Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wake Up, Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives
Townhall.com ^ | January 18, 2013 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 01/18/2013 6:13:36 AM PST by Kaslin

Dear Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservative Friend,

That's pretty toothy, so I'm going to call you Bob.

But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You're the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, "I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues."

When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline and balanced budgets.

When Colin Powell was on "Meet the Press" the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don't really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being "extreme," thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

So, Bob, as a "fiscal conservative," what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork -- Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! -- From the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

Bob, I'm going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you're a sucker.

You're still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting the GOP is the problem. You buy into media's anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he's like an Eisenhower Republican.

Well, let's talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage," he said. "We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget comprised more than half the U.S. budget (today it's a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing -- fast. The country isn't going broke Bob, it is broke.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-Sen. Obama condemned Bush's failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a "political vote."

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama's own convictions you condemn them.

You nodded sagely when Obama said we needed a "balanced approach" to cut the deficit. He said he couldn't rein in entitlements without also raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." Well, he won that fight. We raised taxes on millionaires and billionaires exactly as much as he wanted. We also raised the payroll tax on everyone.

Obama's response to getting the tax hikes he wanted? He says we still need a "balanced approach" -- i.e., even more tax hikes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple that retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will pay about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn't think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said "we don't have a spending problem," it seemed to have no effect on you.

And yet you still think Paul Ryan's budget was "extreme." Do you know when it balanced the budget? 2040. What's a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?

Look, Bob, I don't want to go spelunking in that cranium of yours. I don't know why you think you're a fiscal conservative. The simple fact is you're not. The green-eye-shaded Republicans you claim to miss would be scandalized by the mess we're in, largely thanks to voters like you, Bob. Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today's Washington.

I don't expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you're simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: libertarian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2013 6:13:42 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ironically I think the thing that is really going to sell politically in the near term is “Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal”.

A candidate on the right side of all the leading social issues, who will still “preserve and maintain” Social Security, while “going after those Grrrrreeeedy Eeeeeeevil Wall Street Bankers”. will clean-up electorally IMO.

For sure there are a whole lot of voters in my area who won’t vote for Dems because their social positions are anathema. But they are 110% on-board with Blue Model Economics. If the Dems were to flip to Social Conservatism they’d probably never lose an election here again.


2 posted on 01/18/2013 6:21:39 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am sure there are countless pieces that have been written that are far worse than this one. I haven’t had a cup of coffee this morning (it is still brewing) so maybe my judgement is a bit clouded but it is really a struggle to think of anything written by anyone that is as bad as this one.

Years ago I actually enjoyed Jonah Goldberg’s stuff every now and then. This, however, is an absolute low. At least now I can look forward to Goldberg’s stuff in the future because it just cannot get any worse than this piece.


3 posted on 01/18/2013 6:29:08 AM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
How can you be social liberal, which costs all kinds of cash to promote and keep-going, but be fiscally conservative? Not possible!

Not only does being socially liberal cost you your soul it also hits you and everyone else in the pocketbook.

4 posted on 01/18/2013 6:32:26 AM PST by frogjerk (Obama Claus is coming to town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Bob voted for Obama he is not a conservative. Bob is a straw man.


5 posted on 01/18/2013 6:34:21 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

The GOPe defines fiscally conservative as agreeing to any tax rates that cover liberal spending. 90% tax rates are fine, just balance the budget.


6 posted on 01/18/2013 6:37:56 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today's Washington

Hmmm....this sounds like a plan that could work!

7 posted on 01/18/2013 6:47:36 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Proud Thought Criminal since 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Exactly. What Jonah means when he describes a “Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservative: is a libertarian.

Libertarians (in spite of all their many faults) do not vote for Obama.


8 posted on 01/18/2013 6:48:45 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FerociousRabbit

Actually, I think this is the first good thing he has written in a long time. He is right in describing the social conservatives I know, who vote democrat, but claim to be Christians. He could not have marked them better. They vote democrat because they believe the lie that the democrats actually try to help people and the republicans are too stingy, will take all the “benefits they enjoy” away like a Scrooge. I rarely read this guy any more, but happened to read this one because of the title. If he gets one good article once in a while, then good for him. But I DO have to agree with him...he has hit the mark on the people that I know. I’ve tried to argue with these people, who call themselves a Christian, but who vote democrat, even though the democrats support abortion from day one through the end of and even after the birth of a live baby. That does not seem to phase them, they still consider themselves more compassionate voting democrat than republican. Alinsky sold his wares very well. There is no convincing them otherwise. I don’t think Jesus could sell them a better proposal, to be honest. Their minds are made up.

A non-Christian friend of mine, who I send a lot of articles to, recently said, “______, why am I agreeing with you on this? I was pleased that she was seeing things finally from a Christian perspective and realizing it was the Truth, and not ashamed to say it. We had some good emails during the election cycle. This Truth used to be commonly held by all Americans, regardless of political party. Alinsky saw to it, with the likes of Obama and many others (Frank Marshall Davis, etc.) that the left would NEVER entertain Truth as their standard again. So, those so-called Christians who vote democrat really have blood on their hands and have sold out their beliefs, if they truly held any, to their own gods of political power.


9 posted on 01/18/2013 6:52:34 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We have a GDP of 15 Trillion and our debt is 16 trillion. We aren’t really broke. That is like saying to someone who makes 50 thousand but has 53 thousand in debt that he is broke. No he just has to pay off that 53,000 dollars in debt. The debt is large but as long as the 50K person pays their monthly bills they are fine.


10 posted on 01/18/2013 6:53:55 AM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Ironically I think the thing that is really going to sell politically in the near term is “Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal”.

 

Mike Huckabee? I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd support him in a heartbeat. I did in '08.

11 posted on 01/18/2013 6:55:06 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I don’t know any people like ‘Bob’

I know plenty of people who were mad as hell about the reckelss spending of Bush and Obama and the endless bailouts and ‘stimulus’, the loss of rights under the Patriot Act, SOPA, NDAA etc ... but who had NO ONE TO VOTE FOR in this past election because the Republican party honchos chose a total WUS who gave ZERO indication that he was going to do anything substantive about fiscal matters, Constitutional protections (or social issues for that matter)

Goldbergs article is a total strawman.
Go tilt at your strawman ‘Bob’

Meanwhile others of us will work to get rid of the Republican WUSSES R US party.


12 posted on 01/18/2013 7:03:14 AM PST by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I think the term “socially liberal” hinges on two issues - abortion and gay marriage.

As I consider myself to be libertarian, which makes me conservative, I don’t understand how a libertarian can be other than for the rights of the unborn. As for gay marriage - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the business of the government. But changing the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman opens doors I would rather not see opened - like that fast food commercial.

Show me someonw who claims to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and I will show you someone who will wimp on fiscal matters too, because they have no faith in individual responsibility - (Chris Christie, for one), and are terrified of being branded as extremists.


13 posted on 01/18/2013 7:06:58 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

We are broke and you are confusing macro economics with micro economics.

In micro economics, you can work more and bring your budget into balance (as long as everyone else keeps their behavior the same).

In macro economics, if you (and everyone else) works more, you get an oversupply situation and prices crash and everyone goes bankrupt.

Example: one farmer decides to grow twice as many crops and doubles his income. But all the farmers decide to grow twice as much, everyone goes bankrupt.


14 posted on 01/18/2013 7:13:16 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

I agree with you that every STATE should outlaw abortion and no STATE should redefine the parameters of marriage.

Beyond that, I am PERSONALLY socially conservative but I see no role for government at any level imposing my values on anyone else. I’ve never seen a label that covers me.


15 posted on 01/18/2013 7:15:32 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A true fiscal conservative is also a ‘social’ conservative. And national defense conservative. Or they should be.


16 posted on 01/18/2013 7:16:55 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Bump


17 posted on 01/18/2013 7:18:38 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Bump


18 posted on 01/18/2013 7:21:57 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let me sum up this article.

“Yes, but the Democrats are worse.”

Well, no kidding, Jonah. We all know that. Even the dreaded SoLibFisCons know that. The vast majority of them actually do vote GOP, but raise these concerns as a warning as to why the GOP can’t pull new members.

There’s a vast number of non-voters in this country that are turned off by both parties. For the GOP, they’d be winnable, were it not for the Rick Santorum/Akin/Mourdock factor.

You can wail and gnash your teeth against this unhappy truth all day long, but many people who are open to the idea of smaller, fiscally responsible government simply can’t get over their dislike of heavy handed religious themes in politics. It strikes them as hypocritical, and they won’t bite.

The GOP underestimates the social damage done to the brand by quote pro-rape anti-evolution unquote leaders at their peril.


19 posted on 01/18/2013 7:25:21 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“I’ve never seen a label that covers me.”

Actually, me too, but I use some that imperfectly cover me for convenience. It saves me the trouble of listing my positions on all issues.


20 posted on 01/18/2013 7:25:34 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“I agree with you that every STATE should outlaw abortion and no STATE should redefine the parameters of marriage.”

The Federal government has no role in those issues, except that it can use the full faith and credit clause to allow states to refuse to recognize marriages that their own state law does not recognize.


21 posted on 01/18/2013 7:28:40 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
I think the term “socially liberal” hinges on two issues - abortion and gay marriage.

As I consider myself to be libertarian, which makes me conservative, I don’t understand how a libertarian can be other than for the rights of the unborn. As for gay marriage - what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not the business of the government. But changing the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman opens doors I would rather not see opened - like that fast food commercial.

Show me someonw who claims to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and I will show you someone who will wimp on fiscal matters too, because they have no faith in individual responsibility - (Chris Christie, for one), and are terrified of being branded as extremists.

I agree with you 100%, but my thoughts take me one step further. Any government with the power to legislate these social issues also has the power to swing in the opposite direction (which is what we are seeing now). My opposition to the federal government's involvement in social issues IS NOT equivalent to condoning abhorrent behaviors, quite the opposite, it is my recognition that there are two sides to every door. These issues are best left to the states and local governments, where representation is closer to the people and we all have a choice: if we don't care for liberal NY, we pick up and move to TX where there exists a contrasting representation of the population.

The federal government has no business in these issues, and to think so makes one accepting of nanny state tendencies. It is a dangerous precedent that has already been set and needs to be rolled back. If we tell liberals what is acceptable, we have no room to b!tch when they turn around and shove their ideals down our throats. The federal gov't should be OUT of these issues or we've degraded to nothing more than mob rule.

22 posted on 01/18/2013 7:34:11 AM PST by RobertClark (It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we'r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
I think the term “socially liberal” hinges on two issues - abortion and gay marriage.

As I consider myself to be libertarian, which makes me conservative...

 

Don't forget dangerous drugs. Social liberals want drugs legalized. And do not fool yourself; libertarians are not conservatives. They are liberals. Social liberals.

And libertarians therefore can never ever acheive fiscal responsibility.

23 posted on 01/18/2013 7:38:30 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

This is an important point that EVERYONE misses - governments at different levels have different purposes but everyone talks about “The Government”.

At the Federal level I am rock ribbed fanatical libertarian. This government should only be allowed to do what is specifically allowed to them in the Constitution.

States have wide latitude to do what they want within their own constitutions.

Local governments should be able to do pretty much anything the citizens agree to do.


24 posted on 01/18/2013 7:39:11 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Those two issues, plus a host of various “ism” perceptions that are actively pomoted and propagated without effective response.

The fact is that a Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservative who votes social issues is a flippin’ idiot. I’d probably lean towards the Socially Liberal (Libertarian) position on a number of issues, but I’m smart enough to realize that the BIG issues in the room are the debt and taxation/spending policy.

I’ll ALWAYS vote - in a general election - for the major party candidate that’s closest to me on those (plus Second Amendment Rights) regardless of Social Issues. Which means that I’m always going to vote for the Republican over the Dem.


25 posted on 01/18/2013 7:40:19 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
The federal government has no business in these issues, and to think so makes one accepting of nanny state tendencies. It is a dangerous precedent that has already been set and needs to be rolled back. If we tell liberals what is acceptable, we have no room to b!tch when they turn around and shove their ideals down our throats. The federal gov't should be OUT of these issues or we've degraded to nothing more than mob rule.

 

This is libertarian thinking at its worse.  OF COURSE the federal government must be involved in social issues. Take marriage as a current and prime example. Marriage is not just a civil or religious concern, it is a concern vital and integral to national security. A healthy marriage is the foundation to a healthy society. Any county that wants to survive and thrive promotes and protects the family. Any country that wants to escalate into a fiscal, social and moral black-hole can follow America's example since we entered into the Great Society.

Social issues are the key to our survival as a nation. Nothing else comes close.  Not a 16 trillion dollar debt. Not unemployment. Not nothing.

26 posted on 01/18/2013 7:52:20 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Don’t forget dangerous drugs. Social liberals want drugs legalized. And do not fool yourself; libertarians are not conservatives.”

Show me the clause in the US Constitution that permits the Federal government to prohibit drugs.


27 posted on 01/18/2013 7:57:42 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

You are suggesting that government can enact legislation that will foster healthy marriages? I don’t see any evidence over the last 30 years to validate that claim. I’m all for healthy marriages but just how do you propose the government does that? My opinion is that is a role for the church not the state.


28 posted on 01/18/2013 7:58:36 AM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Then you have an obligation to amend the Constitution to permit the Federal government to get involved in those issues. If you want to undermine our country’s foundations, I know of no faster way than to violate or ignore the Constitution. It puts you in league with El Presidente.


29 posted on 01/18/2013 8:02:42 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Sorry, but that “$16 Trillion” doesn’t include trillions more in liabilities (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).

And, of course, the dumbasses are still using the credit card for $40 of every 100 they spend.

The Federales still aren’t broke - they have enormous assets in mineral rich land - but I can’t see them using these assets to dig themselves out of the hole.


30 posted on 01/18/2013 8:07:58 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Funny. Morphine, laudanum and their cousins didn't destroy or even threaten the country back when they were legal.
31 posted on 01/18/2013 8:11:19 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Milton Friedman, the original fiscal conservative, was pro-legalization. So you could say he was socially liberal fiscally conservative.


32 posted on 01/18/2013 8:13:52 AM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In a nutshell, the left and almost-left are uneducated in politics and know only the sound bites on TV.. that’s what they repeat. They also have a short attention span and lean lazy in doing any research. They choose to believe what they hear and not what they should know. Thus, the misconception of who conservatives are... or who the Republicans are/have become. I hear them repeat those sound bites... and even though none of them are true, they think they are real smart by being able to recite them. To be so shallow and to be willing to stay that way....

It offends me to hear myself being called what they think I am. No way to defend against it... we are trash and crazy. They don’t know they are being cooked and we are trying to save them.


33 posted on 01/18/2013 8:20:12 AM PST by frnewsjunkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Social issues are the key to our survival as a nation. Nothing else comes close. Not a 16 trillion dollar debt. Not unemployment. Not nothing.

Social issues are the key? Show me where the founders advocate as such? The founders deliberately stayed away from personal and social issues, including an official religion, understanding that a government with the authority to grant such powers would have the authority to take them away. The Founding Fathers did realize that a social issue is not something you build or in our case rebuild a country on. Until we all get that through our heads, we will doom the conservative cause.

So, in comes the argument that we are confronted with social issues that the Founders could not have imagined. True, and they were confronted with some that are beyond our comprehension (ie slavery). If we accept that argument, then we have to conclude that the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence have to evolve over time - and liberals would thank you for that thinking.

34 posted on 01/18/2013 8:24:58 AM PST by RobertClark (It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we'r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Right, because spending billions on a drug war we can never win is fiscally responsible.


35 posted on 01/18/2013 8:35:28 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

I was pro-Drug War.

But the Drug War has become to much of a threat to civil rights. Police kick down the wrong doors, seize property, shoot dogs, and, occasionally, people. Cops have become too militarized.

I’d rather put up with the druggies (you can shoot them if they become threatening) that the cops.


36 posted on 01/18/2013 8:36:58 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Typical. Hiding behind the Constitution.

First YOU show me the clause in the US Constitution that permits the Federal government to prohibit abortion. Or same sex marriages. Or whatever.


37 posted on 01/18/2013 8:41:03 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

but just how do you propose the government does that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. Re-instate tax benefits for married couples.

2. Reduce - even stop - welfare benefits for unmarried welfare queens.

3. Many others come to mind, but these two alone would add billions of economic benefit to the country.


38 posted on 01/18/2013 8:43:53 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Right, because spending billions on a drug war we can never win is fiscally responsible.

Not only can it not be won, it further empowers those who wish to do harm. Look at the cartels, the heroin smugglers, the meth cooks in clandestine labs. What we continue to do is erode personal liberties in the interest of furthering the 'war' effort. We can't walk into a Walgreens and buy sinus medicine without being tracked, we can't go to the hardware store to buy muriatic acid to clean our driveway, we can't walk through S Central LA or S Chicago without worrying about gang violence - but it's just an inconvenience for our own good!?!?! Yeah, right. It is a reason to strangle personal freedoms for all to try to prevent the minority from partaking in their habits.

We would be much better served and much better off as a society to use a fraction of the funds toward education and do away with the militarization of local police forces and the erosion of rights. It is amazing how quickly people swallow the trampling of rights when they assume they know what is in the best interest of everyone, but hate it when it is done to them.

39 posted on 01/18/2013 8:45:10 AM PST by RobertClark (It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we'r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

There are two major issues with the WOD. First is the incredible expense that doesn’t seem to affect availability and increases violence. The second is the way in which it contorts the constitution to achieve its “authority”. That same authority is now being abused to give us Obamacare under the Commerce Clause. The “crusade” against drugs was used as the justification and now “fiscal conservatives” have to live with the consequences thanks the “social conservative” position on the WOD.

I’m not a user myself and have no interest in ever using. Maybe if I ever had to undergo chemo I’d give it a try, but at least I’d have the option available to me here in Colorado.


40 posted on 01/18/2013 8:48:11 AM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Were we ignoring or violating the Constyitution in 1976? Or 1963? How about 19 - whatever?

What I’m saying is that we need to restore and return to a period when the social laws on the books resulted in American greatness.

Where are those laws now? Do you recall a time when all 50 states had Sodomy laws? I do. And call me a nanny stater if you like - but I want a return to those times.

But of course you - you see those times as unconstitutional?

Sheesh. I just don’t get you libertarians.


41 posted on 01/18/2013 8:48:53 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

It is not in the US Constitution because these are matters left to the States to deal with.


42 posted on 01/18/2013 8:52:31 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The fiscallty conservative position on taxes is that they are there to fund the activities of the government. Period. They should not be used to coerce citizeins into doing what you, or Obama, or Bloomberg thinks is best for them.


43 posted on 01/18/2013 8:57:29 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The problem is the law is supposed to be equal regardless of race, creed, or belief. Sure you could provide a tax incentive for married couples to have children. I guess I’d argue we already have that with tax credits. Those credits have nothing to do with healthy relationships and in some ways might actually do the opposite. What if those incentives simply caused people to co-habitate with the intent of shelling out kids for financial reward? That doesn’t sound very healthy to me.

Don’t confuse marriage with “civil unions” they are not the same. Marriage is a construct of the church and civil unions are a construct of the state. I have a “civil union” with my wife that the state recognizes but I also have a marriage that God recognizes.

As for unmarried welfare queens, not sure what you are going to do with their starving children. It’s easy to say but the reality is they will exist regardless. Maybe there is a better solution to at least discourage them from such a life style.

I understand and agree with your concerns but don’t believe government is the answer in solving those problems.


44 posted on 01/18/2013 8:59:08 AM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Right. So you blame us Socons for 200 years of rule and power in America. And as a result of us having the majority voice in rulings, in laws, in all areas of the government, we now are to blame for that power that has been taken away from us and handed over to the liberals?

Look. Understand first that the Constitution is a moral document. See the John Adams quote if you want. And any attempt to demoralize the Constitition is an assault on it and will result in the mess we have now.


45 posted on 01/18/2013 9:03:32 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Gun laws don’t prevent mass shootings, what makes you think any kind of social laws will lead to a more moral society? What you’ll likely get are laws that do exactly the opposite and violate our God given rights. Your premise is flawed, the government cannot make anyone “straighten up and fly right”, those days are long gone.


46 posted on 01/18/2013 9:04:02 AM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“First YOU show me the clause in the US Constitution that permits the Federal government to prohibit abortion. Or same sex marriages. Or whatever”

Why would you think I wanted the Feds to do any of that?


47 posted on 01/18/2013 9:14:20 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

States should be free to permit or prohibit whatever they want, that is no a violation of their own and the US constitutions. Why would you think I want any different?


48 posted on 01/18/2013 9:17:04 AM PST by Daveinyork (."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
Your premise is flawed, the government cannot make anyone “straighten up and fly right”, those days are long gone.
 

I am naivve. I admit it. I hold out an option (the only option) for the salvation for America is dependent on our returning to those long gone days. The government did do it. It worked for 200 years, but now?

I remind you what America's greatest president once said;  "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

I will to my dying breath hold onto the hope that America retuns to one nation under God. What are YOU going to hope for?

49 posted on 01/18/2013 9:18:49 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Right. So you blame us Socons for 200 years of rule and power in America. And as a result of us having the majority voice in rulings, in laws, in all areas of the government, we now are to blame for that power that has been taken away from us and handed over to the liberals?

Look. Understand first that the Constitution is a moral document. See the John Adams quote if you want. And any attempt to demoralize the Constitition is an assault on it and will result in the mess we have now.

Where did I state that? My views are in defense of the Constitution, and the limitations it imposes. I believe in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and any attempt to expand upon it or assume "implied" powers is wrong - PERIOD!

200 years of SOCON rule? Your math may need some minor tweaks, as may your interpretation of SOCON rule through the latter part on the 1800's through the mid 1900's. The decline began much sooner than 1976, as one elitist after another sought to expand the interpretation of our founding document and sieze new opportunities to "preserve" society. That line of thinking gave us Lincoln, Coolidge, FDR, Johnson and along with it: Social Security, Keynsian economics, the welfare state, etc. How is that working out for us?

50 posted on 01/18/2013 9:21:56 AM PST by RobertClark (It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we'r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson