Both of these socially conservative positions are wrong IMO. Education should be about opening doors and leveling the playing field so that merit can determine outcomes. Public health all starts with individual healthcare.
Who Are All these So-Called Independents?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Except you would have difficulty finding a Republican that is truly fiscally conservative once they reach a position of power. Name a fiscally responsible conservative in a leadership position. Perhaps Paul Ryan will change the dynamic. Perhaps. If the Republicans would run a true fiscal conservative that wasn't interested wastefully spending money on things like war and a bloated defense budget, I might switch to that party.
In the meantime, while I might not agree with all of their fiscal priorities, the Democrats more truly reflect my sense of social injustice, including health care, protection of rights, and a subsistence living. That's why I haven't voted for a Republican since 1984.
Yeah, healthcare for all, despite the ability to pay.
Protection of rights (whatever that means... I assume you aren't talking about 2A).
And "subsistence living" whatever that means.
Again, all these social programs aren't free. Who pays for them?
Those who are able pay for those who are not. Its not complicated.
First, I see entitlements & welfare in particular as fiscal issues. Very few people are truly against the social safety net (though I'm sure there are some)....the question often comes down to how it's going to get paid for. I'm in favor of some level of safety net, but I do have concerns when both parties add more benefits/entitlements without a whole lot of regard for how we're going to pay for it. Certainly military spending and other programs have the same issues.
I think there are a lot of "Moderates" or "Independents" out there that really feel stuck in the middle. Libertarian positions do fall in this middle ground, too, so that can confuse things....but I think in a lot of ways, the socially liberal and fiscally conservative positions minimize the role of the federal government, so I do think they tend to go hand in hand. I want the leanest government we can get away with -- but it's also not all about just cost, I think there ARE some things that should be part of what we do as a nation that we collectively pay for.
That might just be an important way to distinguish liberals from conservatives - whether you see those as fiscal or social issues. Thanks for bringing clarity to the question.
If you think of them as fiscal issues, you focus on the question you raised: "how does they get paid for" - which is more likely to lead to the feeling that if it's hard to pay for, it should be scaled back or not done.
If you think they are social issues, otoh, you think they're things that need to be done. You still have to pay for them, but difficulty paying for them is not an argument against doing them.
To compact those thoughts, if you are a conservative who sees welfare and entitlements as fiscal issues, it's important to make them fit into your budget. If you are a liberal who sees them as social issues, it's important to make your budget fit them.
You're not wrong. In the middle, though, the balance isn't easy. Some way on the right scream about everything that gets included. Some on the left want to get everything included and figure out how to make it work later. Compromise lies in the middle.
I think the Conservative/Liberal difference is also often very pronounced on the budget and immigration: Do we cut spending first or do we balance the budget first? For immigration, do we close the borders first or address those that are already here first? The truth lies in the middle. If we're ever really going to solve either problem, it's going to be some of each. That's often the gray of the independent.
