Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: RY62
What a shocker...Dems are the majority in the House and Senate of the red state of Alabama as well.
A Democrat in Alabama and a Democrat in most of the US are not the same thing..
Although the Alabama Legislature is dominated by Democrats (with Democrats holding a 62-43 advantage in the House, and a 23-12 advantage in the Senate), the Legislature is considered one of the most conservative in the nation, with the majority of white Democrats being old school Conservative Democrats[...
- BallotPedia/q]
although they are somewhat differentiated by the Republicans in the legislature by being somewhat more
progressive on economic issues.
You chose to cut your quote in an odd place. I guess it didn't fit your argument. It's true that there is little difference between D and R on social issues in AL. It's all pretty much way to the right.
For this discussion, you brought up the economic issues of the "red state of Alabama". I don't think Republican fiscal conservatism is the root cause of those problems.
I considered that, and did not cut it because it didn't help my argument, but because in my opinion the larger point was expressed by the quoted text that the legislature is 'one of the most conservative in the nation'. You bolded 'in an odd place' insofar as you did not bold the word 'somewhat' - it seemed to me that the missing text could easily mislead to the wrong conclusion that 'somewhat' more progressive spending by these Democrats who are 'among the most conservative legislators in the nation' are like other liberal Dems.
So rather than quote that and then add my opinion why it could be misinterpreted, I kept it simpler. If the situation were that they really were 'Dems like the more liberal spenders in the nation', I wouldn't hae left it off, as that would change the facts. My arguments are based on the truth, so tf the facts say something that's an issue with my post, that's a reason to include them and modify my position, not to sweep them under the rug.
It was another poster who brought up 'the red state of Alabama' in this case, though I have at other times.
But this 'Republican fiscal conservatism' you mention is largely a myth, especially at the federal level. Basically, the Republicans have come to love debt - and not to be too honest in saying so. They've learned that they want to have their cake and eat it too - that there are political benefits to spending, and political benefits to SAYING they are against spending. The answer? Borrow.
The logic is perverted in that because the Dems are more honest in saying what they'll spend and Republicans SAY they want to spend less, even while in many cases wanting to spend as much or more, Republican voters say the Republicans are more fiscally conservative because they lie about spending. The voters look at the campaign statements, not the budgets. This is how Bush and his father and Reagan were 'fiscal conservatives' until the facts were too clear to contradict.
Republicans have learned that their political goals are nicely met by sending the bill to future taxpayers. Americans borrow irresponsibly, and vote for leaders who do the same.
Republicans do want to spend less, generally, in many areas that benefit the people, but provide less direct benefit to the wealthy. Sometimes they want to spend less overall.
There's more to fiscal conservatism than low spending, though. Higher spending on the well being of the people that's paid for with enogh taxes is more 'fiscally responsible' in my view than shifting that spending to wealthy donors, spending less, but running up the deficits by very large amounts.
Spending less and leaving the society without education, medical care, consumer protection, law enforcement and more is low spending, not 'fiscal responsibility'.
It's a fine debate to have, but the terms should reflect the facts.
Facebook
Twitter