What "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" sounds like to me

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Fiscal conservatism: The belief that it is morally justified to let children that are poor, homeless, or undocumented starve to death and freeze to death in order to save money on the taxes of the well off (defined as top 50% of the country fiscally) and to cut government spending by 2% or so.

Now, don't get me wrong, I accept this label and I would call myself somebody that is fiscally conservative and I don't care how unpopular this makes me.

But if you don't agree with fiscal conservatism, I don't judge and it's totally understandable.

But most people who call themselves fiscally conservative, socially liberal; I call them the Anti-Trump Republicans; people who are fine with letting children starve and freeze to death in order to save money on their taxes and to cut government spending; but hate Trump for talking without a filter.

Fiscal conservatives; you know who you are.  Own it; understand that in a world where everyone understands what the label means, most people would strongly disagree and my fiscal conservatism is probably truly backed by like 20% of the population.  And I'm fine with that, because I prefer honesty, transparency, and bluntness to popularity among the American Public.

So once this is understood, democrats (Bernie Sanders style) are going to win every election hands down and I don't know how the conservatives are going to be different than Bernie Sanders on any issue if they want power again [Bernie could give lots of foreign aid money, all disagreement would get labeled as, "fiscally conservative" (which would be an insult similar to how the word "racist" is an insult right now.  Calling someone a racist used to be a compliment or neutral term as Fiscally conservative kindof is now, but that might change once word get out)].

Against foreign aid?  Then you are fiscally conservative.

Against socialism?  Then you are fiscally conservative, and this belief produces pain for the poor if the belief is in power.

Against free healthcare (even for the undocumented)?   Then you are fiscally conservative.

Insults are the easiest way to bend most right wingers into submission (if the insult can't be disputed).  You call the right racist over wanting the border wall, that insult is disputed because the right denies being undocumented is a race.  You call them undocuphobic, and the right would advocate abolishing ICE because they are cowards; they are afraid of being insulted in an undisputable way (and they don't really have a backbone).

Now I do have a backbone; I'm fiscally conservative and if people don't like me for it, then so be it.

But the left wants to reduce unwanted pain and the right wants to promote it.  The right is sadistic; all of their ideology disagreements with the left either produce pain or there is a dispute to if pain is produced from the belief.  If there is a consistent reason for it (liberty like with guns, or abortion with anti-homicide), then fine. 

But not all of their beliefs are anti-homicide or pro liberty (for harmless people) to own AR 15s if it's fairly certain they won't murder with the guns.  Some of their beliefs are done in the name of, "law and order", (which is the opposite of liberty) like deportations and the police killing black American Citizens.  You don't need to be a race hustler to be against the government/police officers having the power to kill people without due process, nulling the 5th amendment.

On issues like deportations and police brutality, the right is sadistic and I am strongly against taking pleasure in the suffering of those who didn't have due process rights and I'm not sure how they would deny that argument. 

Starving kids in Africa; I'm cool with letting them starve to death; but I don't take pleasure in doing it.  I just prefer my money to their life in the name of fiscal conservatism.
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Most Republicans are for some sort of welfare state, which is why trump has used Nikki Haley's attempts to weaken social security to turn more people against her. However let's be honest. A Laissez-Faire economy would almost entirely eradicate poverty. So people who actually support that would in fact harm significantly less people than the welfare state. Look at how families prior to the welfare state in the 50s easily fed their children and now these fucks are just too poor so feed them calorie dense low nutrient food and are nturitio ally starving children while making them fat with empty calories. 
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,088
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sounds like the title of a song from the musical, Washington.
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
Most Republicans are for some sort of welfare state
Then how are they different from the democrats on this issue?

If they want to cut the welfare state, they ever say what percentage.  Do they want to cut it by 70%?  Then a lot of children will starve and your taxes will be slightly lower.  5%?  Same thing; but smaller scale.

 A Laissez-Faire economy would almost entirely eradicate poverty. 
Yes; by letting poor people starve to death, therefore reducing the poverty rate.  If this was true, then no place would have a welfare state.

Look at how families prior to the welfare state in the 50s easily fed their children 
Taxes on the rich were very high then and college was pretty much free (and there were no DEI professors).  Lets bring this model back.

 now these fucks are just too poor so feed them calorie dense low nutrient food and are nturitio ally starving children while making them fat with empty calories. 
What does this have to do with whether or not the welfare state saves people's lives?
#5
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes; by letting poor people starve to death, therefore reducing the poverty rate. If this was true, then no place would have a welfare state
No by creating more prosperity. Take a look at th economic freedom index which measures how capitalist vs socialist a nation is. The most economic intervention in say North korea and venezuala have the most poverty, where as the more free market societies have a higher standard of living. 

America isn't killing more hungry people than North korea, it's just more of a free market so less poverty exists. 

What does this have to do with whether or not the welfare state saves people's lives?
The welfare state and economic interventionism caused it. Just ask yourself this. Was food more wholesome and delicious today with all the economic interventionism or I it when everyone got things from local farmers and grocers and there was almost no economic interventionism? 

Ideally just so you can get a better philosophy. I would suggest you take a look at systems that work and compare them to systems that don't work and fund out the differences between the systems that work and the ones which don't.  
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
 Take a look at the economic freedom index which measures how capitalist vs socialist a nation is. The most economic intervention in say North korea and venezuala have the most poverty, where as the more free market societies have a higher standard of living. 
What about the US vs Denmark or Sweden?



They are capitalist countries with big social programs, they aren't socialist
Alright, so then if reducing unwanted pain is your goal, then you would back capitalism with big social programs (like Scandinavia).

They are socialist.
you may say.

If so, then you just said they are capitalist.

Why not copy Scandinavia on economics regardless of the label you give them?



They have high taxes to pay for all of that
And?  High taxes saves lives.

Now, I'm alright with letting poor people die to save money, but most fiscal conservatives can't bring themselves to say that.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about the US vs Denmark or Sweden?
Sweden is surprisingly more Lassaiz Faire than the USA.

Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So then you as a libertarian would want to copy Sweden if you really believed that (so government paid for healthcare would be part of that).

Common sense indicates that Sweden is more fiscally left wing than America.

You've literally left my other points untouched.
#9
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sweden (the Nordic countries especially and Europe in general) has less public corruption. It allows them to have more public services at similar theft-levels.


The lack of regulation is a major factor as well. Stealing isn't the only way governments damage the economy, wasting enormous amounts of time on people begging for permission and the stagnating uniformity it creates are bad. It also biases the economy towards larger corporations as they can handle the overhead more easily with specialists.

Under the premise that the level of theft must remain the same in the USA I would prefer a nordic model for how its spent, especially if nordic deregulation accompanies it.

That does not mean that reducing the level of theft is any less moral or practical. The corollary is that the nordic countries would be even better if they didn't steal so much from the people. That includes the people being helped by these social programs, the period of time where they would be worse off is short, like 20 year maximum before general prosperity improves their quality of life compared to a high-theft government.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A culturally diverse population needs to be regulated much more than a culturally homogenous population because common morality in a society does not need to be enforced nearly as much as in a society with inherently diverse morality.

For the unelected class in DC tasked with ever expanding regulation creation, diversity is their ONLY strength.
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Sweden (the Nordic countries especially and Europe in general) has less public corruption. It allows them to have more public services at similar theft-levels.

Getting rid of corruption is a far left wing idea (and it's a good idea).

The lack of regulation is a major factor as well. Stealing isn't the only way governments damage the economy, wasting enormous amounts of time on people begging for permission and the stagnating uniformity it creates are bad. It also biases the economy towards larger corporations as they can handle the overhead more easily with specialists.
Scandinavia probably has more regulations on health products than the US.

Under the premise that the level of theft must remain the same in the USA I would prefer a nordic model for how its spent, especially if nordic deregulation accompanies it.
Ok; so you support then left wing UHC; got it.  Maybe you should change your libertarian label if this is what you believe in, because UHC is not libetarian.

That does not mean that reducing the level of theft is any less moral or practical. The corollary is that the nordic countries would be even better if they didn't steal so much from the people.
Cutting taxes means you won't be able to fund things like UHC or free college or similar.

Anyone advocating tax reform should make an alternative tax and spending plan.
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
A culturally diverse population needs to be regulated much more than a culturally homogenous population because common morality in a society does not need to be enforced nearly as much as in a society with inherently diverse morality.

For the unelected class in DC tasked with ever expanding regulation creation, diversity is their ONLY strength.
Racial diversity is irrelevent.
#13
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sweden (the Nordic countries especially and Europe in general) has less public corruption. It allows them to have more public services at similar theft-levels
Getting rid of corruption is a far left wing idea (and it's a good idea).
rofl, really that's all you can say to that.

Then call me far left wing if you want, but so help me if you claim I'm contradicting myself because I don't fit in the bizarre categories you're making up....


Scandinavia probably has more regulations on health products than the US.
I doubt it.


Ok; so you support then left wing UHC; got it.  Maybe you should change your libertarian label if this is what you believe in, because UHC is not libetarian.
You really shouldn't be trying to debate people online if you can't understand a conditional statement.

Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Getting rid of corruption is a far left wing idea (and it's a good idea).
I've heard left wingers advocate repealing Citizens United; not right wingers advocating the same thing.  If you think Bernie Sanders is more corrupt than Trump, I might be ROFL.

Ok; so you support then left wing UHC; got it.  Maybe you should change your libertarian label if this is what you believe in, because UHC is not libetarian.
You really shouldn't be trying to debate people online if you can't understand a conditional statement.
Taxes will go up with UHC; otherwise it would be the law everywhere.

But high taxes save lives.  But I don't want to save other people's lives by my taxes going up.

#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about the US vs Denmark or Sweden?

All 3 are economic interventionists. If we see the pattern that the economic freedom index shows us, we can see countries more near the top, have better outcomes. Many Scandinavian countries are above the United States  on the index. All the countries have social programs. 

What does this tell us? If the scale is a measure of how Laissez-Faire a country is and the least Laissez-Faire is at the bottom and most Laissez-Faire is at the top and countries like north korea and venezuala are the bottom one, then ye we should probably do what we can to become more free than the Scandinavian countries that o defeat us on the index, but we should go further. We should drop all social programs so we can drop all poverty as well and have a prosperous cou try. 

Let's look at the effects of economic interventionism

Early 1900s affordable Healthcare. Then Roosevelt created salary caps and then employers got around the salary caps by offering health insurance.  This health insurance caused Americans to not realize the cost of health services due to being insulated from the costs. The result run away health care costs. So if we can see the root cause is government interventionism, it would be stupid to say. "Let's keep doing more of what caused the problem derp"

Early 1900s, mot food comes from independent businesses and local farmers. Some reports put it at about 80%. FDA is created and small business owners are destroyed and millions of people are turned into wage slaves. 80% of th food supply is brought to you by less than 10 corporations. 

"Derp let's destroy the last remaining business owners by economic interventionism and make more starving wage slaves"


We can see the same thing happened with baking.  Prior to glass steagull nearly all banking was by mom and pop banks. Now nearly all of it is with evil billion dollar corporations. 

You have all this evidence that economic interventionism can be linked to all bad economic outcomes, you have this evidence that per the economic freedom index that countries with less economic interventionism do better than countries with more economic interventionism. 

Honestly it's time to stop believing double digit IQ takes like

"Derp we can solve homelessness by economic interventionism in making them all houses"

(Aka nationalizing houseownership)

Or "derp the best way to get everyone to get good Healthcare is from free Healthcare so they can be put on 3 year waiting lists for life saving surgeries, derp"

Just follow the evidence my man.
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Racial is just a code word for "culture"
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
All 3 are economic interventionists. If we see the pattern that the economic freedom index shows us, we can see countries more near the top, have better outcomes. Many Scandinavian countries are above the United States  on the index. All the countries have social programs. 
Then what does it mean to have economic freedom?  

Scandinavia has high taxes, they have UHC, and if you believe this equals more economic freedom (as what the website says) and you agree and think this is a good thing, then it would make sense for you to back Scandinavia's economic freedom bill and UHC even with higher taxes.

then ye we should probably do what we can to become more free than the Scandinavian countries that o defeat us on the index, but we should go further. We should drop all social programs so we can drop all poverty as well and have a prosperous country. 
Being more like the Scandinavian countries inherently means keeping and expanding social programs.  Your 2 sentences contradict each other.


Then Roosevelt created salary caps 
All the NBA players believe that there is no significant salary cap anymore.

Early 1900s, mot food comes from independent businesses and local farmers. Some reports put it at about 80%. FDA is created and small business owners are destroyed and millions of people are turned into wage slaves. 80% of th food supply is brought to you by less than 10 corporations. 
Sounds like capitalism.

Honestly it's time to stop believing double digit IQ takes like
If you have to resort to calling someone you disagree with stupid, you might be the one with the low IQ.

"Derp we can solve homelessness by economic interventionism in making them all houses"

(Aka nationalizing houseownership)

Or "derp the best way to get everyone to get good Healthcare is from free Healthcare so they can be put on 3 year waiting lists for life saving surgeries, derp"
I don't agree with nationalizing either, but at $200K/home and 600K homeless people, it would cost $120B to give every homeless person a home (about 20% of the military budget).

I don't agree with socialism, but it's very easy to implement.  I'm just a big believer in fiscal autonomy and I don't like non-consenting people paying for the stuff of others even if it's easy.  We also should cut the military budget a lot.
Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
No it isn't.  Racial diversity is irrelevant.  Culture A may be better than Culture B in some regards and worse in others.
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Cultural diversity is the goal, not skin color. Otherwise, the gates would be open to brown Cubans.
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Cultural diversity is the goal, not skin color. 

What does cultural diversity mean?  I thought it meant language diversity.

Otherwise, the gates would be open to brown Cubans.

They are.
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog

They are not. People from Cuba are too based. American elites need diverse cultures to provide a reason for more regulations and control. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
What does cultural diversity mean? 
Historically the impact of cultural diversity has been profoundly negative, often resulting in exploitation, brutality and murder. When different cultures share the same nation, competition for resources, land, jobs, and political power will arise. Too often, the weaker cultural group suffers. (see Donbas war)
Instead of having a shared spirit of cooperation, the different cultures will regard each other with suspicion and uncertainty. When problems arise, one of the subcultures will often be the scapegoat, unfairly taking the blame . Many, many times this has historically resulted in horrible persecutions.
Elite Progressives will continue to press the falsehood that cultural diversity is to be desired, but it is only desirable for the controlling elite class. Most Historians know that the Balkinazation of a nation isn't a strength. Assimilation, cooperation, and unity of purpose is.


Topic's author
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't agree with Biden copying Trump like immigration policies whether the migrants are more likely to vote blue or red.

Votes should be competed for.

Don't want immigrants voting blue?  Then convince them to vote red.
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,053
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Illegal migrants vote neither red nor blue. They vote for increased Balkanization, no matter what side offers it. Most liberal culturally diverse cities are expressly subdivided into competing cultural enclaves, and the diverse cultures are even encouraged to do so.  Assimilation is discouraged with the accusation of "cultural appropriation." The more culturally divided a city is, the more violent and oppressed the dwellers are.
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Everyone in the US should learn English pretty quickly.  We should not be promoting Spanish in schools.  America should be teaching in English only.

Now, how to speed that up.

Spam the border with non-Hispanic Migrants that would be very mixed with another, encourage ethnic mixing so the kids adapt English as a first language, and then our strength along the southern border increased significantly.

Let a few Hispanics join them; but the aim is 12% Hispanic, 88% non-Hispanic.

Mexico won't be able to claim South Texas like that.