Fiscal conservative, but social liberal

[Bruce]

I've heard a number of people giving themselves this title. My question is, what the hell is a fiscal liberal? Do you just give all your money to the poor or what?

 

[YoPopa]

If A frequently takes money from B and gives it to C, then A and C are both fiscal liberals.

Yo

 

[TragicMonkey]

Funnily enough, the B's who complain the most about giving up money are self-professedly devout followers of a religion that mandates charity, states that only the poor will receive afterlife benefits, and proclaims that material wealth is at best pointless, and at worst inherently corruptive.

 

[Tricky]

Actually, it depends on what the money is for. Lots of modern "fiscal conservatives" have no problems giving money to fund the military, nor do they have a big problem with so-called "corporate welfare". Fiscal liberals, by contrast, resent money being spent for the above items, but have no problem increasing taxes to fund schools, social programs (including welfare) and the arts. But it is a mistake to characterize fiscal liberals as "A frequently taking money from B to give it to C". More correctly, Fiscal liberals (A) take money from both A and B (fiscal conservatives) to give to A, B, and C (social programs etc.) Though to be fair, many fiscal liberal are also "C", the recipients of social programs. But many social conservatives are also recipients of social programs, though they may not recognize it.

I consider myself a fiscal liberal because I think social programs are more important than military spending and corporate welfare, but I am willing to back up my beliefs by paying my share. I make enough that I pay a pretty hefty tax burden too. However, I believe that there are plenty of places to cut government spending without cutting worthwhile social programs. I also believe that those who benefit most from our capitalistic government (the wealthy) should pay a proportionally greater burden of taxes. (For all of their complaining about being cheated via the "marriage penalty" and the "death tax", I don't know a single wealthy person who would give up being wealthy so they wouldn't have to pay these things.)

Of course, if you want to look at a real fiscal liberal who literally puts his money where his mouth is, you need look no farther than Bill Gates. He's made a megafortune off of our system, and now he's plowing a lot of it back into the system.

 

[RandFan]

We are going to take this out of order just so I can catch you off guard.

Of course, if you want to look at a real fiscal liberal who literally puts his money where his mouth is, you need look no farther than Bill Gates. He's made a megafortune off of our system, and now he's plowing a lot of it back into the system.

Seems to me that this would just make him a philanthropist and not a fiscal liberal. If you can demonstrate his advocacy of social programs then I would agree.

However, I believe that there are plenty of places to cut government spending without cutting worthwhile social programs.

Yes, let's keep the "worthwhile social programs". Question, what makes a social program worthwhile?

AIU, following the implementation of FDR's "New Deal", poverty was significantly reduced. However there seemed to be a point that it couldn't not be reduced any further. Johnson's "war on poverty" did not have as much impact to reduce overall poverty. There seems to be a point of diminishing returns. There is also evidence that too much spent on social programs (or spent unwisely or poorly managed) results in unintended consequences. And that is the other point. Government bureaucracies are often woefully inefficient and uncaring. They rely on numbers and rules. Often those that need help don't get it and those that don't, do.

I don't find social spending or social programs inherently bad. I do find that we should be wary of them. They have a way of creating dependency for those who use them and those who administer them.

As to military spending I agree with Eisenhower who admonished, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'd like to keep all of the money I make to myself and pay no taxes, where's that place me?

 

[AmateurScientist]

Fiscal refers to federal/state/local money, not one's own.

Randfan already covered it, but deciding to spend one's own money on philanthropic programs is not being fiscal. It's being charitable, voluntarily. There is nothing inconsistent with doing so and being fiscally conservative. It's a matter of whether one supports government's legitimate function as trying to administer social engineering and tending to the arts. By nearly all accounts, government really sucks at both of them.

AS

 

[Tricky]

Seems to me that this would just make him a philanthropist and not a fiscal liberal. If you can demonstrate his advocacy of social programs then I would agree.

First googled thing I came across.

The implied social policy of foundations says "it's as good to have private money going to private charitable purposes as it is to have money coming from the government for governmental purposes. It's significant," said Gates. And, in his mind, it's a social policy that works. Because foundations support such a wide array of issues, the giving most likely mirrors how taxpayers and the government would also spend their money. "Unquestionably, it generates a whole lot of value," he said. Foundations are especially important because they can use their money to take risks in research and cutting-edge social programs that the government can't afford.

Clearly he is saying that both philanthropists and government should be partners in social programs.

Yes, let's keep the "worthwhile social programs". Question, what makes a social program worthwhile?

The easy answer is "one that achieves its objectives". You could also add, "one that returns value". The hard part is evaluating this. Every social program is going to work sometimes and fail sometimes. Welfare is a classic example. People will find a way to abuse the system, but most of us would agree that it is not good to have people starving to death in our inner cities.

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that programs should be evaluated regularly for their effectiveness. We should have a social program just for that purpose.

AIU, following the implementation of FDR's "New Deal", poverty was significantly reduced. However there seemed to be a point that it couldn't not be reduced any further. Johnson's "war on poverty" did not have as much impact to reduce overall poverty.

I wasn't around for the New Deal, but it appeared to be one of the most effective social programs of all time, based on how people remember it. Hell, my parents spoke almost fondly of The Depression because, thanks to FDR, they lived through it and became stronger for it.

I was around for the Great Society, and while it may not have done as much to reduce poverty as the new deal, the change in the social structure during that age was phenomenal. Government-sanctioned racism pretty much came to an end.

There seems to be a point of diminishing returns. There is also evidence that too much spent on social programs (or spent unwisely or poorly managed) results in unintended consequences. And that is the other point. Government bureaucracies are often woefully inefficient and uncaring. They rely on numbers and rules. Often those that need help don't get it and those that don't, do.

It is true that bureaucracies are stodgy and inefficient, but in some ways that is their saving grace. You don't really want things changing rapidly all the time. And I shudder to think of having this sort of thing shifted to the private sector. Hell, come a problem, they'd just declare bankruptcy and pull out. Plus, government corruption is nothing compared to private corruption. But yes, there are always ways to do things better. Only rarely does it mean throwing something away and starting again.

I don't find social spending or social programs inherently bad. I do find that we should be wary of them. They have a way of creating dependency for those who use them and those who administer them.

That is a problem, and one we should address. Corporations, especially farms, have become addicted to government welfare. They should be able to make it on their own by now.

Yeah, lots of poor people too. Perhaps we could hire private investigation firms to identify welfare cheats, paying them with a percentage of the savings.

As to military spending I agree with Eisenhower who admonished, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Yeah, that quote has been getting a lot of airplay recently. We can but hope that people will finally start to listen to him. Of all the ways the government spends money, the military-industrial complex is probably the least efficient and most corrupt.

Dang it, RF, I hate it when I agree with you, you damn right-winger.

 

[RandFan]

I wasn't around for the New Deal, but it appeared to be one of the most effective social programs of all time, based on how people remember it. Hell, my parents spoke almost fondly of The Depression because, thanks to FDR, they lived through it and became stronger for it.

I avoided anecdotes for obvious reasons. I think we need more than anecdote. In any event your parent's analysis is problematic. Compared to what? Did they have a similar experience that they did not survive?

I was around for the Great Society, and while it may not have done as much to reduce poverty as the new deal, the change in the social structure during that age was phenomenal. Government-sanctioned racism pretty much came to an end.

There was much good including the Civil rights act of 1968 but the war on poverty had mixed results. I think that one of the most troubling aspects of the great society was HUD. Public housing has not been a model for social programs.

Dang it, RF, I hate it when I agree with you, you damn right-winger.

Well played.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Funnily enough, the B's who complain the most about giving up money are self-professedly devout followers of a religion that mandates charity, states that only the poor will receive afterlife benefits, and proclaims that material wealth is at best pointless, and at worst inherently corruptive.

Arguably, that means that we shouldn't be allowing the government to be corrupted by that money. It's a lot easier to be corrupted by money when it's not yours. And if they're really Christians, they almost certainly will be able to spend their money in a more Christian manner than the government.

Actually, it depends on what the money is for. Lots of modern "fiscal conservatives" have no problems giving money to fund the military, nor do they have a big problem with so-called "corporate welfare".

The military isn't giving money to people. And corporate welfare is hardly monopolized by conservatives, nor are all conservative okay with it. Didn't steel worker unions support the steel tariffs?

Fiscal liberals, by contrast, resent money being spent for the above items, but have no problem increasing taxes to fund schools, social programs (including welfare) and the arts.

Really? Here in California, the prototypical "blue" state, the Constitution was amended to make it almost impossible to raise either assessments or the tax rate on those assessments. There was recently an initiative for universal preschool and it was sold as being funded solely by taxes on the super rich. Apparently its writers didn't think that a general tax would fly, even if it's for preschool.

But it is a mistake to characterize fiscal liberals as "A frequently taking money from B to give it to C". More correctly, Fiscal liberals (A) take money from both A and B (fiscal conservatives) to give to A, B, and C (social programs etc.)

Even if that were true in some cases, it wouldn't make it a "mistake" to state the opposite as a general rule. Take the example of schools that you gave. Traditionally, they have been supported by property taxes. Since the poor don't own homes, they don't pay property taxes, at least not directly. The rich generally don't send their kids to public schools, and efforts to have the government compensate parents who send their kids to private school have generally met with great loathing on the part of liberals. So that's certainly a case of "Taking money from B and giving it to C". Not only do the rich pay more taxes, they pay more proportionally, and they use less public services. So taking "taking money from B to give it to C" certainly is an accurate assessment.

I also believe that those who benefit most from our capitalistic government (the wealthy) should pay a proportionally greater burden of taxes.

Actually, the poor benefit more than the rich. In other systems, the rich are even more powerful.

(For all of their complaining about being cheated via the "marriage penalty" and the "death tax", I don't know a single wealthy person who would give up being wealthy so they wouldn't have to pay these things.)

Well, of course not. If they're single, they don't have to worry about the marriage penalty.

Of course, if you want to look at a real fiscal liberal who literally puts his money where his mouth is, you need look no farther than Bill Gates.

Really? I've seen several news clips of him, and I've never seen any money in the vicintiy of his mouth.

Plus, government corruption is nothing compared to private corruption.

I really don't think thast's true, and even if it is, it's not our tax dollars.

 

[Cain]

Of course, if you want to look at a real fiscal liberal who literally puts his money where his mouth is, you need look no farther than Bill Gates. He's made a megafortune off of our system, and now he's plowing a lot of it back into the system.

Gates' father led a very public campaign against the Republican repeal of the "death tax."

Tricky's other post:

Welfare is a classic example. People will find a way to abuse the system, but most of us would agree that it is not good to have people starving to death in our inner cities.

And most people agree in principle with this basic idea. You will get different results based on terminology: "Do you support welfare?" versus "Do you support assistance to the poor?"

Jon Stewart recently said what people have been saying for a long time: Republicans are very good at taking control of government showing everyone how ineffective it is. Colbert made a similar crack about the Iraqi government at the White House Correspondents dinner.

AV writes:

Really? Here in California, the prototypical "blue" state, the Constitution was amended to make it almost impossible to raise either assessments or the tax rate on those assessments. There was recently an initiative for universal preschool and it was sold as being funded solely by taxes on the super rich. Apparently its writers didn't think that a general tax would fly, even if it's for preschool.

The same "prototypical 'blue'" state that passed prop. 22 back in 2000. The same state where the "liberal" LAT campaigned against prop. 82. And perhaps the writers also believed taxing the richest people was a bit more fair. Not that any of this has anything to do with anything important.

Actually, the poor benefit more than the rich. In other systems, the rich are even more powerful.

Of course they do! That's why we refer to them as "poor." If they didn't benefit as much we'd probably make up another word like -- oh, I dunno -- "rich"?? Anyway, your statement can be viewed, even if it's not your actual intention or belief, as being consistent with Rawls' second principle of justice: economic inequalities are arranged in such a way so as to benefit the least advantaged. This principle can be used to justify a wide-range of policies (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy indirectly help the poor via incredible economic growth). Isn't it curious how the people committed to fighting poverty tend to believe in disproportionately taxing the wealthy, while those who don't seem to give a fig about the poor too willing to blather on and on about how "well-meaning policies harm the very people they're supposed to help." It just so happens that we reside in a Panglossian world where the truth is all too convenient. The best way to help others is to help yourself, usually by being an amoral consumer who drives to the mall in an obscenely oversized SUV and buys a lot of stupid crap. The invisible hand works its magic.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Arguably, that means that we shouldn't be allowing the government to be corrupted by that money. It's a lot easier to be corrupted by money when it's not yours. And if they're really Christians, they almost certainly will be able to spend their money in a more Christian manner than the government.

Except they wouldn't then be rendering unto Caesar.

 

[Tricky]

The military isn't giving money to people. And corporate welfare is hardly monopolized by conservatives, nor are all conservative okay with it. Didn't steel worker unions support the steel tariffs?

The military gives money to arms manufacturers, or at least the military tries (with a pretty good degree of success) to give money to arms manufacturers. Its been reported that there may be kickbacks. Go figure.

I would not say that all unions are fiscal liberals, and certainly not all of their members. Besides, tariff money goes to the government, not to the industries, although they profit from the decreased competition.

Really? Here in California, the prototypical "blue" state, the Constitution was amended to make it almost impossible to raise either assessments or the tax rate on those assessments. There was recently an initiative for universal preschool and it was sold as being funded solely by taxes on the super rich. Apparently its writers didn't think that a general tax would fly, even if it's for preschool.

I hardly think of California, the state that gave us Nixon and Regan as the "prototypical blue state". Parts of it are, but others are very "red state-ish". But it is true that you cannot generalize about liberals or conservatives, either fiscally or liberally. Every situation is different.

Even if that were true in some cases, it wouldn't make it a "mistake" to state the opposite as a general rule. Take the example of schools that you gave. Traditionally, they have been supported by property taxes. Since the poor don't own homes, they don't pay property taxes, at least not directly.

Everybody who rents pays property taxes, although, as you note, not directly. But many states pay for schools through income taxes too. Others lean heavily on business taxes. But speaking in general terms, fiscal liberals want more of our tax dollars (from whatever source) spent on schools than do fiscal conservatives. This topic was (apparently) started to get some broad generalizations about the terms. That's all I'm trying to do.

The rich generally don't send their kids to public schools, and efforts to have the government compensate parents who send their kids to private school have generally met with great loathing on the part of liberals. So that's certainly a case of "Taking money from B and giving it to C". Not only do the rich pay more taxes, they pay more proportionally, and they use less public services. So taking "taking money from B to give it to C" certainly is an accurate assessment.

Except that the rich actually do benefit from public schools if you agree that having an educated populace is beneficial to everyone. Wealthy people need a labor pool in order to maintain their wealth, so in effect they are benefiting more from public services that keep that labor pool available and educated.

However, school financing is only one aspect of this question, so I don't want to hijack the thread.

Actually, the poor benefit more than the rich. In other systems, the rich are even more powerful.

While I agree that there are other places with a greater degree of plutocracy than here, I think it is illogical to say that poor benefit more than the rich. If this were the case, there would be more rich that wanted to swap places.

Well, of course not. If they're single, they don't have to worry about the marriage penalty.

LOL. Well, ya got me in a homophone of "single". I should have said I don't know "any" rich people who would swap places with a poor person other than in bad movies.

I really don't think that's true, and even if it is, it's not our tax dollars.

It relay doesn't matter if you call it "tax", but if it is something you have to pay, then it might as well be a tax. I think it has been shown that private companies can be just as bumbling as bureaucracies, and of course, they have less accountability. I'm not against private companies, but I think they don't do such a hot job of administering public services. I certainly haven't noticed that deregulating power companies in Texas has at all lowered energy costs, even adjusted for fuel prices.

 

[Just thinking]

Corporations, especially farms, have become addicted to government welfare. They should be able to make it on their own by now.

This is a sticky issue ... as I certainly would like farmers have to succeed like everyone else. But there is a problem ... where it is true that people can still get by quite nicely without American Motors cars, that is not the same for food (not even to mention food for livestock). And if a farmer decides that farming just isn't going to cut it any more and then goes to sell off the land to a developer, guess what -- that farm is gone ... forever. I have seen (in a brief period of time) many farms change over to McMansion estates; I have never seen it go the other way. Besides, local governments just love the increase in tax revenues now that the land is developed, so I doubt you'll find much resistance there.

I'm also not quite sure if addicted is the right word, as farming is not an easy occupation. The temptation to sell all those acres to developers and make more money all at once than a farmer might ever make in his life, and then to still remain a farmer, to me, shows more dedication than addiction. After all, if it was so good and addictive, why have so many gone the way of the dinosaur?

Remember -- virtually every time you sit down to eat, something on your menu was put there because of farming.

 

[Major Billy]

I've heard a number of people giving themselves this title. My question is, what the hell is a fiscal liberal? Do you just give all your money to the poor or what?

Judging from the evidence of the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, a 'fiscal liberal' is some who balances the budget and pays down the national debt.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Judging from the evidence of the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, a 'fiscal liberal' is some who balances the budget and pays down the national debt.

Are you implying that Clinton balanced the bugdet and paid off the national debt? Actually, as Democrats go, Clinton was towards the fiscally conservative side.

The same "prototypical 'blue'" state that passed prop. 22 back in 2000.

Can you name a single state that has voted for the legalization of same sex marriage?

And perhaps the writers also believed taxing the richest people was a bit more fair.

Yeah, selling it as only taxing a group that is so small as to be a miniscule portion of the electorate is really "fair". Notice that I keep including the phrase "selling". In fact, it included provisions that allowed for more broad financing. So it's not an issue of them only thinking that richest people should be taxed, but that only taxes on rich people should be put in the open.

Of course they do! That's why we refer to them as "poor." If they didn't benefit as much we'd probably make up another word like -- oh, I dunno -- "rich"??

Do you actually have a point?

The military gives money to arms manufacturers, or at least the military tries (with a pretty good degree of success) to give money to arms manufacturers. Its been reported that there may be kickbacks. Go figure.

True conservatives don't support giving money to arms manufacturers, they support paying money to arms manufacturers.

While I agree that there are other places with a greater degree of plutocracy than here, I think it is illogical to say that poor benefit more than the rich. If this were the case, there would be more rich that wanted to swap places.

Swap what places?

It relay doesn't matter if you call it "tax", but if it is something you have to pay, then it might as well be a tax.

There are more possible remedies.

I think it has been shown that private companies can be just as bumbling as bureaucracies, and of course, they have less accountability.

No, they have more. They are accountable both to their customers and their shareholders. The government is theoretically accountable to voters, but in practice that doesn't work so well.

I certainly haven't noticed that deregulating power companies in Texas has at all lowered energy costs, even adjusted for fuel prices.

How much real competition is there?

 

[Cain]

Can you name a single state that has voted for the legalization of same sex marriage?

The point is that California is not all that "blue." More than 60% of people voted for prop 22. If you're looking at "universal" preschool it has been implemented in "red" states (Oklahoma and Georgia).

Yeah, selling it as only taxing a group that is so small as to be a miniscule portion of the electorate is really "fair". Notice that I keep including the phrase "selling". In fact, it included provisions that allowed for more broad financing. So it's not an issue of them only thinking that richest people should be taxed, but that only taxes on rich people should be put in the open.

This is a different discussion entirely, what constitutes fairness and what people actually thought when voting.

Do you actually have a point?

You mean aside from identifying your absurdly Orwellian terminology?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The point is that California is not all that "blue." More than 60% of people voted for prop 22. If you're looking at "universal" preschool it has been implemented in "red" states (Oklahoma and Georgia).

And MY point was that opposition is not a red state thing. There were a lot of reasons why 82 failed. And pointing out specific issues doesn't contradict a general trend.

This is a different discussion entirely, what constitutes fairness and what people actually thought when voting.

Then why did you bring it up?

You mean aside from identifying your absurdly Orwellian terminology?

I mean any point at all. If you are capable of identifying my "Orwellian terminology", you have yet to demonstrate it.

 

[kittynh]

well socially liberal these days is not hating Canadians as much as you hate the French.


Old time Republican is another way of saying fiscally conservative socially liberal. Most of the leaders of the Republican party that embodied that are now dead.

The new Republican leaders are reptilian.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd like to keep all of the money I make to myself and pay no taxes, where's that place me?

By tradition, it would place you alongside those who seek immortality.