American Hardwood said:

---

I just conclude that anyone who claims to be a social liberal/fiscal conservative is one of two things; dishonest (to themselves as much as anyone else) or a shallow thinker because they haven't thought deep enough to see the contradiction in their position and should therefore not be taken seriously.

---

Hypothetical scenario. Would this be dishonest or a shallow thinker?

A person is very socially conservative in their inner circle and vocally frown upon socially liberal activities. They dont like seeing LGBlah in public. Don't like seeing DEI agendas. Don't think women should murder their kids in the womb, regardless of tri-mester. Etc.

But, they also do not want the government enforcing any of the above other than LGBlah perversion in front of kids, and abortion in extreme cases. Preach social conservativism and ostracize social liberals, but dont enable government to restrict social liberalism.

Fiscal conservative is fairly self explanatory. Have a small transparent balanced budget and stick to it.

Edit. Nevermind. I see this is essentially libertarian. Socially liberal must require government funding other wise it's just libertarian. Maybe the fiscal conservative balance is cutting a lot of funding elsewhere such as entitlements in order to have funding for social liberal policy?

Mostly the latter. In very simplistic terms, the methodology for implementing the liberal social agenda invariably results in fiscal failure from the conservative standpoint. To a liberal, fiscal concerns are subservient to their social positions because that is the perverse nature of their moral structure. They attribute little if any moral principle to how or where the money comes from to achieve their goals because they believe in the superiority of their own moral code which is largely based on feelings and no real substantive code of belief.

American Hardwood said:

---

Mostly the latter. In very simplistic terms, the methodology for implementing the liberal social agenda invariably results in fiscal failure from the conservative standpoint. To a liberal, fiscal concerns are subservient to their social positions because that is the perverse nature of their moral structure. They attribute little if any moral principle to how or where the money comes from to achieve their goals because they believe in the superiority of their own moral code which is largely based on feelings and no real substantive code of belief.

---

Speaking as a classical liberal, this is a gross misunderstanding

Your edit is correct in my line of thinking. Many people it seems are going to confuse a more libertarian view of a "hands off" policy vs. a liberal one of implementing a social agenda through government action.

I realize I am using the contemporary usage of "liberal" as meaning a progressive leftist the way Rush would define it. I am not referring to classical liberal. I acknowledge the difference but the OP referred to the common contemporary usage. I have a much greater respect for the classic liberal.

American Hardwood said:

---

Mostly the latter. In very simplistic terms, the methodology for implementing the liberal social agenda invariably results in fiscal failure from the conservative standpoint. To a liberal, fiscal concerns are subservient to their social positions because that is the perverse nature of their moral structure. They attribute little if any moral principle to how or where the money comes from to achieve their goals because they believe in the superiority of their own moral code which is largely based on feelings and no real substantive code of belief.

---

But you're going a step beyond the definition of socially liberal. You are projecting their motives and priorities, though largely accurately, but I would venture the motives and priorities you are describing would more aptly be applied to "woke" rather than "socially liberal".

The venn-diagream of woke and socially liberal probably has quite a bit of overlap though if referring to the want for public policy.

I was referring to just the socially liberal aspect assuming the woke crowd does not infect it. The small sliver. Though it may not be possible to separate the two because human nature certainly has devolved as you rightly pointed out.

Would a non-woke social liberal be able to advocate socially liberal policy while also wanting to cut spending such as entitlements?

Ha, nevermind again. Our edits are answering our questions. Classic liberal is exactly what I was thinking vs the leftists (woke) that we have today. Great minds think alike .

I don't think so. Remember, liberal social policies have been blowing up government budgets for a very long time before the more egregiously extreme woke stuff came along. Aren't we still paying into the War on Poverty and the Great Society in some form or fashion for example?

ETA: this was an answer to your last question, not the edit that followed

American Hardwood said:

---

I don't think so. Remember, liberal social policies have been blowing up government budgets for a very long time before the more egregiously extreme woke stuff came along. Aren't we still paying into the War on Poverty and the Great Society in some form or fashion for example?

---

But the war on poverty was a fiscal liberal policy, not a social liberal policy if I'm thinking about it correctly.

Unless human nature corrupted the social liberal agenda away from just advocating people to accept socially liberal behavior into entitling people to socially liberal behavior. And those socially liberal entitlements created the fiscal spending?

Advocating costs a little. Entitling costs a lot.

Human nature certainly would corrupt any notion of being SLFC long term and I think you are making a good point that human nature is the weak link in being SLFC long term.

I wouldn't classify the War on Poverty as a liberal fiscal policy. I would maybe call it a liberal social policy masquerading as a fiscal policy.

A big part of any liberal policy is that they are completely on board with using the government to achieve their goals. Why they are willing to do this is a whole 'nuther discussion.

It is a complete failure of the typical liberal mindset to not recognize the terrible power they concentrate when they create these programs. Great power attracts people that want that power. Inevitably, the wrong people will get in positions of control of that power and will do everything they can to perpetuate it.

In fact. I'd wager that most if not all liberal programs created today are solely for the purpose of gaining power and because of the feelings based nature of liberals, they are easily duped into supporting it. The entire climate change con is built exactly this way and for this purpose.

In truth fiscal conservatism is dead as we continue to vote in D or R Fed gov leaders, while neither party is fiscally conservative.

I should also say that feeling entitled is a cornerstone of the liberal psychosis.

I don't think fiscal conservatism is dead, it's just dormant. To be dead, it would have to be a demonstrable failure as a system which it is not.

But alas, the Uniparty is in control and appears to have all the tools in place to keep that power in perpetuity. Bleak future indeed.

American Hardwood said:

---

I don't think fiscal conservatism is dead, it's just dormant. To be dead, it would have to be a demonstrable failure as a system which it is not.

But alas, the Uniparty is in control and appears to have all the tools in place to keep that power in perpetuity. Bleak future indeed.

---

True, once the financial crap hits the fan, fiscal conservatism will make a big comeback. I suspect the social crap simultaneously goes dormant

You assume that when the financial crap hits the fan, we don't have a worldwide apocalyptic social breakdown leaving the world a battleground between preppers and bands of wasteland raiders raping the countryside like clouds of human locusts…

American Hardwood said:

---

You assume that when the financial crap hits the fan, we don't have a worldwide apocalyptic social breakdown leaving the world a battleground between preppers and bands of wasteland raiders raping the countryside like clouds of human locusts…

---

Well yeah, it will be Mad Max at Thunderdome, but we won't be wasteful or discussing pronouns

American Hardwood said:

---

I wouldn't classify the War on Poverty as a liberal fiscal policy. I would maybe call it a liberal social policy masquerading as a fiscal policy.

A big part of any liberal policy is that they are completely on board with using the government to achieve their goals. Why they are willing to do this is a whole 'nuther discussion.

It is a complete failure of the typical liberal mindset to not recognize the terrible power they concentrate when they create these programs. Great power attracts people that want that power. Inevitably, the wrong people will get in positions of control of that power and will do everything they can to perpetuate it.

In fact. I'd wager that most if not all liberal programs created today are solely for the purpose of gaining power and because of the feelings based nature of liberals, they are easily duped into supporting it. The entire climate change con is built exactly this way and for this purpose.

---

Fair points. It seems it comes down to if someone says they are a SLFC, it would be easy to believe the SL part but very hard to trust the FC part because our human nature is not built that way in mass. History backs that up like you said because SL evolves from rational into irrational big gov leftists.

I wonder if that is the crux of why the 80's Democrats have shifted so far left today.

montanagriz said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

When billions of dollars go to wars abroad and our Republicans and Dem politicians tie border enforcement to said billions…

---

When we're spending $7 trillion per year, a few billions sure are a convenient scapegoat that the olds can point to so as to not think about the massive entitlements.

It's time for Boomers to surrender their entitlements.

---

Not sure how this is a "Boomer" issue.

A few billion eventually add up to trillions

---

Boomers have been in leadership the longest and have expanded our government's deficit through entitlements. Increasing numbers draw from Social Security and Medicare.

We are nowhere near trillions of dollars for the foreign military aid going on today. That is a copout to avoid addressing the actual problems with government spending.

Boomers should give up their benefits for the good of the country.

---

I think people should get back what they paid in, accounting for inflation at the very least but should include an 8% yearly growth on what was paid.

Pay everybody back on SS and then end SS and i agree with you. However, i damn sure want the money i paid in to SS since SS was supposed to be govt protecting its citizens by forcing them to save money back through this program

---

Hold up. No one "gets back" what they paid in. SS is a ponzi scheme by design. The payroll taxes taken out of your paycheck on Friday are forwarded to current retirees on Monday. When you retire you get what some younger generation is paying in. Which means at some point, when the music stops, someone will be left holding the bag (for, you know, the largest govt spending program in the history of mankind, no biggie.)

What is it called when you are gay-married, hate high income taxes, loathe wealth taxes, you're atheist but respect and understand the importance of religion to others and the impact it has in society, do not want the U.S. to be the world police, or the world's pocket book, doesnt believe in globalism, thinks we should streamline the citizenship process for those who truly want to come to the U.S. for a better life, and not just a paycheck or handout, immigrants do not get to vote for 5 years and lose that right if they commit a crime, believes in a strong military but not starting wars every few years to make MIC rich, get rid of 401Ks if we wont allow citizens to have the power to vote for the companies they invest in (taking away the massive amount of power away from Blackrocks/Vanguards that push their own agendas), break up big media, thinks the government should get out of the student and home loan industry, thinks the government needs to cut back regulations, get rid of the dept of education, leave abortion to the states, not use my tax dollars to subsidize other people's sex trophies, allow me to elect out of social security, enact term limits, enact a balanced budget amendment, do away with all affirmative action/DEI/CRT/etc., give pedos the death penalty, pro 2nd Amendment (grew up with guns, still own many), and legalize drugs?

Words fail me.

atmtws said:

---

What is it called when you are gay-married, hate high income taxes, loathe wealth taxes, you're atheist but respect and understand the importance of religion to others and the impact it has in society, do not want the U.S. to be the world police, or the world's pocket book, doesnt believe in globalism, thinks we should streamline the citizenship process for those who truly want to come to the U.S. for a better life, and not just a paycheck or handout, immigrants do not get to vote for 5 years and lose that right if they commit a crime, believes in a strong military but not starting wars every few years to make MIC rich, get rid of 401Ks if we wont allow citizens to have the power to vote for the companies they invest in (taking away the massive amount of power away from Blackrocks/Vanguards that push their own agendas), break up big media, thinks the government should get out of the student and home loan industry, thinks the government needs to cut back regulations, get rid of the dept of education, leave abortion to the states, not use my tax dollars to subsidize other people's sex trophies, allow me to elect out of social security, enact term limits, enact a balanced budget amendment, do away with all affirmative action/DEI/CRT/etc., give pedos the death penalty, pro 2nd Amendment (grew up with guns, still own many), and legalize drugs?

---

It's called the perfect platform. How soon can you hop into the race?

Tea Party said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

I don't think so. Remember, liberal social policies have been blowing up government budgets for a very long time before the more egregiously extreme woke stuff came along. Aren't we still paying into the War on Poverty and the Great Society in some form or fashion for example?

---

But the war on poverty was a fiscal liberal policy, not a social liberal policy if I'm thinking about it correctly.
. . . .

---

Oh, it's the poor! Blessed are the poor! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time.

I would agree with almost all of that, and consider myself a conservative libertarian.

My personal life is pretty conservative, but politically pretty libertarian.

I'm thinking a high percentage of F16 agrees with bunch of those positions; Just some variances as to which ones.

A simplified one minute test...
https://www.theadvocates.org/

Waffledynamics said:

---

montanagriz said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

montanagriz said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

When billions of dollars go to wars abroad and our Republicans and Dem politicians tie border enforcement to said billions…

---

When we're spending $7 trillion per year, a few billions sure are a convenient scapegoat that the olds can point to so as to not think about the massive entitlements.

It's time for Boomers to surrender their entitlements.

---

Not sure how this is a "Boomer" issue.

A few billion eventually add up to trillions

---

Boomers have been in leadership the longest and have expanded our government's deficit through entitlements. Increasing numbers draw from Social Security and Medicare.

We are nowhere near trillions of dollars for the foreign military aid going on today. That is a copout to avoid addressing the actual problems with government spending.

Boomers should give up their benefits for the good of the country.

---

I think people should get back what they paid in, accounting for inflation at the very least but should include an 8% yearly growth on what was paid.

Pay everybody back on SS and then end SS and i agree with you. However, i damn sure want the money i paid in to SS since SS was supposed to be govt protecting its citizens by forcing them to save money back through this program

---

Considering there is a very real likelihood for SS and similar benefits to be insolvent for future generations, I think boomers should feel the pain of their policies now. They're extremely concerned with a few billion dollars and could solve a lot of our government overspending issues by not getting their benefits, thereby saving trillions.

Surely they would rather save the country's finances than retire and live off younger generations' tax dollars, right? They sure don't want to reform any entitlements, as they've had plenty of opportunities to do so, and they are definitely concerned about marginal spending to fund war supplies for allies. The reel big fish would be SS and Medicare.

Boomers should forgo those for the good of the country they so patriotically care about.

---

Im guessing you are in your 20s and dint have much paid into SS? We are going to have to disagree with your logic by "punishing" the boomers. How about the govt be fiscally responsible and not waste money with govt pensions and sending to overseas countries? The govt give us back money we were forced to pay in for our retirement. Then do away with SS going forward and other programs.

Let communities, charities, and churches fill the natural role of caretaker

---

I am not in my 20s. I'm older than that.

Did you ignore the pie chart early in the quote thread? Health and Social Security are more than half of the budget. The other stuff you mentioned doesn't even come close to solving anything. I'll post that pie chart again.



Interesting that it'll be fine for people who've paid into SS to cash out, and then we can screw the younger generations by ending it. What patriotism. Their children will have to deal with the hardships of the spending, but boomers should be exempt. Also interesting that we can't address the biggest parts of the federal spending. No, no, that would be too much. Better snip around some margins and not actually address root causes. For the good of the country, of course.

---

Cut out remainder, housing, education, science and we'd have a balanced budget. Science from the fed is a joke as is education. The rest can be picked up by the private sector.

atmtws said:

---

What is it called when you are gay-married, hate high income taxes, loathe wealth taxes, you're atheist but respect and understand the importance of religion to others and the impact it has in society, do not want the U.S. to be the world police, or the world's pocket book, doesnt believe in globalism, thinks we should streamline the citizenship process for those who truly want to come to the U.S. for a better life, and not just a paycheck or handout, immigrants do not get to vote for 5 years and lose that right if they commit a crime, believes in a strong military but not starting wars every few years to make MIC rich, get rid of 401Ks if we wont allow citizens to have the power to vote for the companies they invest in (taking away the massive amount of power away from Blackrocks/Vanguards that push their own agendas), break up big media, thinks the government should get out of the student and home loan industry, thinks the government needs to cut back regulations, get rid of the dept of education, leave abortion to the states, not use my tax dollars to subsidize other people's sex trophies, allow me to elect out of social security, enact term limits, enact a balanced budget amendment, do away with all affirmative action/DEI/CRT/etc., give pedos the death penalty, pro 2nd Amendment (grew up with guns, still own many), and legalize drugs?

---

Non-electable?
Primaried?
Emblematic of the delta between voters and their representatives?
Wasted third party voter /texags

I cringe every time I hear this. It means they're a lib but they want to sound more enlightened than the typical lib. But make no mistake, anyone who says this votes dem.

ChemAg15 said:

---

Isn't that called a libertarian? Don't take my money and mind your own business.

---

This shows how dumb libertarians are. If you're socially liberal, that means the government takes more of your money.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

When people claim that, does it not seem contradictory? They more times than not vote for wasteful social programs.

---

Don't confuse "social liberal" w/ strong beliefs in civil liberties.

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

When billions of dollars go to wars abroad and our Republicans and Dem politicians tie border enforcement to said billions…

---

When we're spending $7 trillion per year, a few billions sure are a convenient scapegoat that the olds can point to so as to not think about the massive entitlements.

It's time for Boomers to surrender their entitlements.

---

It's those darned boomers again! Odd, I don't see "for boomers only" on any of those.

ChemAg15 said:

---

Isn't that called a libertarian? Don't take my money and mind your own business.

---

Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle and self ownership applied to the arena of government. It makes no claim regarding social issues.

I am libertarian and extremely socially conservative. The question is how to we as a society conserve those social institutions? If you expect government to do it, you will more often than not create more problems than you solve.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

When people claim that, does it not seem contradictory? They more times than not vote for wasteful social programs.

---

We need economic safety nets, not (social program) hammocks.

Socially liberal is really different than socialist or leftist.

Socially liberal really means to be highly tolerant of variable social behaviors and "alternative life choices".

It doesn't necessarily mean socialist redistributive policy and social safety nets, as the two could be mutually exclusive in theory. Libertarians versus neoMarxists for example.

The question is really poorly framed and defined, as there are a lot of possible meanings and interpretations of the term "socially liberal".

Waffledynamics said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

When billions of dollars go to wars abroad and our Republicans and Dem politicians tie border enforcement to said billions…

---

When we're spending $7 trillion per year, a few billions sure are a convenient scapegoat that the olds can point to so as to not think about the massive entitlements.

It's time for Boomers to surrender their entitlements.

---

Not sure how this is a "Boomer" issue.

A few billion eventually add up to trillions

---

Boomers have been in leadership the longest and have expanded our government's deficit through entitlements. Increasing numbers draw from Social Security and Medicare.

We are nowhere near trillions of dollars for the foreign military aid going on today. That is a copout to avoid addressing the actual problems with government spending.

Boomers should give up their benefits for the good of the country.

---

Whoa, whoa. I'm a millenial and the boomers have straight up screwed us politically, but the bolded is nonsense.

---

Why not? They care about the federal spending, don't they?

---

Nobody has any right to take their money that they worked so hard for. You sound like a socialist.

---

Oh, how the tune changes when it's the entitlements on the line.

---

What benefits do you think the boomers should give up?

Waffledynamics said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

When billions of dollars go to wars abroad and our Republicans and Dem politicians tie border enforcement to said billions…

---

When we're spending $7 trillion per year, a few billions sure are a convenient scapegoat that the olds can point to so as to not think about the massive entitlements.

It's time for Boomers to surrender their entitlements.

---

Where the illegal's slice of the pie