Quote:

---

Where the illegal's slice of the pie

---

In the "Remainder" slice.

What good is being socially liberal if you don't intend to see social liberalism emplaced? If liberal social policies are your thing, then you are going to vote for people who want to advance those goals. THOSE people are going to create programs and legislation to do it which invariably result in heavy-handed, expensive government action which is antithesis to fiscal conservatism.

The whole "boomers are evil" thing is so tiresome.

The problems we face today are the result of politicians, many of whom place greed and power above representing the people. It's been going on since the very first man was elected to a position of authority.

If you think Millennial, Gen Z or "of color" politicians will be any different, your mind has been turned to mush by TikTok.

American Hardwood said:

---

What good is being socially liberal if you don't intend to see social liberalism emplaced? If liberal social policies are your thing, then you are going to vote for people who want to advance those goals. THOSE people are going to create programs and legislation to do it which invariably result in heavy-handed, expensive government action which is antithesis to fiscal conservatism.

---

This is exactly why I don't consider myself socially liberally any more. Plus, what's considered liberal today has gone far beyond the pale.

American Hardwood said:

---

What good is being socially liberal if you don't intend to see social liberalism emplaced? If liberal social policies are your thing, then you are going to vote for people who want to advance those goals. THOSE people are going to create programs and legislation to do it which invariably result in heavy-handed, expensive government action which is antithesis to fiscal conservatism.

---

While I agree with this because that's just what human nature has evolved to when it comes to politics and values, couldn't the same be said about socially conservative and fiscally conservative?

In theory, it seems the only way to maintain fiscal conservative for either side socially is if the populace being governing already is in near unanimous agreement of the social agenda thus advancing it themselves without government push. If not, then you "need" government to step in and push it.

Obviously this is pure fantasy related to America, but an interesting point that it may be near impossible to be fiscally conservative unless one is libertarian.

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.

---

I personally will never recover the amount of dollars I & my employers paid into Social Security. I am not wealthy by any standards nor my friends who also will never get back what they paid in let alone any interest it would have accrued. And yes I am a boomer.

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.

---

Again most boomers I know paid in more
Than they will ever get back especially considering inflation decreases the dollar over the tens of thousands we paid in 40 - 60 years ago, you need to stop with the boomer bs.

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 is the interest payment as a percentage?

If SS was left alone and not raided by the government, this chart would look a lot different. But alas, they found out they could "borrow" from the fund to buy votes.

As opposed to being discreet concerns (socially vs. fiscally), it's more of an overlap. Socially often means culturally. A lot of the cultural topics (drug legalization, abortion etc) have ties to the fiscal concerns. They involve government / tax-payer money and budgets. I also think it's tough to categorize people (or self-categorize) into something like "socially liberal but fiscally conservative". There are parts of each many are for or against, but not all. May be pro-gay marriage, but pro-life. Where does that land you? As we typically complain (rightfully so in my opinion) about identity politics, I fear we back ourselves into it with labels like these. I don't see the win or benefit to choosing this type of label or any label.

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.

---

it is not on the other foot. I spent a lifetime paying into Social Security of which I may get back half that and with dollars worth 30% of the dollars I and my employers paid in. Your argument is false in every aspect. Give it a rest.
edit spelling

Tea Party said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

What good is being socially liberal if you don't intend to see social liberalism emplaced? If liberal social policies are your thing, then you are going to vote for people who want to advance those goals. THOSE people are going to create programs and legislation to do it which invariably result in heavy-handed, expensive government action which is antithesis to fiscal conservatism.

---

While I agree with this because that's just what human nature has evolved to when it comes to politics and values, couldn't the same be said about socially conservative and fiscally conservative?

In theory, it seems the only way to maintain fiscal conservative for either side socially is if the populace being governing already is in near unanimous agreement of the social agenda thus advancing it themselves without government push. If not, then you "need" government to step in and push it.

Obviously this is pure fantasy related to America, but an interesting point that it may be near impossible to be fiscally conservative unless one is libertarian.

---

I will preface my response by stating that I don't believe there really is much of a separation of 'social' and 'fiscal'. Doing so is just a way of confounding people and giving wiggle room to the ideologically uncommitted. Fiscal policy and social policy are inexorably intertwined.

I want my social conservatism to win because of the merits of the ideology convince enough people to order their lives accordingly. No heavy powerful government necessary. In the free, honest open marketplace of ideas, conservatism wins. That's why the left has to be deceitful in the promotion of their ideology. That's why they want to empower an agency to enforce their policies, because they can't win otherwise. They appeal to emotion because rational truth is not on their side.

ETA: credit to oldag for his similar comment.

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 would be happy to surrender my benefits as soon as the feds return all the SS taxes they extracted from me with (over the past 50 years) a promise to someday return it.

Exactly, social and fiscal are closely connected because of human nature desire to implement our wants if there is a means provided to do so (big gov).

And yes I completely agree that social conservativism wins long term over social liberalism and we have centuries of history showing the cultures that go too far with social liberalism become weak and fail due to inevitable hard times.

Since we have a big bloated government now, it seems being fiscally conservative is impossible at this point in time if both sides insist on their social agenda. The only way that becomes possible in the future is if we have a period of libertarianism reducing the scope of government, which opens the door for a SCFC agenda later since SC will win over SL in the long run.

My grandfather would not accept Roosevelt dimes in change, He knew that Social Security was a bull**** scam early on.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

Not really.

Socially liberal doesn't mean you want stupid government funded programs left and right. It simply means you think people should be left alone to do what they want to do without government telling us we can or cannot live a certain way.

That means things like - DGAS about gay marriage, remove government from the marriage process all together & legalize things like THC, alcohol sales on Sunday, etc. Things that the government has no business being in or regulating.

Fiscally conservative means axing all of those stupid programs that provide no benefit and cost massive amounts of taxpayer dollars. Shrinking government, lowering taxes, forcing fiscal accountability on government, etc.

BillYeoman said:

---

When billions of dollars go to wars abroad and our Republicans and Dem politicians tie border enforcement to said billions…..even the most socially liberal will became fiscally conservative

---

If only that were true. But it isn't. Because people are stupid.

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.

---

No, it's time for the government to return the money it forcibly has taken from citizens.

Unless you are advocating for outright government theft, which is what you are actually doing here. Which would only make things worse, because once government starts a program or initiative....it never ends.

So yeah, hard pass on the "surrendering" of the money that was already mine to begin with that is taken from me against my fuggin will.

Stop the programs, return the money and force people to be responsible for themselves. I love how the youngsters always want to blame "the olds" for everything, but are also more than happy to scew everybody over so they can keep saying "ok boomer!" to make themselves feel good.

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.

---

Why? I understand if you want the younger generation to give up their future entitlements, but that was money taken out of peoples paychecks for years to fund these things and now you want them to just walk away without ever getting any of that money back? What is the word I am looking for? How about NO! If they want to tell me I won't get any SS or Medicare when I turn 65, fine. Just give me all the money you stole from me over the last 30 years, with interest, and we will call it even.

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.

---

And milleneals should pay a higher tax rate across the board, for the benefit of the country.

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.

---

I don't think you want to really look into whos getting the bulk of that health and social security money. That might really hurt your generational envy. And almost all of those "Boomers" who are getting money actually paid in as opposed to those worthless younger folks who are on disability and Medicaid.

schmellba99 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.

---

And milleneals should pay a higher tax rate across the board, for the benefit of the country.

---

Agreed. They are responsible for foisting so much of this extra crap that government has no business being a part of on us by who they vote for. I always love seeing people talk about how we should all pay more taxes for "x" program they believe in. Well, nothing is stopping you chief, send in an extra check at tax time next year if you believe in it so much.

Too many in this thread are confusing classical liberals with leftists & progressivs. Classical liberalism is for personal freedoms WITHOUT government intervention. It's the leftists and progressives that push social programs/intervention. Then why say "liberal" at all? Because the right/conservatives have been guilty of pushing their own morals through legislation, historically. Something a classical liberal would oppose.
With that established, "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" makes perfect sense. As has been said, it's pretty much Libertarian now.

Leave us alone, and quit wasting our money.

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.

---

This is just dumb

I used to be hard core conservative on everything, but as I get older I realize that there are a whole lot of things that just aren't important that we collectively spend way too much time, energy and money on from both sides.

I'm far more socially liberal than I ever was - because I just want to be left the F alone, and I expect others want to be left the F alone in their personal lives as well. That means that I honestly don't give 2 shts if a couple of dudes want to play hide the salame in their bedroom with one another at night, that doesn't have any effect on me at all. I'm all for a couple of chicks scissoring one another. If you want to fire up a blunt in your back yard and blaze away - I DGAFS. I might join you. That's the socially liberal part - you do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do, we'll leave each other alone and not try to force our beliefs on one another.

What I don't want is the government mandating that these things that are purely personal choices can or cannot happen, I don't want my tax dollars spent on them one way or another and I don't want to be assaulted with the social justice side of things like we are today (which goes back to "leave me the F alone"). I sure as hell don't want all of the stupid programs, studies, etc. done that cost taxpayer dollars. If some homo group wants to fund their own study because it makes them feel good, by all means - they can do whatever. But my tax dollars should not be allocated to that type of crap in any shape or form. That's the fiscally conservative part - government should be the absolute bare minimum of basic functions as outlined in the constitution, and nothing more.

schmellba99 said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

Not really.

Socially liberal doesn't mean you want stupid government funded programs left and right. It simply means you think people should be left alone to do what they want to do without government telling us we can or cannot live a certain way.

That means things like - DGAS about gay marriage, remove government from the marriage process all together & legalize things like THC, alcohol sales on Sunday, etc. Things that the government has no business being in or regulating.

Fiscally conservative means axing all of those stupid programs that provide no benefit and cost massive amounts of taxpayer dollars. Shrinking government, lowering taxes, forcing fiscal accountability on government, etc.

---

But that is just libertarianism.

I think we need a third metric within these discussions.

1) Fiscal conservative/liberal = How much does government spend in total.
2) Social conservative/liberal = What type of social agenda do you want government implementing.
3) Cultural conservative/liberal = What type of social agenda do you advocate for, without government involvement.

I'd venture a decent amount of F16 are actually libertarians but culturally conservative within their local community.

I would fall into that category. I want small government (libertarianism) and am ok if people want to be socially liberal, but I do not advocate or endorse it in the slightest. To the point that I am very vocal about the degeneracy of social liberalism, but I do not want government being my enforcer against said social liberalism.

ts5641 said:

---

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.

---

No, it doesn't.

At some point, someone has to be the one left holding the bag on SS and Medicare. I hear all this, I want my money back plus interest. Well cowboy, your money has already been spent the moment they collected it. It is gone.

So who is going to feel the pain? I turn 50 this year and have paid in for almost 30 years. They could end SS and Medicare tomorrow and I would be ecstatic as long as it included every other entitlement and required a constitutional amendment to add anymore entitlements. By any metric I would be getting screwed over financially. Not as bad as those in their 60s, but I would support it when I am in my 60s too.

Why? Because I have young children (12 & 9), and SS and Medicare make up over half the federal budget and is unsustainable. We are literally mortgaging our children and grandchildren's future. They will be worse off than us.

I cannot live with that.

Well, we have different definitions of what socially liberal means. In my definition, if you are claiming 'liberal' status, I am aligning you with the liberal left politically as is represented by your typical democrat, that means in belief AND execution. It does NOT mean "I just want to be left alone" because the last thing the political left liberal wants to do is leave you alone and stay out of your pocketbook.

You sound more like a classic liberal or libertarian which are actual much more aligned with conservatism IMO than with the modern liberal leftist.

It is very difficult to have these philosophical discussions when the terms used mean so many different things to different people. Frankly I think the confusion in terms is just a part of the overall attack on language Orwell style. I don't think you and I are much different in beliefs, but the difference in definitions makes it seem so.

txags92 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.

---

Why? I understand if you want the younger generation to give up their future entitlements, but that was money taken out of peoples paychecks for years to fund these things and now you want them to just walk away without ever getting any of that money back? What is the word I am looking for? How about NO! If they want to tell me I won't get any SS or Medicare when I turn 65, fine. Just give me all the money you stole from me over the last 30 years, with interest, and we will call it even.

---

I had hoped that someone would have gotten the point I was trying to make.

Yes, it would be morally wrong for people that have paid into entitlements all their lives to have them taken away, however those are the biggest expenditures, and cutting at the margins will not solve the problem. This is why the cries about spending money on foreign policy matters are disingenuous.

Eventually, someone is going to get screwed, and nobody is serious about addressing the actual root cause.

Tea Party said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

Not really.

Socially liberal doesn't mean you want stupid government funded programs left and right. It simply means you think people should be left alone to do what they want to do without government telling us we can or cannot live a certain way.

That means things like - DGAS about gay marriage, remove government from the marriage process all together & legalize things like THC, alcohol sales on Sunday, etc. Things that the government has no business being in or regulating.

Fiscally conservative means axing all of those stupid programs that provide no benefit and cost massive amounts of taxpayer dollars. Shrinking government, lowering taxes, forcing fiscal accountability on government, etc.

---

But that is just libertarianism.

I think we need a third metric within these discussions.

1) Fiscal conservative/liberal = How much does government spend in total.
2) Social conservative/liberal = What type of social agenda do you want government implementing.
3) Cultural conservative/liberal = What type of social agenda do you advocate for, without government involvement.

I'd venture a decent amount of F16 are actually libertarians but culturally conservative within their local community.

I would fall into that category. I want small government (libertarianism) and am ok if people want to be socially liberal, but I do not advocate or endorse it in the slightest. To the point that I am very vocal about the degeneracy of social liberalism, but I do not want government being my enforcer against said social liberalism.

---

Libertarians are generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but simply because one is both of those things doesn't mean that they are full on Libertarian, because Libertarians also believe in some stupid things like open borders and essentially eliminating everything that is a crime so we no longer have crime.

You are conflating what social liberalism has historically meant versus what liberal means today. Classical liberalism is for personal rights, limited government, etc. The modern definition is completely different, and honestly is a relatively new definition.

Socially liberal - leave me the F alone, I'll leave you the F alone, neither of us will force our beliefs upon one another. We don't have to agree with one another, and that is OK. But simply because we don't agree doesn't mean one of us is right and one of us is wrong, it simply means we have different beliefs and ends there.

In all honestly, we need to re-define what liberal means today and call a spade a spade. The modern liberal is a nazi, in almost every single aspect. In fact, let's look at what nazism beleifs are:

• disdain for liberal democracy - check. Modern liberals want nothing of a democracy, they want their people in power at all costs, and to crush those that beleive different.
• dictatorship - check. Modern liberals would gladly support a dictatorship, so long as the dictator is the one they want. Look at how many of them supported Castro or Che Guevera or the dude that was the Venezuelan dictator for years, etc. Oh sure, we can have an "election", just like Saddam Hussein had "elections".
• Antisemetism - check. Modern events play this out perfectly. The modern liberal is feverently anti-semite
• Anti communist - check. Modern liberals have no problem with private ownership of property and businesses, so long as the owners are also modern liberals and support modern liberal agendas
• White supremacy - check. Modern liberals are the definition of white supremacits in that they honestly believe anybody not white is incapable of surviving without the modern liberal overseer "protecting" them, because they believe them to be too stupid to perform basic tasks and don't even hide that belief
• Scientific racism - check. Get the vax, or die! And not die from the rona, but from the government. No matter how much data shows their belief to be completely wrong.
• Social darwinism - check. They believe that their leaders in power should remain in power, and that their power should increase
• Eugenics - check. They actively fight to continue the genocide of black babies via abortion

Waffledynamics said:

---

txags92 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.

---

Why? I understand if you want the younger generation to give up their future entitlements, but that was money taken out of peoples paychecks for years to fund these things and now you want them to just walk away without ever getting any of that money back? What is the word I am looking for? How about NO! If they want to tell me I won't get any SS or Medicare when I turn 65, fine. Just give me all the money you stole from me over the last 30 years, with interest, and we will call it even.

---

I had hoped that someone would have gotten the point I was trying to make.

Yes, it would be morally wrong for people that have paid into entitlements all their lives to have them taken away, however those are the biggest expenditures, and cutting at the margins will not solve the problem. This is why the cries about spending money on foreign policy matters are disingenuous.

Eventually, someone is going to get screwed, and nobody is serious about addressing the actual root cause.

---

The fault in your premis is that the level of spending must remain the same, so cutting the 1% here and 2% there isn't going to make a difference.

That is a short sighted and simplistic premise. In addition to cutting the ~20% of spending through the BS programs, defense can and should be cut significantly. We spend more on our defense than the next 7 or 8 countries in the world combined. And a massive, massive amount of that 16.2% spent on defense/homeland security could be cut because it is pure fat. Hell, the Pentagon has admitted that it cannot acount for several TRILLION dollars of spending over the last few years. That is pure waste.

From your chart -
Health (28%) - why is the government spending money on health, outside of the VA? Not the responsibility of the government. End the programs and as those that are on it now die off, the program dies with them.
Social Security (25.3%) - same. End the program, everybody gets what they paid into the system and the system dies.
Labor, science, energy, housing, education, transportation, remainder - all need to go.

That eliminates about 63% of the chart. Not all at once with the SS an Health, but over time. That is significantly more than "cutting at the margins". And that doesn't include reduction in defense spending, food and ag spending, etc. that could also be trimmed way down.

American Hardwood said:

---

What good is being socially liberal if you don't intend to see social liberalism emplaced? If liberal social policies are your thing, then you are going to vote for people who want to advance those goals. THOSE people are going to create programs and legislation to do it which invariably result in heavy-handed, expensive government action which is antithesis to fiscal conservatism.

---

This is a false assumption.

I consider myself pretty personally conservative, but pretty socially liberal when it comes to government, and very conservative when it comes to fiscal policy.

My fiscal conservatism is more important in my voting habits than anything else. I would never vote for anyone from the democratic party because of this. I might vote for a libertarian if they are not extreme on issues of national defense.

Typically, what socially liberal / fiscally conservative means is that you lean libertarian, but don't like the libertarian party's views on things like national defense, supporting police and fire departments, abolishing public schools, one-sided free trade, and some of the other very extreme views of the libertarian party. But, you also realize that conservatives have lost the war of keeping conservative social laws in place.

I don't agree with the government endorsing homosexual marriage, but would gladly let the government just get out of the marriage business altogether if the government would agree to reduce spending on medicare, social security, foreign aid, etc.

I think that a very significant number of people that always vote republican fit into that category. I would say that a large portion of MAGA people feel this way. The libertarian party is just not patriotic enough, and the GOP is not fiscally conservative enough. That leaves a huge gap for a very large number of voters.

schmellba99 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

Not really.

Socially liberal doesn't mean you want stupid government funded programs left and right. It simply means you think people should be left alone to do what they want to do without government telling us we can or cannot live a certain way.

That means things like - DGAS about gay marriage, remove government from the marriage process all together & legalize things like THC, alcohol sales on Sunday, etc. Things that the government has no business being in or regulating.

Fiscally conservative means axing all of those stupid programs that provide no benefit and cost massive amounts of taxpayer dollars. Shrinking government, lowering taxes, forcing fiscal accountability on government, etc.

---

But that is just libertarianism.

I think we need a third metric within these discussions.

1) Fiscal conservative/liberal = How much does government spend in total.
2) Social conservative/liberal = What type of social agenda do you want government implementing.
3) Cultural conservative/liberal = What type of social agenda do you advocate for, without government involvement.

I'd venture a decent amount of F16 are actually libertarians but culturally conservative within their local community.

I would fall into that category. I want small government (libertarianism) and am ok if people want to be socially liberal, but I do not advocate or endorse it in the slightest. To the point that I am very vocal about the degeneracy of social liberalism, but I do not want government being my enforcer against said social liberalism.

---

Libertarians are generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but simply because one is both of those things doesn't mean that they are full on Libertarian, because Libertarians also believe in some stupid things like open borders and essentially eliminating everything that is a crime so we no longer have crime.

You are conflating what social liberalism has historically meant versus what liberal means today. Classical liberalism is for personal rights, limited government, etc. The modern definition is completely different, and honestly is a relatively new definition.

Socially liberal - leave me the F alone, I'll leave you the F alone, neither of us will force our beliefs upon one another. We don't have to agree with one another, and that is OK. But simply because we don't agree doesn't mean one of us is right and one of us is wrong, it simply means we have different beliefs and ends there.

In all honestly, we need to re-define what liberal means today and call a spade a spade. The modern liberal is a nazi, in almost every single aspect. In fact, let's look at what nazism beleifs are:

• disdain for liberal democracy - check. Modern liberals want nothing of a democracy, they want their people in power at all costs, and to crush those that beleive different.
• dictatorship - check. Modern liberals would gladly support a dictatorship, so long as the dictator is the one they want. Look at how many of them supported Castro or Che Guevera or the dude that was the Venezuelan dictator for years, etc. Oh sure, we can have an "election", just like Saddam Hussein had "elections".
• Antisemetism - check. Modern events play this out perfectly. The modern liberal is feverently anti-semite
• Anti communist - check. Modern liberals have no problem with private ownership of property and businesses, so long as the owners are also modern liberals and support modern liberal agendas
• White supremacy - check. Modern liberals are the definition of white supremacits in that they honestly believe anybody not white is incapable of surviving without the modern liberal overseer "protecting" them, because they believe them to be too stupid to perform basic tasks and don't even hide that belief
• Scientific racism - check. Get the vax, or die! And not die from the rona, but from the government. No matter how much data shows their belief to be completely wrong.
• Social darwinism - check. They believe that their leaders in power should remain in power, and that their power should increase
• Eugenics - check. They actively fight to continue the genocide of black babies via abortion

---

Fair point on the definition of "liberal" being *******ized mainly be the media and loony Democrats. A lot of R's even have traditional liberal tendencies, but they just align closer to the GOP since the modern liberal is actually a leftist now or some other term unrelated to traditional liberal.

My main point in these discussion was it is more accurate to have three different aspects to view rather than just two.

Fiscal, Social (via government), and a new aspect that I called Cultural (social without government)

The catagorization within those aspects can range greatly from conservative, to traditional liberal, to leftist, to neutral and it does not inadvertently lump contradicting ideologies into the bigger buckets for the sake of political polarity.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Depends on which one of those you vote for.

I largely didn't care what people did so long as it didn't affect me. But I always voted by my wallet.

---

I think it depends on how you define a liberal. I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt others. I'm pro choice and I think laws attempting to regulate what consenting adults can do in their bedroom or who they can love are buffoonery. I'm fiscally conservative and I think Trump spent way too much. I vote libertarian. We need a small government bc all the federal government has ever done is make things worse.

The other day I was called "RINO leftist scum" on a "conservative" Facebook group.

I would argue I'm a common sense moderate. The world went so left that I ended up on the right with the rest of the people in the middle.

I don't think you can call democrats liberal anymore. They're socialists now.

What I said doesn't mean you necessarily vote democrat, there are plenty of liberal Republicans around to take your vote and then capitulate to the democrats if not outright work with them hand-in-hand. In the end, the results are the same, and in fact is exactly how we got to the current bloated tyrannical state of our government now. Again, this demonstrates why you can't really separate the social from the fiscal.

Tea Party said:

---

bigjag19 said:

---

Exactly. Socially liberal programs cost money.

I don't care what someone does with themself if it doesn't harm others. But I also don't want to pay for any of it either.

---

Why does socially liberal culture have to cost money?.

---

Because that is how the politicians buy the votes