Opinion of describing yourself as 'fiscally ________'

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not a purist, but I have an ideology. An ideology is important. If you don't actually have some form of an encompassing philosophy behind your views, you are little more than a collection of talking points, platitudes and 'issues'.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm biased against it, but that could just be because I'm biased against 'fiscally conservative but socially liberal' people.

Well, "fiscally liberal but socially conservative" people rarely describe themselves as such. They have the taste to use more intelligent labels like "populist", "Chistian-Democrat" or "communitarian".

Do "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people have a strong aversion to "Libertarian"?

Well, "Libertarian" in the US context carries a connotation of extremism and whackery that doesn't fit many FCBSL people. See on this very forum people like King, Oakvale, JerryAR or Clarko.

King is one of this forum's biggest fans of deficit spending so it's hard to see how he qualifies as being fiscally conservative in the usual meaning of that term.  But then I guess the term is often used to refer to things that aren't truly fiscal in nature, which is what is confusing and annoying about it.

[King]

Well, see, I take conservative to mean advocating simplification and small changes.

In sports, when one runs a conservative game plan, it means they are going eat gameclock and not take risks with what currently is in place. It does not mean completely dismantle your roster after every loss or return things to the good ol days by tearing out every page of the playbook that wasn't in founding father coaches like Vince Lombardi's gameplan.

I think it's entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and deficit spend during a recession, by having a plan to surplus spend in projections of recession emergence.

I also think it's entirely possible to have a smaller government that gives 100% of all revenues in redistrubtion to the poor in some form, even in defense spending. I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman's negative income tax. That is fiscally conservative and economically, well, socialism.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well, see, I take conservative to mean advocating simplification and small changes.

In sports, when one runs a conservative game plan, it means they are going eat gameclock and not take risks with what currently is in place. It does not mean completely dismantle your roster after every loss or return things to the good ol days by tearing out every page of the playbook that wasn't in founding father coaches like Vince Lombardi's gameplan.

I think it's entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and deficit spend during a recession, by having a plan to surplus spend in projections of recession emergence.

I also think it's entirely possible to have a smaller government that gives 100% of all revenues in redistrubtion to the poor in some form, even in defense spending. I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman's negative income tax. That is fiscally conservative and economically, well, socialism.

If you are conserving a resource it means you are not spending hugely more of it than you are taking in. Fiscal implies monetary resources.

How do you make defense spending 100% redistribution to the poor?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The above debate will go round and round, because of the meaninglessness of the term. It's a catchphrase, used to elect people. I might as well say my idealogy is 'anti-corruption' or 'no-sleaze' or (dare I say it) 'populist'.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm biased against it, but that could just be because I'm biased against 'fiscally conservative but socially liberal' people.

Well, "fiscally liberal but socially conservative" people rarely describe themselves as such. They have the taste to use more intelligent labels like "populist", "Chistian-Democrat" or "communitarian".

Do "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people have a strong aversion to "Libertarian"?

Well, "Libertarian" in the US context carries a connotation of extremism and whackery that doesn't fit many FCBSL people. See on this very forum people like King, Oakvale, JerryAR or Clarko.

Indeed the closes equivalent would be "Classical Liberal" and even that isn't a great descriptor.

[King]

Well, see, I take conservative to mean advocating simplification and small changes.

In sports, when one runs a conservative game plan, it means they are going eat gameclock and not take risks with what currently is in place. It does not mean completely dismantle your roster after every loss or return things to the good ol days by tearing out every page of the playbook that wasn't in founding father coaches like Vince Lombardi's gameplan.

I think it's entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and deficit spend during a recession, by having a plan to surplus spend in projections of recession emergence.

I also think it's entirely possible to have a smaller government that gives 100% of all revenues in redistrubtion to the poor in some form, even in defense spending. I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman's negative income tax. That is fiscally conservative and economically, well, socialism.

If you are conserving a resource it means you are not spending hugely more of it than you are taking in. Fiscal implies monetary resources.

How do you make defense spending 100% redistribution to the poor?

I consider the resource to be the debt as % of GDP. Our ability to have debt without retribution is a resource. Borrowing money in the short term with a clear plan to be long term solvent at all times is being conservative with it. It is a business investment.

If a recession were to happen in year X, and the budget were $0 balanced in year X, and a recession lasts typically a year, it would perfectly fiscally conservative to create a $500 bilion deficit in year X, understanding it would end the recession, and then pay for it with a projected $100 billion surplus years X+1 through X+5, when the next business cycle recession is likely to occur once more. It's a long term no debt plan.

100% is probably a pipe dream, but cutting out bureaucratic overhead and turning welfare from services into tax return cash (negative income tax instead of food stamps/housing programs/etc with money going to paper pushers and lawyers to "prevent fraud") where benefits are always aimed at the working poor would get us close.

There are two indisputable facts about the United States:

1. Our Federal Reserve bank is incredibly powerful at creating tremendous amounts of wealth for the wealthy whenever the economy needs it. Libertarians and Occupiers complain about programs like QE making the rich richer all the time.
2. Our federal government has the power to tax that wealth machine and give it (straight up hand it) to everyone else.

We have these two amazing tools been used incorrectly. An economy could grow at a steady rate infinitely simply by the Fed printing, the government taxing and direct distributing, and the people spending money on an endless loop.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Heh. The Onion really nailed this more than three years ago: http://www.theonion.com/articles/fiscally-im-a-rightwing-nutjob-but-on-social-issue,20486/

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well, see, I take conservative to mean advocating simplification and small changes.

In sports, when one runs a conservative game plan, it means they are going eat gameclock and not take risks with what currently is in place. It does not mean completely dismantle your roster after every loss or return things to the good ol days by tearing out every page of the playbook that wasn't in founding father coaches like Vince Lombardi's gameplan.

I think it's entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and deficit spend during a recession, by having a plan to surplus spend in projections of recession emergence.

I also think it's entirely possible to have a smaller government that gives 100% of all revenues in redistrubtion to the poor in some form, even in defense spending. I am a huge fan of Milton Friedman's negative income tax. That is fiscally conservative and economically, well, socialism.

If you are conserving a resource it means you are not spending hugely more of it than you are taking in. Fiscal implies monetary resources.

How do you make defense spending 100% redistribution to the poor?

I consider the resource to be the debt as % of GDP. Our ability to have debt without retribution is a resource. Borrowing money in the short term with a clear plan to be long term solvent at all times is being conservative with it. It is a business investment.

If a recession were to happen in year X, and the budget were $0 balanced in year X, and a recession lasts typically a year, it would perfectly fiscally conservative to create a $500 bilion deficit in year X, understanding it would end the recession, and then pay for it with a projected $100 billion surplus years X+1 through X+5, when the next business cycle recession is likely to occur once more. It's a long term no debt plan.

100% is probably a pipe dream, but cutting out bureaucratic overhead and turning welfare from services into tax return cash (negative income tax instead of food stamps/housing programs/etc with money going to paper pushers and lawyers to "prevent fraud") where benefits are always aimed at the working poor would get us close.

There are two indisputable facts about the United States:

1. Our Federal Reserve bank is incredibly powerful at creating tremendous amounts of wealth for the wealthy whenever the economy needs it. Libertarians and Occupiers complain about programs like QE making the rich richer all the time.
2. Our federal government has the power to tax that wealth machine and give it (straight up hand it) to everyone else.

We have these two amazing tools been used incorrectly. An economy could grow at a steady rate infinitely simply by the Fed printing, the government taxing and direct distributing, and the people spending money on an endless loop.

You are calling keeping the debt hovering near 100% of GDP a "long term no debt plan"?

Am I hearing you correctly: we can have carefree steady economic growth if we just print enough money and then tax it enough?  This is a cautious, tested approach?