(05-07-2010 10:40 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:53 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 09:37 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I don't get politicians who make their core issues things like homosexuality and abortion and such. Just an example of government over-reaching its boundaries, IMO.

Abortion over-reaching? Hmm, protecting the life of citizens, somehow that always struck me as the MAIN purpose of gov't.

It is between them and their God. It is NONE of your business Jesus man. Comprende?

Do you feel the same way about Muhammed Atta or a Palestinian homicide bomber? Oh wait...you do.

Did you find the UFO Steve?

(05-11-2010 02:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 02:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Going back to where I think the Torch/GTS dispute started (in this thread, anyway), Torch I'd like to see you expand on your point here. I think I can imagine why you would believe it to be so (the restraint argument makes sense) but have you got some examples? My example (and perhaps it's an outlier - I'm open to the conversation) reveals the opposite: GWB. Spent money like he was printing it (oh, wait) and from my view was highly socially conservative.

I see your point about GWB. That begs for a consistent definition of "social conservative." Honestly, I don't think we have even a practical working definition. I can say that many people don't consider Bush to be particularly conservative, FWIW. I can also say that some of his "social conservative" policies weren't the big spending items.

As for examples, I'm not sure which you're asking for, examples of social+fiscal conservatives, or examples of social+fiscal liberals. Or something else?

He's asking about your statement that "the demise of social conservatism preceded the demise of fiscal conservatism...for a reason."

I was wondering the same thing. I think most would agree that GWB was socially conservative, and there seemed to be a rise in socially conservative values (Evangelicals etc.) during his time in office.

Yet his fiscal record was anything but conservative.

I think Bush was an anomaly, and there is a trend in the direction you indicated.

I believe he's asking for other real-world examples of this trend.

(05-12-2010 03:32 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 02:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 02:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Going back to where I think the Torch/GTS dispute started (in this thread, anyway), Torch I'd like to see you expand on your point here. I think I can imagine why you would believe it to be so (the restraint argument makes sense) but have you got some examples? My example (and perhaps it's an outlier - I'm open to the conversation) reveals the opposite: GWB. Spent money like he was printing it (oh, wait) and from my view was highly socially conservative.

I see your point about GWB. That begs for a consistent definition of "social conservative." Honestly, I don't think we have even a practical working definition. I can say that many people don't consider Bush to be particularly conservative, FWIW. I can also say that some of his "social conservative" policies weren't the big spending items.

As for examples, I'm not sure which you're asking for, examples of social+fiscal conservatives, or examples of social+fiscal liberals. Or something else?

He's asking about your statement that "the demise of social conservatism preceded the demise of fiscal conservatism...for a reason."

I was wondering the same thing. I think most would agree that GWB was socially conservative, and there seemed to be a rise in socially conservative values (Evangelicals etc.) during his time in office.

Yet his fiscal record was anything but conservative.

I think Bush was an anomaly, and there is a trend in the direction you indicated.

I believe he's asking for other real-world examples of this trend.

How about DAve Ramsey? A guy like that has soared in popularity, largely among social conservatives. Crown Ministries was reasonably popular among social conservatives prior to that.

I remember a WSJ article several years ago where black churches in NC (among other states) would hold big collections to give to a parishoner so they could pay off their credit card debt, and end their "slavery." The person/family who received the gift then had to prove they were remaining responsible (and they were expected to contribute big at the next several collections). I don't know how those programs have worked out over time, but I think that fits w/ what you were asking.

As far as prominent leaders, I'm not sure. VA had Dems elected Gov when I lived there, and MD's GOP members tend to be farther left than most. Although the current VA gov seems to be both fiscal+social conservative. Taft was not much of a social conservative, and certainly wasn't fiscally conservative. He had some similarities to GWB.
Jim Jordan, a US Rep from OH fits the description of fiscal+social conservative. He's someone I've complimented previously. (His 4 state and 2 national championships in wrestling are icing on the cake).

What are the hot button issues for the Republican party in recent years, the issues they focused on to motivate their base & get people out to the polls? Just off the top of my head, I'd say abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, terrorism and the conflicts in Iraq & Afganistan, with immigration & the deficit (forced on them by the Tea Party - previous Republicans showed no more concern about the deficit than did Democrats) being relatively new additions. Those are primarily social concerns, not fiscal ones (terroism/war and immigration don't fit neatly into either category - the political axis needs to be at least 3-D). I would say that the demise of fiscal conservativism far preceeded that of social conservatism.

(05-12-2010 03:57 PM)jh Wrote:  What are the hot button issues for the Republican party in recent years, the issues they focused on to motivate their base & get people out to the polls? Just off the top of my head, I'd say abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, terrorism and the conflicts in Iraq & Afganistan, with immigration & the deficit (forced on them by the Tea Party - previous Republicans showed no more concern about the deficit than did Democrats) being relatively new additions. Those are primarily social concerns, not fiscal ones (terroism/war and immigration don't fit neatly into either category - the political axis needs to be at least 3-D). I would say that the demise of fiscal conservativism far preceeded that of social conservatism.

You make the mistake of assuming that fiscal issues weren't important. You are the one who is asserting that those issues were "hot button". And even if you're right, it's fair to believe that the GOP went to its supporters offering the baseline that they were fiscal conservatives...the social issues were in addition.

Moreover, you skip other issues like welfare reform, which was a big issue until it passed in the 1990s.

(05-12-2010 04:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 03:57 PM)jh Wrote:  What are the hot button issues for the Republican party in recent years, the issues they focused on to motivate their base & get people out to the polls? Just off the top of my head, I'd say abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, terrorism and the conflicts in Iraq & Afganistan, with immigration & the deficit (forced on them by the Tea Party - previous Republicans showed no more concern about the deficit than did Democrats) being relatively new additions. Those are primarily social concerns, not fiscal ones (terroism/war and immigration don't fit neatly into either category - the political axis needs to be at least 3-D). I would say that the demise of fiscal conservativism far preceeded that of social conservatism.

You make the mistake of assuming that fiscal issues weren't important. You are the one who is asserting that those issues were "hot button". And even if you're right, it's fair to believe that the GOP went to its supporters offering the baseline that they were fiscal conservatives...the social issues were in addition.

Moreover, you skip other issues like welfare reform, which was a big issue until it passed in the 1990s.

Like I said, the list was off the top of my head.

I had forgotten about welfare reform. Was welfare reform fiscally or socially motivated, or a combination of the two? Was it the impact on our coffers or our souls that was the concern (a common refrain is that welfare does more harm than good)? I would guess largely fiscal but I've forgotten most of the details.

I'm not sure how you can claim that the demise social convervatism preceeded that of fiscal conservatism. The vast majority of elected Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative for a long time (regardless of what they may pretend while campaigning) but many are still socially conservative. It wasn't just Bush - the Republican controlled congress spent like drunken sailors when they were in charge. It seems more likely that the end of fiscal conservatism will portend the end of social conservatism than the converse, but there is no reason to believe that either is true. There is no conflict, logically, philosophically, or politically, with being fiscally liberal & socially conservative or any other combination you want to come up with.

It is also ludicrous to suppose that a person who advocates socially liberal positions is unable to show restraint. I believe in legalizing gambling, prostitution, all drugs (including crack, heroin, meth, etc.), gay marriage (unless the governement wants to get out of the marriage business), plural marriage, line marriage, flag burning, assisted suicide for any reason (not just terminal illness), and pretty much anything else an adult (age negotiable) can volunatrily decide to do & convince others to go along with them without force, fraud, or coercion. That doesn't mean I choose to partake in any of those activities or would do so if they were legal, as several of them already are. Other than beer & gambling (moderate amount with money I've already written off as part of my entertainment budget), I've never done any of them and believe many of them to be bad things. There is a difference between what is right & what should be legal. I get to decide for myself what is right. I don't get to decide for you.

(05-12-2010 05:21 PM)jh Wrote:  It is also ludicrous to suppose that a person who advocates socially liberal positions is unable to show restraint. I believe in legalizing gambling, prostitution, all drugs (including crack, heroin, meth, etc.), gay marriage (unless the governement wants to get out of the marriage business), plural marriage, line marriage, flag burning, assisted suicide for any reason (not just terminal illness), and pretty much anything else an adult (age negotiable) can volunatrily decide to do & convince others to go along with them without force, fraud, or coercion. That doesn't mean I choose to partake in any of those activities or would do so if they were legal, as several of them already are. Other than beer & gambling (moderate amount with money I've already written off as part of my entertainment budget), I've never done any of them and believe many of them to be bad things. There is a difference between what is right & what should be legal. I get to decide for myself what is right. I don't get to decide for you.

Well said. I'm not sure that I'm in 100% agreement with all that you mention (I'm not even sure that I know what some of those things are), but I certainly don't see why fiscal conservatism has to be linked to social conservatism. Actually, if you cut out the cost of enforcing the laws against a lot of the things you mention, you'd come up with a pretty good set of spending cuts right there, and if cutting spending isn't fiscallly conservative, what is it?

My sense from some of your prior posts is that there is a wide gulf between us on the fiscal issues. But we aren't very far apart, if at all, on the social issues. And no, I don't see a conflict between my positions on fiscal and social issues.

(05-12-2010 05:21 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure how you can claim that the demise social convervatism preceeded that of fiscal conservatism. The vast majority of elected Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative for a long time (regardless of what they may pretend while campaigning) but many are still socially conservative. It wasn't just Bush - the Republican controlled congress spent like drunken sailors when they were in charge.

No they didn't. Take out the war and DHS spending (which you've already said requires a 3rd axis) they weren't "spending like drunken sailors." And combined w/ Bush's tax cuts, the budgets probably weren't grossly out of line.

I'm sure there was plenty more to trim, but it's not like you recount.

(05-12-2010 08:02 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 05:21 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure how you can claim that the demise social convervatism preceeded that of fiscal conservatism. The vast majority of elected Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative for a long time (regardless of what they may pretend while campaigning) but many are still socially conservative. It wasn't just Bush - the Republican controlled congress spent like drunken sailors when they were in charge.

No they didn't. Take out the war and DHS spending (which you've already said requires a 3rd axis) they weren't "spending like drunken sailors." And combined w/ Bush's tax cuts, the budgets probably weren't grossly out of line.

I'm sure there was plenty more to trim, but it's not like you recount.

You're right - that's a diservice to drunken sailors. As a former drunken sailor pointed out recently, they had to quit when they ran out of money.

Quote:But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively....

But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184

They weren't doing any (much?) better after six years either.

(05-12-2010 05:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My sense from some of your prior posts is that there is a wide gulf between us on the fiscal issues. But we aren't very far apart, if at all, on the social issues. And no, I don't see a conflict between my positions on fiscal and social issues.

I don't think there's much of a gap between us on fiscal issues, either. I'm as fiscally conservative as I am socially liberal.

I am often put in the position of having to defend Democrats on this board because it leans so heavily to the right on fiscal issues. And it is not uncommon that the attacks on Democrats are ill founded or poorly constructed (while this is also true of the attacks on Republicans, there are no shortage of posters willing to step in when they happen). A bad argument is a bad argument, plain & simple.

Oh, line marriages are from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (at least that's where I heard of them). Think multi-generational plural marriages so that estates stay intact instead of being divided.

Raised in Atlanta, reared in Copenhagen.