Another Myth In Trouble

[Flanders]

One person cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Over the years I’ve debated that topic, and it was always liberals who said it was possible. They had good reason.

Socialist programs demand fiscal irresponsibility as well being unconstitutional. In effect, anyone who claims to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal is saying that supporting the parasite class with tax dollars is fiscally conservative. That is the height of stupidity, or an outright con job.

Incidentally, I spotted Arnold Schwarzenegger as a phoney in 2003 when he said he was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. His time as California’s governor proved me right. On the other hand, I never heard a liberal seeking high office claim he was fiscally conservative.

NOTE: Schwarzenegger used to say he was a conservative in the Kennedy clan. Anybody that believed it was an idiot.

Anyway, an article by Christopher Chantrill made my day:

The genius of teaching the educated professional class to be “socially liberal, economically conservative” for the last 20 years was that the economically conservative part came for free during the Great Boom from 1983-2007. When the economy looked good forever and everyone's 401(k) was increasing, the professional class could easily be persuaded to look down on -- and actually fear! -- the bigoted Religious Right and vote for Democrats. Candidate Obama's remark about bitter clingers captured the meme perfectly.

XXXXX​

What is left of “economically conservative” now that Obama is pushing an increase in the minimum wage and the NYT/NPR set are all singing the inequality chorus, and Zero Interest Rate Policy is hammering the mom-and-pop savers? Maybe it's time for the “economically conservative” to get a clue.

XXXXX​

So you see, the “socially liberal, economically conservative” game is up. The gays smashed the socially liberal part, and Obama smashed the economically conservative part.

April 8, 2014
'Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative' Is So Over
By Christopher Chantrill

Articles: 'Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative' Is So Over​

 

[Truthseeker420]

There is nothing more fiscally irresponsible than right wing corporate welfare.

 

[DGS49]

There are a whole boatload of things that are more irresponsible than what you think of as "corporate welfare." Granting collective bargaining right to government employees will cost this nation trillions and trillions of dollars before it eventually drives us into insolvency. And unlike "corporate welfare," it can't be reversed immediately.

Failed government programs that remain active for decades after they have been proven worthless are more irresponsible than "corporate welfare." Look at Operation Headstart. It was sold on the idea that poor kids were living in culturally deprived households before they started school, and if we could "enrich" their cultural exposure they would do much, much better in school. Forty years later that data are in. It is academically worthless, but the money keeps increasing, year after year. Corporate Welfare at least has the theoretical benefit of stimulating the economy. Worthless government programs only cause the government to borrow more money and take it from future generations.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There are a whole boatload of things that are more irresponsible than what you think of as "corporate welfare." Granting collective bargaining right to government employees will cost this nation trillions and trillions of dollars before it eventually drives us into insolvency. And unlike "corporate welfare," it can't be reversed immediately.

Failed government programs that remain active for decades after they have been proven worthless are more irresponsible than "corporate welfare." Look at Operation Headstart. It was sold on the idea that poor kids were living in culturally deprived households before they started school, and if we could "enrich" their cultural exposure they would do much, much better in school. Forty years later that data are in. It is academically worthless, but the money keeps increasing, year after year. Corporate Welfare at least has the theoretical benefit of stimulating the economy. Worthless government programs only cause the government to borrow more money and take it from future generations.

How about making it illegal for the government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over the price of Medicare drugs?

 

[Flanders]

There is nothing more fiscally irresponsible than right wing corporate welfare.

There are a whole boatload of things that are more irresponsible than what you think of as "corporate welfare." Granting collective bargaining right to government employees will cost this nation trillions and trillions of dollars before it eventually drives us into insolvency. And unlike "corporate welfare," it can't be reversed immediately.

Failed government programs that remain active for decades after they have been proven worthless are more irresponsible than "corporate welfare." Look at Operation Headstart. It was sold on the idea that poor kids were living in culturally deprived households before they started school, and if we could "enrich" their cultural exposure they would do much, much better in school. Forty years later that data are in. It is academically worthless, but the money keeps increasing, year after year. Corporate Welfare at least has the theoretical benefit of stimulating the economy. Worthless government programs only cause the government to borrow more money and take it from future generations.

To Truthseeker420: I can only add to DSG49's comprehensive reply. Foreign aid tops the list. Funding United Nations agencies. Funding higher education is much worse than corporate welfare, and infinitely more expensive. Parasite bureaucracies like the National Endowment for the Arts are in the hunt, too. Oh hell, why be timid? The whole damn welfare state including corporate bailouts should be dismantled.

How about making it illegal for the government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over the price of Medicare drugs?

To Vandalshandle: Okay. Let’s make it legal.

Since liberals hate corporate welfare so much how about a little quid pro quid on funding environmental ripoffs:

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26.GreenVolts ($500,000)
27.Vestas ($50 million)
28.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30.Navistar ($39 million)
31.Satcon ($3 million)*
32.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
Ashe Schow
October 18, 2012 at 8:25 am

President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures​

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is nothing more fiscally irresponsible than right wing corporate welfare.

Its running us deeper and deeper in debt and its the working class who support them.

 

[MarcATL]

Nothing was more fiscally irresponsible than what occured under the Bush Regime.

We're STILL suffering from that COLOSSAL blunder.

 

[Politico]

One person cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Yes they can. So no point in even reading the rest.

 

[asterism]

"Socially liberal" is not the same as supporting the welfare state with tax money, that's "fiscally liberal."

Socially liberal is liberal on social issues such as gay rights, women's choice to kill their kids, immigration reform, etc.

I do not agree with discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation but that doesn't mean I agree with massive government funding targeted specifically at people based on some group.

 

[Flanders]

Nothing was more fiscally irresponsible than what occured under the Bush Regime.

We're STILL suffering from that COLOSSAL blunder.

To MarcATL: The Democrat party’s welfare state is more to blame than the Republicans because Democrats controlled the money since the LBJ years. More recently, Clinton is more to blame than Bush.

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
As opposed to a desperate liberal legend. By Peter J. Wallison – From the February 2009 issue

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis | The American Spectator

I suppose the Left will blame Bush for Dodd-Frank when it comes homes home to roost. Not one Republican in the House voted for it. Four Republican senators voted for it. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley, and Scott Brown. Taqiyya the Liar signed it in 2010.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform Bill Definition | Investopedia

Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown are no longer in the Senate. Brown is trying to get back to the Senate by running in New Hampshire.

"Socially liberal" is not the same as supporting the welfare state with tax money, that's "fiscally liberal."

To asterism: That’s absurd.

Socially liberal is liberal on social issues such as gay rights,

To asterism: Okay, but what does that have to do with fiscally conservative?

women's choice to kill their kids,

To asterism: Funding Planned Parenthood moves that one over to a welfare state program. How is that fiscally conservative?

immigration reform, etc.

To asterism: Too vague. Do you mean supporting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens is socially liberal? If so, that then becomes another welfare state program that can hardly be called fiscally conservative.

I do not agree with discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation but that doesn't mean I agree with massive government funding targeted specifically at people based on some group.

To asterism: In that case you must oppose IRS tax dollars targeting conservative groups.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One person cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Incorrect.

Pursuing a responsible fiscal policy can co-exist with appropriate social policy regarding education, health, and environmental protection.

A pragmatic approach is always best, based on objective facts, evidence and what’s likely to be successful.

Adhering blindly to subjective conservative dogma will not work.

 

[HenryBHough]

Were a card carrying socially liberal Democrat mover-and-shaker to be caught practicing fiscal conservatism his/her/its card would be shredded. Publicly and with extreme prejudice.

 

[asterism]

To asterism: Okay, but what does that have to do with fiscally conservative?

Because it doesn't take government funds to allow gay people to get married.

To asterism: Funding Planned Parenthood moves that one over to a welfare state program. How is that fiscally conservative?

Supporting the right of a woman to have an abortion does not automatically equate to paying for it with government money.

immigration reform, etc.

To asterism: Too vague. Do you mean supporting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens is socially liberal? If so, that then becomes another welfare state program that can hardly be called fiscally conservative.

Only if we keep the welfare state we have and I don't support doing that at all.

I do not agree with discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation but that doesn't mean I agree with massive government funding targeted specifically at people based on some group.

To asterism: In that case you must oppose IRS tax dollars targeting conservative groups.

You are correct. I don't want the IRS targeting anyone but actual tax cheats.

 

[HenryBHough]

One of the prime roles of the IRS these days seems to be identifying tax cheats so Our Kenyan President can shelter them in his cabinet.

 

[Flanders]

To asterism: Okay, but what does that have to do with fiscally conservative?

Because it doesn't take government funds to allow gay people to get married.

To asterism: Your reply makes a case for homosexual marriage, it does not come close to addressing my premise.

One person cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

To asterism: Funding Planned Parenthood moves that one over to a welfare state program. How is that fiscally conservative?

Supporting the right of a woman to have an abortion does not automatically equate to paying for it with government money.

To asterism: Once again you’re making a case for a socially liberal tenet. The fact is that tax dollars pay for abortions. That cannot be called fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Now, if funding abortions with tax dollars was truly denied my only argument would be opposition to legal infanticide. Put it this way, if funding Planned Parenthood (abortions) with tax dollars was stopped the only way you could defend your position is to argue for restored funding.

Only if we keep the welfare state we have and I don't support doing that at all.

To asterism: Okay, you do not support the current gigantic welfare state, while everything you’ve said tells me that you would support a smaller one.

I do not agree with discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation but that doesn't mean I agree with massive government funding targeted specifically at people based on some group.

To asterism: In that case you must oppose IRS tax dollars targeting conservative groups.

You are correct. I don't want the IRS targeting anyone but actual tax cheats.

To asterism: Your wording implies that you approve of the tax on income. There would be no problem after the XVI Amendment is repealed.

Socialism always come down to funding. Without government funding social liberals can moralize until the cows come home. Every liberal tenet ultimately requires government funding based on the tax collector’s morality. The minute social liberals get their snouts in the public purse their demands become all-inclusive as you can see in what they are doing incrementally in this country. That is why it is impossible for one person to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The two belief systems will always be incompatible.

Incidentally, fiscal conservatives take nothing away from social liberals; not their freedoms, not their incomes, not their property; whereas, social liberals are always ravenous parasites who use the government to take everything under the pretext of compassion.