have at least a couple of million for him. But I could die early or become disabled or something before reaching that goal.
 
ChileG said:
People could make the argument that funding such programs is fiscally conservative, couldn’t they?
As long as you make the argument that investment in these things brings dividends later, or will cost less in the long run than the alternative.
Also, couldn’t one make the argument that raising taxes is fiscally conservative if you believe taxes are too low and leading to massive deficit spending?
Click to expand...
Bravo!!! I agree. Spending in most cases is an investment that pays dividends and KEEPS taxes low over the long run. Even spending on special needs children pays dividends.

Over the last 40 years or so, I have seen this at the local level. Communities that refuse to spend on investments in the name of keeping their property taxes low end up with HIGH property taxes!!!!! You simply can't attract others to invest in your community if they don't see the locals investing. Just never happens. Therefore, you don't get the outside industry and such that helps keep property taxes low.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Nothing has made me have disdain for the fiscally conservative crowd than having a child with severe cognitive issues. These people would want to leave someone like my child on the street begging for food as an adult. It disgusts me.
Click to expand...
Then have them arrested for begging. THEN complain about how much of their tax dollars is going to prisoners.

A lot of them are just greedy selfish bad people. Hard to get through to a person who at their core is not capable of goodness. It's how you end up with concentration camps and industrialized murder.
 
As one who has always considered himself somewhat fiscally conservative and socially moderate (I am no progressive, but an old school Pub non MAGA) -- I strongly disagree with the OP.

I can only speak for myself. But when I say socially moderate or left of center, I mean I supported gay marriage from day 1. I am generally supportive of LQBTQ equal rights, though I do not think trans women should compete in women's sports (though a tiny overall issue compared to the attention.) I support national legalized Marijuana. I am pro choice. I am against and religion in schools or public venues.

If you want to tie that into my more fiscally conservative views, fine. But it is not correct to say that one can not be both. I am not against higher and a fairer tax system. I believe our deficits and debt issues can only be resolved with both higher tax revenues and spending cuts (as Clinton did it.) Where I would disagree with most Dems on fiscal matters is that throwing ever more money at failed and inefficient programs us a disaster. I do not believe that increasing outlets for programs by less if an increase in previous years is an actual cut.

I believe there is tremendous bloat, inefficiences, and corruption in gov. funding projects. I disagree that every funded program should remain in place forever, even if ineffective or no longer needed. I believe politicians and programs should be held to account the same as in the private sector. If you are putting more and more money into a program with declining results, it should be scrapped or re-evaluated. More funding must equal better results and returns.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
As one who has always considered himself somewhat fiscally conservative and socially moderate (I am no progressive, but an old school Pub non MAGA) -- I strongly disagree with the OP.

I can only speak for myself. But when I say socially moderate or left of center, I mean I supported gay marriage from day 1. I am generally supportive of LQBTQ equal rights, though I do not think trans women should compete in women's sports (though a tiny overall issue compared to the attention.) I support national legalized Marijuana. I am pro choice. I am against and religion in schools or public venues.

If you want to tie that into my more fiscally conservative views, fine. But it is not correct to say that one can not be both. I am not against higher and a fairer tax system. I believe our deficits and debt issues can only be resolved with both higher tax revenues and spending cuts (as Clinton did it.) Where I would disagree with most Dems on fiscal matters is that throwing ever more money at failed and inefficient programs us a disaster. I do not believe that increasing outlets for programs by less if an increase in previous years is an actual cut.

I believe there is tremendous bloat, inefficiences, and corruption in gov. funding projects. I disagree that every funded program should remain in place forever, even if ineffective or no longer needed. I believe politicians and programs should be held to account the same as in the private sector. If you are putting more and more money into a program with declining results, it should be scrapped or re-evaluated. More funding must equal better results and returns.
Click to expand...
I was going to post but no need to now. Ditto. I don't mind paying taxes. I am lucky to be able to in a great country..My issue is how the money is spent.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
As one who has always considered himself somewhat fiscally conservative and socially moderate (I am no progressive, but an old school Pub non MAGA) -- I strongly disagree with the OP.

I can only speak for myself. But when I say socially moderate or left of center, I mean I supported gay marriage from day 1. I am generally supportive of LQBTQ equal rights, though I do not think trans women should compete in women's sports (though a tiny overall issue compared to the attention.) I support national legalized Marijuana. I am pro choice. I am against and religion in schools or public venues.

If you want to tie that into my more fiscally conservative views, fine. But it is not correct to say that one can not be both. I am not against higher and a fairer tax system. I believe our deficits and debt issues can only be resolved with both higher tax revenues and spending cuts (as Clinton did it.) Where I would disagree with most Dems on fiscal matters is that throwing ever more money at failed and inefficient programs us a disaster. I do not believe that increasing outlets for programs by less if an increase in previous years is an actual cut.

I believe there is tremendous bloat, inefficiences, and corruption in gov. funding projects. I disagree that every funded program should remain in place forever, even if ineffective or no longer needed. I believe politicians and programs should be held to account the same as in the private sector. If you are putting more and more money into a program with declining results, it should be scrapped or re-evaluated. More funding must equal better results and returns.
Click to expand...
I think this is all pretty fair. But what would you identify as an actual example of a "failed and inefficient program," and/or a "program with declining results," that we should stop spending money on?
 
Quite a bit of that inefficiency could be eliminated if we didn't have to offer up a sop to the social conservatives. What do you think would be the effect on the whole welfare system if the government was free to fund long term contraceptives like implants and IUDs that prevent unwanted pregnancies, abortions available as medically required and a system that feeds and educates the poor. Will we help some people who don't deserve it? Sure, but we might also help their kids that do. We'll also lower the illegitimacy rate and the costs of most social programs in America according to the results of pilot programs doing this. Somehow, it can't really be means tested without the weight of moral indignation on one side.
 
heel79 said:
I was going to post but no need to now. Ditto. I don't mind paying taxes. I am lucky to be able to in a great country..My issue is how the money is spent.
Click to expand...
What are your specific issues with how tax revenue is spent?
 
PTOHeel said:
Mostly they just want legal drugs.
Click to expand...
Sure hadn't been the worth the human damage to try to keep them illegal. No small part of the damage from drugs stem from the impurities of the drugs, the unknown dosages, the lack of rehab easily available , the circumstances in which they are obtained and where you get them. That doesn't even take into account that a greater availability could well drive the more dangerous drugs into a smaller share of the market.

If you spent the same money in education, rehabilitation and quality control, other than the fear factor from some that people are having some fun, we'd be better off.
 
One thing that should appeal to conservatives is eliminating or streamlining pointless means-testing in many programs that costs more money than it saves. Free school breakfast and lunch is a great litmus test. The moral and ethical case for it is obvious, and it has been proven over and over again that keeping children fed provides tremendous health and educational benefits. The pushback from conservatives is usually some version of "well I don't think we should be paying to feed the rich kids whose parents can already afford it." But the problem is, it takes so much work and money to establish any sort of means-testing that it simply isn't worth the savings. You have to create forms for every kid to fill out. You have to hire people to review the forms and follow up about errors or incorrectly filled out forms. You have to hire people to review the forms and decide who satisfies the means-testing requirements. You have to hire people to investigate alleged fraud on the means-testing forms. You have to establish a process by which people can appeal or follow up if they're wrongly denied benefits via means testing. And all this can simply be avoided by giving the food to all kids, which doesn't increase marginal costs all that much because you take advantage of economies of scale in ordering the food. Not to mention that you avoid creating the social stigma of being a "free lunch kid" at school. it's such a no brainer from a fiscal perspective, not just a moral and ethical perspective.

Another thing conservatives love to support is drug-testing recipients of various welfare programs. Because they don't want tax dollars supporting someone's drug habit. But this, of course, creates a ton of administrative expense. You have to perform the drug tests; you have to analyze the test results; you have to allow for an appeal process if people believe the results are incorrect; etc. And all to save fractions of the amount you are paying out in benefits; you'll be lucky if you even cover the administrative cost. Even if you have no moral objection to forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests to receive benefits (as many do) iit just doesn't make any sense from a fiscal perspective.
 
Last edited:
mpaer said:
I don't get this mantra. You either fund programs for Food , Healthcare,Housing Teacher and other Civil Servants pay-or you don't. And when you don't it has real consequences. I understand folks not liking taxes-but don't pretend you are a Social Progressive if you vote for low taxes at any level of gov't
Click to expand...
People who pay attention to the budgets, deficits, and debt of the federal government, since Reagan know the term fiscal conservative doesn't exist.
 
rodoheel said:
One thing that should appeal to conservatives is eliminating or streamlining pointless means-testing in many programs that costs more money than it saves. Free school breakfast and lunch is a great litmus test. The moral and ethical case for it is obvious, and it has been proven over and over again that keeping children fed provides tremendous health and educational benefits. The pushback from conservatives is usually some version of "well I don't think we should be paying to feed the rich kids whose parents can already afford it." But the problem is, it takes so much work and money to establish any sort of means-testing that it simply isn't worth the savings. You have to create forms for every kid to fill out. You have to hire people to review the forms and follow up about errors or incorrectly filled out forms. You have to hire people to review the forms and decide who satisfies the means-testing requirements. You have to hire people to investigate alleged fraud on the means-testing forms. You have to establish a process by which people can appeal or follow up if they're wrongly denied benefits via means testing. And all this can simply be avoided by giving the food to all kids, which doesn't increase marginal costs all that much because you take advantage of economies of scale in ordering the food. Not to mention that you avoid creating the social stigma of being a "free lunch kid" at school. it's such a no brainer from a fiscal perspective, not just a moral and ethical perspective.

Another thing conservatives love to support is drug-testing recipients of various welfare programs. Because they don't want tax dollars supporting someone's drug habit. But this, of course, creates a ton of administrative expense. You have to perform the drug tests; you have to analyze the test results; you have to allow for an appeal process if people believe the results are incorrect; etc. And all to save fractions of the amount you are paying out in benefits; you'll be lucky if you even cover the administrative cost. Even if you have no moral objection to forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests to receive benefits (as many do) iit just doesn't make any sense from a fiscal perspective.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top