• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

Most people agree that money should be spent on infrastructure, education, and social programs. They might not agree on the scope, but most people agree that government should have a role in such things. I don't know where you're getting the belief that spending money on these three things is necessarily overspending.

It isn't necessarily. I agree that deficit spending is not the goal with liberals, simple spending is. If we have the money, spend it. If we don't have the money, still, spend it.

Deficits don't play into the equation. It's a simple goal of spend it.
 
May I ask, what do you consider being liberal with money?

Note the distinction between the terms; either you are liberal or you are mean.
This is according to the view of the citizen; either you give to them, or you do not.

Some politicians have gone to great lengths to portray the rich as another type of citizen,
almost an enemy of the people. In doing so, they now have
the masses believing that taking from the rich is a noble cause; especially if they are to receive
services from this legal plunder...


I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed liberal, but, nevertheless, that liberality without the reputation of it is hurtful; because, though it be worthily and rightly used, still if it be not known, you escape not the reproach of its opposite vice. Hence, to have credit for liberality with the world at large, you must neglect no circumstance of sumptuous display; the result being, that a Prince of a liberal disposition will consume his whole substance in things of this sort, and, after all, be obliged, if he would maintain his reputation for liberality, to burden his subjects with extraordinary taxes, and to resort to confiscations and all the other shifts whereby money is raised. But in this way he becomes hateful to his subjects, and growing impoverished is held in little esteem by any. So that in the end, having by his liberality offended many and obliged few, he is worse off than when he began, and is exposed to all his original dangers.


- Machiavelli



I'd say this guy pretty much called it.
 
Note the distinction between the terms; either you are liberal or you are mean.
This is according to the view of the citizen; either you give to them, or you do not.

Some politicians have gone to great lengths to portray the rich as another type of citizen,
almost an enemy of the people. In doing so, they now have
the masses believing that taking from the rich is a noble cause; especially if they are to receive
services from this legal plunder...


I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed liberal, but, nevertheless, that liberality without the reputation of it is hurtful; because, though it be worthily and rightly used, still if it be not known, you escape not the reproach of its opposite vice. Hence, to have credit for liberality with the world at large, you must neglect no circumstance of sumptuous display; the result being, that a Prince of a liberal disposition will consume his whole substance in things of this sort, and, after all, be obliged, if he would maintain his reputation for liberality, to burden his subjects with extraordinary taxes, and to resort to confiscations and all the other shifts whereby money is raised. But in this way he becomes hateful to his subjects, and growing impoverished is held in little esteem by any. So that in the end, having by his liberality offended many and obliged few, he is worse off than when he began, and is exposed to all his original dangers.


- Machiavelli



I'd say this guy pretty much called it.

Of course, with the Florentine Republic and most governments until the past couple of centuries, they were far weaker of a state in terms of material resources and currency, so his words have far greater impact under that recognition.
 
Surely this cant shock you? It is why the democrats attack on the Tea Party is so mindless and stupid...ooops...I mean corrupt and contrived. The Tea Party...that 27%...they arent going after democrats...they are going after republicans. The Tea Party scares big spending GOP members more than it should scare democrats.

Most Tea Party groups have explicitly stated they are not pushing conservative social issues, it's all about fiscal prudence and personal responsibility and liberty. You are correct about the TP movement going after republicans. If Tom Delay was still in office he would be one of the biggest targets of the TP. He was a hardcore social conservative and a fiscal moron.
 
Most Tea Party groups have explicitly stated they are not pushing conservative social issues, it's all about fiscal prudence and personal responsibility and liberty. You are correct about the TP movement going after republicans. If Tom Delay was still in office he would be one of the biggest targets of the TP. He was a hardcore social conservative and a fiscal moron.

That's why I won't have anything to do with the TP. Fix the SOCIAL issues and most of the Fiscal issues go away. It doesn't work the same way in reverse.
 
That is a landslide minority

The teaparty has had no impact in changing americans beliefs...the numbers remain the same.

he bad economy, a change in presidents, bailouts, health care, the Tea Party and now another presidential cycle, you name it. Still, the basic fiscal and social ideologies of U.S. voters remain largely unchanged.


27% Say They

Anyone who believes in and supports Democracy is a liberal. :shrug:
 
That's why I won't have anything to do with the TP. Fix the SOCIAL issues and most of the Fiscal issues go away. It doesn't work the same way in reverse.

While I agree with you on the social issues being the root cause of our overall economic breakdown, we don't have enough time to fix the social problems while the big government fools are bankrupting the Nation as we speak. The TP movement is singularly focused on forcing the politicians to get our fiscal house in order. You have to start somewhere.
 
That is a landslide minority

The teaparty has had no impact in changing americans beliefs...the numbers remain the same.

he bad economy, a change in presidents, bailouts, health care, the Tea Party and now another presidential cycle, you name it. Still, the basic fiscal and social ideologies of U.S. voters remain largely unchanged.


27% Say They

Ironic:

"Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this article" . . . OR . . . "Become a member and get full access to all articles and polls starting at $3.95/month"

Not debating something I can't read, research and verify.
 
.....The TP movement is singularly focused on forcing the politicians to get our fiscal house in order. You have to start somewhere.

True, you do have to start somewhere. I just think they're doing it from the wrong end.
 
It isn't necessarily. I agree that deficit spending is not the goal with liberals, simple spending is. If we have the money, spend it. If we don't have the money, still, spend it.

Deficits don't play into the equation. It's a simple goal of spend it.

This has more to do with the politics and realities of budgetary and fiscal policies than anything else. At the very least, dems have called for raising taxes to cover the spending, whereas so-called conservatives in Congress have for the most part encouraged cutting taxes but spend anyway.
 
That's why I won't have anything to do with the TP. Fix the SOCIAL issues and most of the Fiscal issues go away. It doesn't work the same way in reverse.

I don't really see how the one follows the other.
 
True, you do have to start somewhere. I just think they're doing it from the wrong end.
The illegitimacy rate is a big problem, but I see it as a social issue rather than a political issue. Do you want to make premarital sex illegal?
 
Surely this cant shock you? It is why the democrats attack on the Tea Party is so mindless and stupid...ooops...I mean corrupt and contrived. The Tea Party...that 27%...they arent going after democrats...they are going after republicans. The Tea Party scares big spending GOP members more than it should scare democrats.

Sorry Vance but your statement is factually incorrect. Teaparty supported and elected govs attacked public workers viciously...they blamed their state woes on the workers and at the same time stripping their workers they either did or attempted to give tax cuts to the rich and corporations....NONE has created any jobs yet in any of those states.
The first thing House elected teaparty supported reps did was attack social security and medicare...ryan put together a teaparty backed plan that was a candystore for the rich and corporations at everyone elses expense....Since the election in Nov the teaparty has lost tons of their support...and they will lose more. Just look at this primary...everyone of their far right n utter candidates has been soundly REJECTED by moderate republicans and independents....
 
Sorry Vance but your statement is factually incorrect. Teaparty supported and elected govs attacked public workers viciously...they blamed their state woes on the workers and at the same time stripping their workers they either did or attempted to give tax cuts to the rich and corporations....NONE has created any jobs yet in any of those states.
The first thing House elected teaparty supported reps did was attack social security and medicare...ryan put together a teaparty backed plan that was a candystore for the rich and corporations at everyone elses expense....Since the election in Nov the teaparty has lost tons of their support...and they will lose more. Just look at this primary...everyone of their far right n utter candidates has been soundly REJECTED by moderate republicans and independents....

That's kinda funny....they've had less than a year, and yet President Obama has had nearly three.....blah blah blah. Anyways, I think the tea party is little more than a bunch of rednecks and libertarians, or redneck libertarians...but the truth is, liberal democrats have done **** else more than the rednecks. ****, they spent the first two years wrapped around passing unconstitutional legislation....how bright is that?
 
I don't really see how the one follows the other.

Very simple... If you return to a proper social order, then many of the ills that have created the financial crisis cease to exist.... The prison population goes down when you start executing violent offenders. Welfare, social security, unemployment, etc... all get washed off the books because there is no legitimate mandate for such government programs. Marriage and proper family management reduces the number of unwed mothers, single parent families, and the need for many other social services. I'm sure you can see where I'm going here.
 
The illegitimacy rate is a big problem, but I see it as a social issue rather than a political issue. Do you want to make premarital sex illegal?

No, but I would force any couple that creates a child together to be married and spend the next 18 years and 9 months (minimum) together to raise that child.
 
dems have called for raising taxes to cover the spending
They have called for tax increases, but it wouldn't come within light years of covering the spending. Repealing the Bush tax cut only for the top bracket, would amount to a 10% increase in revenues (at best) on that portion of revenues. Personal income tax on that bracket only accounts for 50% of the total revenues from personal income tax, and the total revenues from personal income tax are only 40% of total revenues. 10% of 50% of 40% = a 2% increase in revenues. Right now we're borrowing ~42 cents for every dollar that we spend.



whereas so-called conservatives in Congress have for the most part encouraged cutting taxes but spend anyway.
This part is true and caused the rise of the Tea Party.
 
Sorry Vance but your statement is factually incorrect. Teaparty supported and elected govs attacked public workers viciously...they blamed their state woes on the workers and at the same time stripping their workers they either did or attempted to give tax cuts to the rich and corporations....NONE has created any jobs yet in any of those states.
The first thing House elected teaparty supported reps did was attack social security and medicare...ryan put together a teaparty backed plan that was a candystore for the rich and corporations at everyone elses expense....Since the election in Nov the teaparty has lost tons of their support...and they will lose more. Just look at this primary...everyone of their far right n utter candidates has been soundly REJECTED by moderate republicans and independents....
Thats not at all inconsistent with what I said. The Tea Party folks...that minority of folks...believes in smaller government...smaller fed roles, responsible federal spending. They target republicans, not democrats. Of COURSE they want to see federal programs gutted...they see a 15.5 trillion dollar debt about to be handed down to your grandchildren and dont like it. The Tea Party folks are the natural enemy to big spending democrats AND big spending republicans.
 
No, but I would force any couple that creates a child together to be married and spend the next 18 years and 9 months (minimum) together to raise that child.

Which is never going to happen. This can lead to huge issues of spousal abuse. It is also not going to be good/healthy for a child to be raised by parents who either don't love each other or do not love them or both.
 
Explain, having debt is bad because then your beholden to someone. Having the ability to go into debt as fine but it doesnt mean that you should.
If you don't maintain a healthy debt, you'll lose your credit rating. If you stay out of debt for 7 years, you'll lose all of your credit.

I always thought that that was dumb. But 'tis what 'tis.
 
Note the distinction between the terms; either you are liberal or you are mean.
This is according to the view of the citizen; either you give to them, or you do not.

Some politicians have gone to great lengths to portray the rich as another type of citizen,
almost an enemy of the people. In doing so, they now have
the masses believing that taking from the rich is a noble cause; especially if they are to receive
services from this legal plunder...


I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed liberal, but, nevertheless, that liberality without the reputation of it is hurtful; because, though it be worthily and rightly used, still if it be not known, you escape not the reproach of its opposite vice. Hence, to have credit for liberality with the world at large, you must neglect no circumstance of sumptuous display; the result being, that a Prince of a liberal disposition will consume his whole substance in things of this sort, and, after all, be obliged, if he would maintain his reputation for liberality, to burden his subjects with extraordinary taxes, and to resort to confiscations and all the other shifts whereby money is raised. But in this way he becomes hateful to his subjects, and growing impoverished is held in little esteem by any. So that in the end, having by his liberality offended many and obliged few, he is worse off than when he began, and is exposed to all his original dangers.


- Machiavelli



I'd say this guy pretty much called it.

In that time and place, this may be a more valid response to the question, but as our country is not operating under the feudal system, there is no prince to make a "sumptuous display".

Infrastructure, social programs and education can hardly be called a "sumptuous display" in any case.
 
Which is never going to happen. This can lead to huge issues of spousal abuse. It is also not going to be good/healthy for a child to be raised by parents who either don't love each other or do not love them or both.

That's fine. The intent is not to force them to get married. The intent is to reduce the occurance of pre-marital sex to ensure that they don't end up in that situation.
 
That's fine. The intent is not to force them to get married. The intent is to reduce the occurance of pre-marital sex to ensure that they don't end up in that situation.

Except, since it won't be implemented, it will never be able to get those results you desire.

The best thing we can do to reduce children out of wedlock is educate teenagers on the true costs of having children when they are not financially and/or emotionally/mentally ready for them and all the things that can be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This should be a major responsibility of parents, but it should also be covered, from an academic standpoint, in school. Make teenagers really see what it takes to be a parent and what happens to parents who aren't prepared and are barely making it, if at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom