archer wrote: since you asked.....I believe the gov't should be run much the way a prudent family, or in my case a single mom, runs their household. You don't spend more than you take in, and you take every opportunity to save the surplus for the social programs and such rainy days as may occur (for our gov't, a couple of wars qualifies). First......when you have a surplus, you sock it away for the future.....I saved what ever I could to use for my kids educations (yeah, that's a social program I felt strongly about, both kids got help from me to get their degrees, in my daughters case 3 degrees) I also saved for retirement....another household social program. When you have a surplus, you don't go to your employer and say....hey I have extra money you don't have to pay me as much, like Bush went to the citizens and said, hey we have a gov't surplus here's your money back. Dumb.
If your income goes down, you cut back on non-essentials.....our government should do the same. If you aren't making enough to cover the social programs (I took on a second job to help the last kid thru school). The gov't can either raise taxes....horrors, or they can start making the hard decisions on earmarks, and other non-essential items in the budget. Like a family they need to learn how to do more with less......we all do it in our daily lives, our government does not.
The social liberal in me thinks much like someone who volunteers, gives to charity, feels that helping others is just as important as any other function of government. Social Security.....it is essential, too many seniors, especially women who have never worked, or held low paying jobs, could not save enough to fund their own retirement. Medicare.......same reasoning as above, I believe in giving seniors a break on healthcare costs once they are out of the workforce.......we want them to retire at a reasonable age and allow younger people to have those jobs and raise their families. Universal healthcare.....I believe when it all shakes out, this will end up saving more money then it costs......
I don't see fiscal conservative and social liberal as a problem, you have to determine your priorities and then fund them according to those priorities. Something else may have to give. If you want to live in this country, or a company wants to do business in this country, then they must pay their fair share to keeping the dream alive. Many do not......and that is an area of income that our elected officials refuse to explore for fear of angering either their constituents or their big doners.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Interesting Archer. That's what I meant by the details!
See, I always think of right to life, gay rights, immigration,...environment etc. as the social liberal issues that lead to people defining themselves as "Social Liberal and Fiscal Conservative". That is why I ask the question, to hear what others think.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. Allow Gay marriage, drug decriminalization, etc, but don't increase my taxes while decreasing the bureaucrats and regulation.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
