Social con vs fiscal con

[President Mitt]

I have done it numerous times on this very board. Some heated words, nothing more.

[President Mitt]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

[President Mitt]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

Your point?

[President Mitt]

I'd rather have the Govt's hands out of my wallet, Econ Con./ Econ Con.

If you wanted the Government's hands out of your pockets, you would be an economic liberal or a classical liberal.

Your point?

My point is that you said you were Econ Con./ Econ Con. (whatever that means) but I can only assume it means you are an economic conservative but you said you wanted the Government's hands out of your wallet so that's where I'm confused.

I support a Laissez-Faire Economic System, which is basically the Government being out of the Private Sector's wallet. This supports Small Government, the Gold Standard, Low Taxes, basically the Milton Friedman (look him up) idea of Economics. I think your confusing Classical Liberalism (which I am, you are, and every economic con. on here.) With today's Obama/Pelosi Liberalism of Keynesian Economics, and Government intervention in the Economy.

So Yes, you could say I am a Classical Liberal.

Here's a wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberal

[President Mitt]

Keynesian economics is not going to help us out with the recession.  It's only a delusion then will take a back lash in the future.  We'll all have to pay for it eventually. I'm all about getting the government out of the private sector.  The private sector is called private for a reason.

Keynesian policies work. We need the action of State to avoid crisis like this one and to correct dramatic injustices that appears when we let wealthies to become more and more rich and poors to become more and more poor.

The Keynesian view of economics essentially means that the government picks winners and losers. The winners that it picks are inevitably welfare recipients (because they are totally under the government's thumb), special interest groups who pad Uncle Sam's pockets, companies who need to be "bailed out", Big Labor unions, and those who seek to benefit from increasing the government dole of entitlement spending. The losers are inevitably wealthy and high income individuals (because they have too much independence), small business owners who get classified as "rich", firms who try to engage in fair trade, our children and grandchildren who get saddled with greater debts, and every consumer who must now pay higher prices for all goods and services.

[President Mitt]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

[President Mitt]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

That is rapidly collapsing since less and less entrerprises give you health care. Also, you have the private insurance, who is unable to give a decent social protection because :
- They refuse to cover those who are already ill.
- If you afford it, you are not treated
- It spends much more money ( the cost for health is twice those of the other industrialized countries ) for the same quality.

While I agree we need some reforms to the Health System, It seems foolish to completely overhaul the current system if 86% of Americans are happy with their insurance.  Not to mention only a fourth of the uninsured are actually people who can't afford it.

[President Mitt]

Maybe there are useless programs in Americ, I don't know. But what I'm sure of, is that the US soiety lacks some of the most essential public services, a decent health care above all.

I think we have a fabulous health system, payed for by your job.

That is rapidly collapsing since less and less entrerprises give you health care. Also, you have the private insurance, who is unable to give a decent social protection because :
- They refuse to cover those who are already ill.
- If you afford it, you are not treated
- It spends much more money ( the cost for health is twice those of the other industrialized countries ) for the same quality.

While I agree we need some reforms to the Health System, It seems foolish to completely overhaul the current system if 86% of Americans are happy with their insurance.  Not to mention only a fourth of the uninsured are actually people who can't afford it.

The fact that 86% of people has got an insurance doesn't mean that 86% of the people are happy with it. The only fact that you have to pay for health is shameful.

I see why Universal Healthcare can work sorta well in France. You guys have about 40 doctors per 1000 people. Which is not so bad. In the United States we have 2.2 Doctors per 1000 people, so its not going too work very well if 30 million people suddenly become insured.

"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

[President Mitt]

What about a foreign policy conservative? Those are the only kinds of conservatives I like!

I believe in compromise on economic issues, because I think both sides have good arguments (like middle-class tax cuts are okay but I believe we need more government regulation to hold corporations accountable), but on social issues, I don't want the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body or who I can and cannot have sex with/fall in love with, etc., because yeah it's none of their business.

I'll never see what part of "separation of church and state" the conservatives/strict constructionists just don't understand. 

Oh Damn, I guess I'm not liked......

[President Mitt]

To put it another way, all social conservative/fiscal liberals are fascists, but not all fascists are social conservative/fiscal liberals.

No logic was used in the making of this post.