Are you fiscally liberal or conservative?

[MJinZ]

Again, .

It has nothing to do with worshiping money, and everything to do with the fact that politically, social and fiscal policy can be different.

Look at me - I support MJ legalization, and don't support most federal welfare. Is that liberal or conservative to you?

Federal welfare is how willing you are to help people in need. The cynic says no.

Marijuana legalization is how rational you believe the legality to be. The rational says no to illegal marijuana.

You're conservative.

 

[Mursilis]

Federal welfare is how willing you are to help people in need.

That's far too simplistic. My opposition to federal welfare has nothing to do with an unwillingness to help others in need (and you don't even know me enough to disagree with that), and everything to do with not liking the methodology currently used.

 

[MJinZ]

That's far too simplistic. My opposition to federal welfare has nothing to do with an unwillingness to help others in need (and you don't even know me enough to disagree with that), and everything to do with not liking the methodology currently used.

Given your rationale, then you simply have logistic or procedural concerns that has nothing to do with the policy itself.

So no, I can not tell whether you are Conservative or Liberal because the same position from two diverging rationales determine that.

Example:

1) I support gay marriage ... because I think it is unfair to gay people to not be able to get married

vs

2) I support gay marriage ... because my son is Gay and I'll be damned if a son of mine is getting less than someone else.

 

[piasabird]

This is hard to quantify. Many people claim to be fiscally conservative, but will line up for a hand out. For instance if you claim the Hope school credit are you really fiscally conservative. The Tax exemption is out there so if you dont take it you are leaving money on the table. This is how liberal policy works. If you dont take their free money, then you end up paying for something you are not using. This is how socialism works.

So now most of the lower middle class is either not even paying taxes, or paying very little tax. We cant have the entire middle class not paying any taxes. Someone has to pay the bills.

Should I mention the Flat Tax would be a lot more fair?

 

[her209]

This is hard to quantify. Many people claim to be fiscally conservative, but will line up for a hand out. For instance if you claim the Hope school credit are you really fiscally conservative. The Tax exemption is out there so if you dont take it you are leaving money on the table. This is how liberal policy works. If you dont take their free money, then you end up paying for something you are not using. This is how socialism works.

A better example would have been, vote against ARRA, apply and claim credit for ARRA funds brought to your state/district.

 

[MJinZ]

This is hard to quantify. Many people claim to be fiscally conservative, but will line up for a hand out. For instance if you claim the Hope school credit are you really fiscally conservative. The Tax exemption is out there so if you dont take it you are leaving money on the table. This is how liberal policy works. If you dont take their free money, then you end up paying for something you are not using. This is how socialism works.

So now most of the lower middle class is either not even paying taxes, or paying very little tax. We cant have the entire middle class not paying any taxes. Someone has to pay the bills.

Should I mention the Flat Tax would be a lot more fair?

The "free money" isn't free. It's there to encourage infrastructural investments for the middle-class, tax breaks for buying houses and whatever.

The problem is that people don't really understand what conservative and liberal really means.

 

[piasabird]

Gay mariage is an oxymoronic term. The voice of California said Gay marrriage is not for them. They have spoken. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Nothing gay has anything to do with that. Gays can get married to the opposite sex if they want, so they have equal rights. The real problem is legal issues and tax issues in the tax code make it unfair to be a single parent or to be married or not married and the number of exemptions you can take.

I am against Medical MJ, but I am for just legalizing it. We waste so much money chasing people down and throwing them in jail for a little weed. Let them grow their own in the back yard or buy it.

 

[piasabird]

What is ARRA? signed cluless?

 

[MJinZ]

Gay mariage is an oxymoronic term. The voice of California said Gay marrriage is not for them. They have spoken. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Nothing gay has anything to do with that. Gays can get married to the opposite sex if they want, so they have equal rights. The real problem is legal issues and tax issues in the tax code make it unfair to be a single parent or to be married or not married and the number of exemptions you can take.

Yes, Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

And Blacks used to be slaves.

You are clearly conservative.

That, everyone is what a conservative is. Someone who wishes to keep the tradition and unwilling to progress.

 

[Uhtrinity]

That's because you're a moran.

Thanks for jumping straight to name calling. I guess there is a difference between being fiscally responsible vs fiscally conservative of which I am the former. My mistake ...

I see being fiscally responsible as spending money responsibly and for the best effect, not just, "cutting back on government growth and spending" as the Republicans always say, but never do.

The best video I have seen on the particular example I gave.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

How can someone argue that it is fiscally responsible for a nation to spend 15% GDP vs 7% as other developed nations?

/flamesuit on

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Quick Poll to see what ATPN financial beliefs are.


My definition of being fiscally conservative is someone who believes in a smaller government with less intervention in the market system. IE lower/no minimum wage. less monopoly rules/enforcement, a less steep income tax bracket ect.

For a fiscally liberal its someone who believes in larger government with more intervention in the market system. IE higher minimum wage. More monopoly rules/enforcement, a steeper income tax bracket ect.

Why can't I be both? This partisan type hackery is what is wrong with the political landscape today.


I believe there should be a wage floor, as I don't want greater slums and ghettos in the country I love. I also believe people who work for a living should be able to sustain some minimum way of life (shelter, food, clothes, etc.) I am fine with where the minimum wage is, and don't think it should be decreased.

I like regulation that protects the environment and markets from the sharks, I am a realist and know that some regulation will always be necessary. Conversely, I don't want that regulation to stifle innovation or growth. There is a middle ground here your definitions don't provide for.

Progressive tax structures make sense to me, and make sense to most people which is why we have them. I am not a fan of trickle-down theory, and don't think those tax cuts for the wealthy make it to the American worker. Although not perfect, i don't see a huge problem with the brackets as they were in the 90's which I think was better than the pre-Reagan ones anyway. Again, middle ground.

Small vs. Large government - I don't know. I like the idea of small government (One that plays its role efficiently and well), but don't see that it will ever shrink as people (both dems and rep) seem to want it to play an ever expanding role.

I voted liberal btw, but would have elected moderate if there was an option.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm both, depends on the issue.

 

[woolfe9999]

Even if the government were 100% efficient (and the Martians landed tomorrow), a big government will still spend more than a small government - therefore, it will take more money from the economy. So I find a small government to be a logical extension of fiscal conservatism.

You may be correct if the formulation is "fiscally conservative." I prefer to think of myself as an advocate of "fiscal responsibility." That means the government keeps its books balanced. So far as the role of government in society and the economy, for me it is case by case. I don't have a one size fits all ideological prefence for big or small government, which then tells me where I should come out on every individual issue. It's perfectly fine for people to have these ideological preferences, but strictly speaking it's a false dilemma.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

Recognizing the facts and living in a fantasy world are two different things.

I dont see that Gay marriage, as ironic as that term might be, having anything to do with progress. Hitler probably thought his ideas were progress also. Carl Marx probably thought his ideas was progress. The Kremlin and the premier of China probably thought communism was progress. It has not really worked out well for them has it?

Lying is not progress, it is just deception. The term you call Gay marriage represents some semblance of a change in society. I could live with some framework or method of recognizing same sex couples. It would not really affect me that much. It would probably not increase the balance of Gay and Straight people in world one bit. With all the legal issues marriage causes people, the Gay community should tread very carefully about what they want and the responsibility they will incur upon themselves to go down this road.

Cant wait for Gay Divorce! That might be interesting to watch on Judge Judy!

 

[MJinZ]

Why can't I be both? This partisan type hackery is what is wrong with the political landscape today.


I believe there should be a wage floor, as I don't want greater slums and ghettos in the country I love. I also believe people who work for a living should be able to sustain some minimum way of life (shelter, food, clothes, etc.) I am fine with where the minimum wage is, and don't think it should be decreased.

I like regulation that protects the environment and markets from the sharks, I am a realist and know that some regulation will always be necessary. Conversely, I don't want that regulation to stifle innovation or growth. There is a middle ground here your definitions don't provide for.

Progressive tax structures make sense to me, and make sense to most people which is why we have them. I am not a fan of trickle-down theory, and don't think those tax cuts for the wealthy make it to the American worker. Although not perfect, i don't see a huge problem with the brackets as they were in the 90's which I think was better than the pre-Reagan ones anyway. Again, middle ground.

Small vs. Large government - I don't know. I like the idea of small government (One that plays its role efficiently and well), but don't see that it will ever shrink as people (both dems and rep) seem to want it to play an ever expanding role.

I voted liberal btw, but would have elected moderate if there was an option.

You're a liberal.

The main difference between a liberal and conservative, I have found, is that a Liberal are often open-idealistic, and their liberal policies reflect a desire for that ideal. By open-idealistic, I mean they tend to want change in the direction of moral or ethical justice, more likely to project outwards towards the well being of others.

Conservatives on the other hand, tend to wish to remain the same in closed-idealism, and their policies reflect that desire. They do not want change, prefer tradition, and tend to project inwards focusing on policies that benefit themselves, and those who they associate with. This type of belief centers around the self, in individualism.

 

[MJinZ]

Recognizing the facts and living in a fantasy world are two different things.

I dont see that Gay marriage, as ironic as that term might be, having anything to do with progress. Hitler probably thought his ideas were progress also. Carl Marx probably thought his ideas was progress. The Kremlin and the premier of China probably thought communism was progress. It has not really worked out well for them has it?

Lying is not progress, it is just deception. The term you call Gay marriage represents some semblance of a change in society. I could live with some framework or method of recognizing same sex couples. It would not really affect me that much. It would probably not increase the balance of Gay and Straight people in world one bit. With all the legal issues marriage causes people, the Gay community should tread very carefully about what they want and the responsibility they will incur upon themselves to go down this road.

Cant wait for Gay Divorce! That might be interesting to watch on Judge Judy!

Gay divorce? Uh, marriage and divorce are equal here in States like Massachusetts. When was it, since 2003? So, yes, 7 years. Welcome to the 20th Century?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Liberal here.

 

[Steeplerot]

Fiscal conservatism is a myth. A big country take a big government to run it. Period. Underfunding programs for the sake of ideology = fail.
Although the "gubberment cant do anything right" crowd loves to point out that they are right, although they caused the fail in the first place by half assing what needs to be funded or regulated for a functional society and healthy economy.

 

[Cogman]

Why can't I be both? This partisan type hackery is what is wrong with the political landscape today.


I believe there should be a wage floor, as I don't want greater slums and ghettos in the country I love. I also believe people who work for a living should be able to sustain some minimum way of life (shelter, food, clothes, etc.) I am fine with where the minimum wage is, and don't think it should be decreased.

I like regulation that protects the environment and markets from the sharks, I am a realist and know that some regulation will always be necessary. Conversely, I don't want that regulation to stifle innovation or growth. There is a middle ground here your definitions don't provide for.

Progressive tax structures make sense to me, and make sense to most people which is why we have them. I am not a fan of trickle-down theory, and don't think those tax cuts for the wealthy make it to the American worker. Although not perfect, i don't see a huge problem with the brackets as they were in the 90's which I think was better than the pre-Reagan ones anyway. Again, middle ground.

Small vs. Large government - I don't know. I like the idea of small government (One that plays its role efficiently and well), but don't see that it will ever shrink as people (both dems and rep) seem to want it to play an ever expanding role.

I voted liberal btw, but would have elected moderate if there was an option.

You realize that you argued for the liberal approach for pretty much everything in the list. You didn't argue at all for a conservative approach, what you just argued was "I want the liberal approach, just not the extreme liberal approach."

No partisan hackery involved, the two policies are pretty much black and white different. There are extremes to either side, however, there really isn't a middle ground IMO.

 

[Steeplerot]

Fiscal Conservatism does not = Fiscal Responsibility.
Lot of partisan types here like to think so.
Everyone is for balancing the books and transparency in where they use the tax monies.
What the idealists are clueless about and makes them so laughable is fiscal responsibility includes having to raise taxes to PAY for all these toys "conservatives" love to fund like the big socialist military and its corporate welfare military industrial complex.
It's a matter of where you priorities lie, are you a wanna-be rich hoping to get tossed a bone like the serf you are soyou can someday be in their little "clique"? then fund the rich, how about we actually get a part of our investment back instead of the top 2%? This is supposedly "liberal". It's a bunk argument.
We live in a first world nation, infrastructure and programs must be funded, whether Rush tells you its tyranny or not. Reality is a bitch.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

You realize that you argued for the liberal approach for pretty much everything in the list. You didn't argue at all for a conservative approach, what you just argued was "I want the liberal approach, just not the extreme liberal approach."

No partisan hackery involved, the two policies are pretty much black and white different. There are extremes to either side, however, there really isn't a middle ground IMO.

I am not saying the policies aren't different, I am saying my opinion is - it is the internet and you provided a poll with only two choices. I don't fit into either box, I don't see the world in black or white terms because often both sides have a little truth to them. When you don't see that, it IS partisan.

Just because you see my middle ground as liberal, it does not make it so. So because I fell we need some regulation am I automatically a liberal?

 

[Cogman]

I am not saying the policies aren't different, I am saying my opinion is - it is the internet and you provided a poll with only two choices. I don't fit into either box, I don't see the world in black or white terms because often both sides have a little truth to them. When you don't see that, it IS partisan.

Just because you see my middle ground as liberal, it does not make it so. So because I fell we need some regulation am I automatically a liberal?

No, it doesn't automatically make you a fiscal liberal. The tipping point is up to you.

However, regulations, in any form, is a policy of the fiscally liberal. fiscal conservatism doesn't allow for it and tries to limit or reduce it.

Let me put it this way. Currently, if you think we need to expand regulation you are fiscally liberal. If you think we should reduce, you are conservative. The same goes for the rest of the policies. If you truly think, on every financial policy, that the US government is being run perfectly, then I will let you be a moderate. However, considering pretty much nobody but the uniformed thinks things are going swimmingly so I can't imagine there is a whole lot of truly moderate people out there.

I can understand the argument that maybe one policy you are for expanding, and another you are against expanding. The question is, are you generally for expansion or against it.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

No, it doesn't automatically make you a fiscal liberal. The tipping point is up to you.

However, regulations, in any form, is a policy of the fiscally liberal. fiscal conservatism doesn't allow for it and tries to limit or reduce it.

Let me put it this way. Currently, if you think we need to expand regulation you are fiscally liberal. If you think we should reduce, you are conservative. The same goes for the rest of the policies. If you truly think, on every financial policy, that the US government is being run perfectly, then I will let you be a moderate. However, considering pretty much nobody but the uniformed thinks things are going swimmingly so I can't imagine there is a whole lot of truly moderate people out there.

I can understand the argument that maybe one policy you are for expanding, and another you are against expanding. The question is, are you generally for expansion or against it.

Depends on the issue. But let me ask you a question - Do you feel any regulation is needed? If you do at what point does a conservative say enough is enough or is it always a sliding scale?

 

[sandorski]

"Conservatives" will disagree, but I am Fiscally Conservative. The difference is all in the Definition.

1) Balanced or at least an attempt at Balanced Budgets

2) Like Wolfe, Government Size does not matter. It's all about Government doing what it can do better than the Private Sector. Even including Healthcare.

3) Taxes/Fees/Revenues should equal Expenditures(related to #1). This does not always mean Increasing them, but if the Voting Public complains about Taxes/Fees, then you need to Cut Expenditures. If they complain about that, you need to make clear to them that they can't have it both ways. aka, don 't start Borrowing/Deficit Spending because the Voting Public can't make a choice between Taxes/Fees and Service Cuts. The Government in Power needs to do what's best for the Fiscal position of the Nation, not what will get Votes.

4) Keynesian Fiscal Policy. Specifically Surplus/Balance/Decreased Expenditures during Economic Growth and Deficit(if need be)/Increased Expenditures during Recession.

I realize this point really irks the "Conservatives", but it's just a good Prudent Fiscal Policy.

5) Deficit and Debt are not Good, but sometimes necessary. "Conservatives" have become too caught up in Debt Management and running Government based upon Debt% of GDP and other such nonsense for far too long. They should have Paid off the Debt by now. This is why I chuckle at "Conservatives" and their attempts at seeming more Responsible in Fiscal matters. They simply are not and have 30 Years of Failure to show it.

 

[Cogman]

Depends on the issue. But let me ask you a question - Do you feel any regulation is needed? If you do at what point does a conservative say enough is enough or is it always a sliding scale?

I'd say it is always on a sliding scale. Personally, I believe some regulation is needed. However, I also believe that a conservative/liberal is relative to the moment. For example, at one point womens rights was a very liberal notion.