Fiscal conservative ,Social Progressive..

[UNCatTech]

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?

I've never read anything from a fiscal conservative that would align with raising taxes for any reason.

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

We see the same where I live with the SPLOST. People whinning about roads but vote against the funding.

 

[heel79]

What are your specific issues with how tax revenue is spent?

I see incredible waste. The government answer is always to throw more money at a problem. Do you think government is efficient in spending tax dollars?

 

[Paine]

I see incredible waste. The government answer is always to throw more money at a problem. Do you think government is efficient in spending tax dollars?

Where is that waste though?

Because I agree that the government is often inefficient in spending. That’s what rodo is getting at. What’s driving the inefficiency?

Often times, the party who has cried most about government waste has been a driver of this waste.

Look at something like the Truman Committee in WWII. It was a committee that focused on how private companies were screwing the federal government by war profiteering.

The Republican Party seems to only focus on what they perceive as waste or inefficiency in the few government programs that are designed to help vulnerable people, like Medicare and Medicaid.

The best way to cut inefficiency and waste in a lot of these programs is to simplify them through universality. That would drastically cut down on bureaucratic waste.

Again, it would be helpful to know what specific programs you’re talking about in terms of waste and inefficiency.

 

[rodoheel]

I see incredible waste. The government answer is always to throw more money at a problem. Do you think government is efficient in spending tax dollars?

That is an extremely vague answer. You see waste where? Give me an actual example. Lots of people love to talk about government waste and repeat apocryphal stories about $1k hammers and $25k toilets; few people have ever looked at a real government budget or tried to engage with it in any detail. Give me a program, or department, or whatever that you think is a good example of waste. I know you're a journalist and have looked into these things before, at least at the local level.

Is government "efficient" in spending tax dollars? It's an impossible question to answer. Some departments and agencies and programs and states and cities and counties are better at it than others, for all sorts of reasons. Their efficiency is and should be questioned, and work done to attempt to improve it as much as possible. But much of the criticism that public institutions take is over things they're doing that can't be as efficient as private industry because the goal is to provide a service, not to make a profit. Public schools, unlike private schools, have to take every kid in their district, no matter how difficult they are to educate. The USPS, unlike UPS or FedEx, has to deliver mail to every official address in the country, no matter how remote it is, and they can't charge extra because the site is a cabin in the mountains. DOT has to build and maintain every public road, no matter how many people use it or how environmental factors may make it difficult to do so.

No one has ever claimed that government is perfect. There is and should be oversight and accountability over government spending. Governments are made up of people; those people have varying levels of competence and motivation and energy. But the same is true of private industry, and often accusations of government spending are really boiled down to cost overruns by the private contractors they're constantly working with, not because of anything the "government" did.

 

[Centerpiece]

The reasonable term would be fiscally “responsible”. With 100% accountability. Fund the things that make sense and help the folks, the folks that need it or don’t “have”. The irresponsible things like corporate handouts, $500 hammers for the military, tax cuts for the Uber wealthy, etc. are not fiscally sound policies.

Funding things like schools, school lunches, services for the poor, disabled, child tax credits, roads, bridges, all other infrastructure, public safety, a sensible military budget that is efficient and accountable, things that aren’t duplicitous… tax me for all of that. But also tax the fat cats and corporations to the teeth to help pay for all of that too. Just do it in an efficient and reasonable manner so that every body and every entity pays their fair share. Is that too much to ask?

VP Harris nails this.
Loser Trump not so much…

It is possible to be “fiscally responsible” (or reasonable) and “socially progressive” at the same time.

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

I agree with much of what you have presented here.

For me this isn't what I hear from most claiming to be fiscal conservative.

You are not against raising taxes, if needed, that's a nonstarter for most fiscal conservatives.

 

[heel79]

That is an extremely vague answer. You see waste where? Give me an actual example. Lots of people love to talk about government waste and repeat apocryphal stories about $1k hammers and $25k toilets; few people have ever looked at a real government budget or tried to engage with it in any detail. Give me a program, or department, or whatever that you think is a good example of waste. I know you're a journalist and have looked into these things before, at least at the local level.

Is government "efficient" in spending tax dollars? It's an impossible question to answer. Some departments and agencies and programs and states and cities and counties are better at it than others, for all sorts of reasons. Their efficiency is and should be questioned, and work done to attempt to improve it as much as possible. But much of the criticism that public institutions take is over things they're doing that can't be as efficient as private industry because the goal is to provide a service, not to make a profit. Public schools, unlike private schools, have to take every kid in their district, no matter how difficult they are to educate. The USPS, unlike UPS or FedEx, has to deliver mail to every official address in the country, no matter how remote it is, and they can't charge extra because the site is a cabin in the mountains. DOT has to build and maintain every public road, no matter how many people use it or how environmental factors may make it difficult to do so.

No one has ever claimed that government is perfect. There is and should be oversight and accountability over government spending. Governments are made up of people; those people have varying levels of competence and motivation and energy. But the same is true of private industry, and often accusations of government spending are really boiled down to cost overruns by the private contractors they're constantly working with, not because of anything the "government" did.

I don't have time to get into it but I have no issue with Medicaid, Medicare or SS. I know a lot of people working for road construction, local contractors, and they share stories. Education is another one, it is always that we do not spend enough, and never about choice, holding teachers accountable, whatever. But I am not against programs that help the poor. As one example people went crazy locally when it was decided that all school children would get free lunch, even the rich kids. What we found out, and editorialized on, was that it was actually more efficient to feed all for free than to identify those small percentage who did not qualify and charge them. Also don't want to derail the thread. My point mainly is I don't mind paying taxes, but I do think there is a lot of wasteful spending.

 

[SnoopRob]

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.

A couple of notes...

1) No one believes that "every funded program should remain in place forever". Nor do folks believe that a program should continue unchanged "even if ineffective or no longer needed". Those ideas are nothing more than strawmen. Everyone would agree that a program that isn't producing the desired results "should be scrapped or re-evaluated", the disagreement comes from differing opinions on how to best determine the desired results and then how to address programs that aren't providing those results. Do you scrap vs. retool? Do you provide more funds in order to try to meet the goals of the program or no? The idea that folks want underperforming programs to continue on indefinitely is simply not accurate in any real way.

2) Government will never be as efficient as the private sector. Government typically takes on the issues and projects that the private sector can't or is unwilling to do effectively or, in some cases, the issues that the private sector creates by its actions. If the private sector could do the work that the government is doing effectively and efficiently, they'd largely be doing those things and they wouldn't be left to the government to take on. So the idea that the government needs to be as effective and efficient as the private sector is a fallacy created solely to make the government look bad by comparison when the government is largely taking on issues and programs where the private sector has either failed or is unwilling to address.

 

[heelinhell]

I've never understood why a "fiscal conservative" would vote for a GQP candidate

 

[Kraftyheel89]

A few more points since I explained my stance as a social moderate and fiscal conservative.

I agree, many if not most of the self proclaimed fiscal conservatives in rural areas and the heartland just automatically state that taxes are too high and they are supporting lazy people (just as they have been taught on talk radio). I have actually debated many of these fools online, why I bother I'm not sure. It is usually after they complain about all the handouts for lazy people. I don't know their personal situations but probably not far off. I tell them. if you are married with a household income of 50K and 3 kids, you ain't paying jack to anybody else. In fact YOU are being subsidized and a welfare recipient. The avg. annual cost of public school was $6K per year (that was ten years ago). So you are getting an annual benefit of $18K per year. More than you pay in taxes. So you aren't even helping with the rest, military spending, roads and public parks used, etc.

And of course there is another group that are just greedy bastards.

Rodo, it has been so long since we have had any public or even political discourse on specific programs, that I don't have any specific detailed examples off the top if my head. But I know there are so many (big programs, not a 25K toilet, or $1K hammer).

When I give to charity, I always look at factual data of what percentage actually goes to intended use. There is always reasonable overhead, so I'm not looking for 100% or even 95%. But I sure as hell am not going to donate to one where only 50-60% goes to actual cause, and the rest to unnecessary bloat or enriching the players.

I'd say many Gov. programs are closer to the latter, and there is no reason those programs can't be more efficient, other than no accountability.

 

[rodoheel]

I don't have time to get into it but I have no issue with Medicaid, Medicare or SS. I know a lot of people working for road construction, local contractors, and they share stories. Education is another one, it is always that we do not spend enough, and never about choice, holding teachers accountable, whatever. But I am not against programs that help the poor. As one example people went crazy locally when it was decided that all school children would get free lunch, even the rich kids. What we found out, and editorialized on, was that it was actually more efficient to feed all for free than to identify those small percentage who did not qualify and charge them. Also don't want to derail the thread. My point mainly is I don't mind paying taxes, but I do think there is a lot of wasteful spending.

I mean, that's all fair enough, but nothing concrete beyond secondhand anecdotes and vague references to education. What is an example of money being "wasted" in education?

How do you propose holding public school teachers accountable in a way that accounts for the fact that they can't choose their students or their resources? How is it going to help to fire a bunch of teachers when there are none waiting to replace them? You want to reduce their pay, which already generally lags well behind what teachers are paid in other states? Want to make them run laps with the football team if their test scores aren't high enough? Likely all you'll do is further reduce supply of qualified people who actually want public teaching jobs.

 

[rodoheel]

A few more points since I explained my stance as a social moderate and fiscal conservative.

I agree, many if not most of the self proclaimed fiscal conservatives in rural areas and the heartland just automatically state that taxes are too high and they are supporting lazy people (just as they have been taught on talk radio). I have actually debated many of these fools online, why I bother I'm not sure. It is usually after they complain about all the handouts for lazy people. I don't know their personal situations but probably not far off. I tell them. if you are married with a household income of 50K and 3 kids, you ain't paying jack to anybody else. In fact YOU are being subsidized and a welfare recipient. The avg. annual cost of public school was $6K per year (that was ten years ago). So you are getting an annual benefit of $18K per year. More than you pay in taxes. So you aren't even helping with the rest, military spending, roads and public parks used, etc.

And of course there is another group that are just greedy bastards.

Rodo, it has been so long since we have had any public or even political discourse on specific programs, that I don't have any specific detailed examples off the top if my head. But I know there are so many (big programs, not a 25K toilet, or $1K hammer).

When I give to charity, I always look at factual data of what percentage actually goes to intended use. There is always reasonable overhead, so I'm not looking for 100% or even 95%. But I sure as hell am not going to donate to one where only 50-60% goes to actual cause, and the rest to unnecessary bloat or enriching the players.

I'd say many Gov. programs are closer to the latter, and there is no reason those programs can't be more efficient, other than no accountability.

Fair enough. When you have a little while, I would suggest you look at, say, federal department budgets and records to get a better sense for what they are really spending money on. One that many conservatives currently love to talk about cutting is the Department of Education. A certain poster on this board, within the last few weeks, was approving of Vivek Ramaswamy's proposal to cut the Department of Education budget by 75%. That same poster claimed it would be great to get the money to the actual schools and teachers rather than enriching the "bureaucrats" in the Department of Education. But you can look at the budget for yourself and see how little of the Department's budget goes to "bureaucrats":

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget25/summary/25summary.pdf

Budgets for all federal departments are public information; same for state and local governments, I would suggest that anyone who is serious about arguing that such expenditures are "wasted" or "bloated" actually educate themself about the easily available facts before opining on what should be cut. And the idea that government programs lack "accountability" for their budgets is simply a fiction.

 

[Peppers49]

I mean, that's all fair enough, but nothing concrete beyond secondhand anecdotes and vague references to education. What is an example of money being "wasted" in education?

How do you propose holding public school teachers accountable in a way that accounts for the fact that they can't choose their students or their resources? How is it going to help to fire a bunch of teachers when there are none waiting to replace them? You want to reduce their pay, which already generally lags well behind what teachers are paid in other states? Want to make them run laps with the football team if their test scores aren't high enough? Likely all you'll do is further reduce supply of qualified people who actually want public teaching jobs.

Hilarious that his one example is education.

Yes, one of the most critical yet under resourced pieces of our society needs more austerity. Genius.

 

[BubbaOtis]

I've never read anything from a fiscal conservative that would align with raising taxes for any reason.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and I'd support higher taxes if it was part of a plan to eliminate the deficit. But inevitably any increase in tax revenue gets spent rather than applied to the national debt. For instance, Kamala's billionaire net worth tax includes plans to use 80 percent of it for middle class tax cuts, iirc.

 

[farce©]

Education is another one, it is always that we do not spend enough, and never about choice, holding teachers accountable, whatever.

How do you hold teachers accountable for their parents being pieces of shit? "Holding teachers accountable" to right wing assholes means monitoring what they say in class, posting their lesson plans on the school website and dealing with every nit a parent chooses to pick. It's the end of quarter and a teacher gets an email from a parent that little Johnny is missing some assignments and needs to complete them. Then they ask how to log on to the system to find the assignments. It's the end of the quarter and they've never logged on to the system? The instructions are in the weekly newsletter sent to all the parents in the class. "What newsletter?" the parent asks. They've never bothered to read the newsletter with all the info that answers their questions before they ask it.

Every day my wife gets email from parents asking questions that were in the newsletter. Or they ask stupid questions about when Christmas vacation starts, which was on the calendar every parent received and of course it is on the website, but no, they expect personal answers from the teacher at 9 PM. They think she is their child's private nanny and should know about every interaction with every other kid in the classroom, lunchroom, or playground. "Did you know Billy Green was using profanity on the basketball court last Tuesday. Little Johnny was horrified!" Sorry, the teacher was in an IEP meeting with a different parent during what was supposed to be her break so she could pee.

But by all means let's hold teacher accountable.

 

[mpaer]

br

How do you hold teachers accountable for their parents being pieces of shit? "Holding teachers accountable" to right wing assholes means monitoring what they say in class, posting their lesson plans on the school website and dealing with every nit a parent chooses to pick. It's the end of quarter and a teacher gets an email from a parent that little Johnny is missing some assignments and needs to complete them. Then they ask how to log on to the system to find the assignments. It's the end of the quarter and they've never logged on to the system? The instructions are in the weekly newsletter sent to all the parents in the class. "What newsletter?" the parent asks. They've never bothered to read the newsletter with all the info that answers their questions before they ask it.

Every day my wife gets email from parents asking questions that were in the newsletter. Or they ask stupid questions about when Christmas vacation starts, which was on the calendar every parent received and of course it is on the website, but no, they expect personal answers from the teacher at 9 PM. They think she is their child's private nanny and should know about every interaction with every other kid in the classroom, lunchroom, or playground. "Did you know Billy Green was using profanity on the basketball court last Tuesday. Little Johnny was horrified!" Sorry, the teacher was in an IEP meeting with a different parent during what was supposed to be her break so she could pee.

But by all means let's hold teacher accountable.

bravo

 

[ChileG]

I've never read anything from a fiscal conservative that would align with raising taxes for any reason.

You read my post.

 

[EhringhausSouth]

What if someone was the opposite? Economic/Fiscal liberal or heavily Keynesian but super conservative on social issues? That would describe my wife. DOn't see those types much. Social Issues are more important for her, which is why she votes Republican most of the time. But never a straight ticket. She did go for Stein for NC Gov.

 

[Paine]

What if someone was the opposite? Economic/Fiscal liberal or heavily Keynesian but super conservative on social issues? That would describe my wife. DOn't see those types much. Social Issues are more important for her, which is why she votes Republican most of the time. But never a straight ticket. She did go for Stein for NC Gov.

Honesty, people with those beliefs make more sense to me than the other way around.