Has become a totally meaningless way to self-identify, because damn near everyone does at this point. When people say this "fiscally conservative" no longer means I don't think the government should spend tons of money, it's that I believe that the government should spend money responsibly in the way that I define responsible.

I think this dialogue demonstrates how risky (and ill-defined) it is to label ourselves or others. Identity politics is less than helpful.

hph6203 said:

---

Has become a totally meaningless way to self-identify, because damn near everyone does at this point. When people say this "fiscally conservative" no longer means I don't think the government should spend tons of money, it's that I believe that the government should spend money responsibly in the way that I define responsible.

---

If only we had a document that specifically outlined what the government can and cannot do...

American Hardwood said:

---

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.

---

I just disagree.

You can have viewpoint that is tolerant of other people's value systems (to some extent), but adamant that the government should be much, much smaller.

Being A) socially tolerant of other views; does not equal B) supporting socialist government programs or spending. I am pretty much the former(A), and adamantly, adamantly against the latter(B).

How else would you define that besides fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Give me another name that is five words or less, and if it fits, I would gladly adopt it.

It means they want to spend your money not thiers.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

Most of the time they're folks who mischaracterize it.

They usually mean "socially libertarian" not socially liberal.

Being socially tolerant of others views makes you liberal? Modern liberals in practice are the most intolerant bunch if people you can find. I reject your definition of tolerance. Liberal's don't own the word.

edit for punctuation

A whole lot of the social libertarian stuff could go away if we actually reduced the scope of what government was involved in. For example, if we stopped giving out extra benefits or treating people differently if they were married, then there is no reason for government to get involved in the definition of who can be married. There are dozens of issues like that where government is involved in things it doesn't need to be involved in that would eliminate huge chunks of bureaucracy. Small government advocates and fiscally conservative people should be about limiting the scope of government and with that comes less bureaucracy. Having fewer bureaucrats should automatically lead to a more libertarian outlook on what social issues government should have a role in.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

Government run social programs are always wasteful by definition. Basically government programs are inherently wasteful, combined with government has no business in the sadministering.

This is what churches and community volunteer organizations are really good at and efficient at administering.

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.

---

If those 'entitlements' were freebies we get simply for surviving to old age you'd have a legit argument. In reality we paid in ahead for them with the tax withheld from our earnings. If purely a free entitlement we'd also all get the same check every month. Instead those of us who paid in more get more back. Those who didn't pay in to the system don't get social security benefits unless they're a survivor of a recipient.

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.

---

It's easy to convince someone that someone else is wrong when it doesn't affect their money. It's damn near impossible to convince someone that THEY are wrong when it does affect their money.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

You think too highly of liberals if you ever think they will ever figure that out.

---

most liberals I know, including myself, do want border security. When I hear republicans tout that we do not, I just laugh. I've never heard one single liberal say, "let everyone cross at will". Not once. However, it really comes down to a wall. Or not. Liberals favor border security with border patrol agents and technology. Conservatives insist on a physical wall. I think everyone recognizes that we can't have unlimited asylum seekers. It's unfortunate that so many south american countries are in turmoil because we used to have a reasonable number of asylum seekers that we could absorb. If I lived there, I'd want to get the hell out too. But times have changed.
But back to the point..."liberal social programs". Social programs to help the poor? Social Security? Healthcare? Is that what you mean by "liberal social programs"? Subsidizing farmers...is that a social program? They just seem like decent things to do to help people. When it comes to your wallet....do we really need 7 military bases in Japan? It's only 147,000 square miles! Do we really need 40 military bases in Germany? We have 750 bases in other countries, so if you want to talk about your wallet, think about that. No, I'm not anti-military. But I do think we could be much more efficient with the number of our bases. We should think about waste EVERYWHERE, not just in the money we spend on our own people here in the U.S.

Yeah, a majority of which are middle-aged male "asylum seekers". Even you can't be that dense to believe that nonsense. But maybe you are.

It means they're full of *****

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.

---

okay, renter

Opalka said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

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

---

You think too highly of liberals if you ever think they will ever figure that out.

---

most liberals I know, including myself, do want border security. When I hear republicans tout that we do not, I just laugh. I've never heard one single liberal say, "let everyone cross at will". Not once. However, it really comes down to a wall. Or not. Liberals favor border security with border patrol agents and technology. Conservatives insist on a physical wall. I think everyone recognizes that we can't have unlimited asylum seekers. It's unfortunate that so many south american countries are in turmoil because we used to have a reasonable number of asylum seekers that we could absorb. If I lived there, I'd want to get the hell out too. But times have changed.
But back to the point..."liberal social programs". Social programs to help the poor? Social Security? Healthcare? Is that what you mean by "liberal social programs"? Subsidizing farmers...is that a social program? They just seem like decent things to do to help people. When it comes to your wallet....do we really need 7 military bases in Japan? It's only 147,000 square miles! Do we really need 40 military bases in Germany? We have 750 bases in other countries, so if you want to talk about your wallet, think about that. No, I'm not anti-military. But I do think we could be much more efficient with the number of our bases. We should think about waste EVERYWHERE, not just in the money we spend on our own people here in the U.S.

---

You ever hear of FDR? LBJ? How about Ted Kennedy? Kennedy argued on the floor in 1965 in advance of the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that millions of immigrants would never flood this country.

Who do you think created Medicare, Social Security, and our modern Immigration Policy?

LIBERALS in both the Democrat and GOP.

Modern conservative movement didn't take control of GOP until the 1980s after a back and forth battle in the 1960s and 1970s.

The modern GOP didn't take control of House of Reps until 1995. The first time they had control since 1952. The GOP of the 1940s was quite different from the GOP of 1995. The modern American conservative movement grew within the GOP from 1952-1990.

Defining policy eras by party alone is very imprecise. Many big government progressives dominated the GOP and Dems for many decades. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive for instance.

The Trumplican movement is actually the Perot Reform party movement taking control of the GOP which was made up of modern conservatives and early 1900s GOP progressive types(like Teddy, Bush41 and McCain) fighting each other for control. All of them more conservative than the modern Marxists that have now just about taken control of the Democrats. But all of them to the left of the modern American conservative.


Also, defense is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. This other stuff, not so much. And I'm an avid proponent of reduced defense spending. But using a part of our budget that makes up less than 20% and actually gets mentioned in our Constitution is a less than compelling argument. Fed government is now over 20% if GDP. Defense spending is barely over 4% of GDP. It's literally supposed to be the primary job of the federal government. That and, you know, maintaining
Our sovereignty by maintaining our borders.

First you must define just what a "social liberal" is.

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.

---

Social Security is NOT an entitlement for those that paid into it over a 40 year career.

And I'm a millenial.....

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.

---

My father, who is a boomer, worked for over 50 years and paid into social security. He will never get back what he put in. You can take this "entitlement" BS and stick it up your ace.

If you wanted to take out all the people who are "mentally ill" at 18 and receive social security for the rest of their life, I would be fine with that.

The only thing wrong with social security and the people who paid in, is that the government used it as a piggy bank and has never paid it back.