I assume they’re not that big into politics and just wanna appear moderate.
Racist. It’s always dogwhistle racism.
“I’m simple and don’t bother to look deeper into anything”
“I’m an uninformed idiot.”
Conservatives are fiscally reckless. Look at every conservative president’s deficit spending, and economic crashes. Look at the states most dependent on federal funds.
Even if you had zero morals and voted 100% on fiscal policies, the best choice is very clearly not conservative.
I link this article every time the discussion comes up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
The first paragraph is a doozy.
Hence why republicans want to get rid of Wikipedia. For all of its faults they generally do a decent job of going slash and burn on any editors that cannot fully back themselves up or have clear political alegances.
Seeing the complete flopping of conservapedia, of course they want to get rid of it.
Anything that keeps a clear record of what people say or believe in, without that changing based on someone’s mood on a particular day is going to be a flop on that side of the spectrum.
I love yelling at my Facebook “friend” whenever gas prices go up a cent now. Under Biden it was all the damn time he’d cry about that but never acknowledged of it went down.
MUH EGGZ
Poes Law very much applies, but I’m pretty sure Conservapedia is a troll. Just look at their list of “Greatest Conservative Songs”.
it ain’t even edit protected
Don’t confuse “Republican” with “conservative”, especially on economic matters. Republicans are historically economically liberal, ie. they are for unregulated markets. A fiscal conservative likes to cut spending, yes, but not to cut revenue.
Not even economically liberal, just irresponsible and corrupt.
That’s kinda the inevitable result of economic liberalism, especially with the added zest of corporate personhood.
Does the fact that American “conservative” politicians are lying about it make it an invalid position to take?
Having grown up in a conservative household in a red state (US), and having thought this as I transitioned away to more liberal stances as I learned more about the world, I have to say: Spot on. I was an uninformed idiot.
The worst idiots are the ones who never admit when they’re wrong. Having the backbone to admit an error, change, and and move on speaks volumes.
True, I went through that phase as well. It usually came with a side of insecurity. Just happy to have grown in more than just age.
Is it guaranteed they’re voting conservative when they say that?
Look, I think there is something to it, but you really have to give details. I’m good with free access to healthcare, good with people marrying whoever they want (over the age of 18), transgender rights, etc.
All of that. I love it all. But I’d rather not be taxed to hell and have those funds horribly mis managed. I’m okay with taxes but I know there is so much waste with my funds. That’s where I’d like improvement. I suppose in some eyes that would make me slightly fiscally conservative.
No, that means you just like a functioning government. That has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism.
If you were a fiscal conservative, you would be against spending any money on healthcare, let alone giving “free access” to everyone.
“I don’t hate you because you’re a POC, a woman, or queer. I hate you because you’re poor.”
“I’m a prick but I also like to smoke weed”
Either “I hate poor people but I love weed” or “I’m lying because my actual views would scare people off”.
I like weed but hate taxes.
Okay… I hate taxes too, but how else do you propose we pay for things like roads?
That’s that the position for American libertarianism’s.
I don’t particularly hate taxes because I like my government services well funded.
Conservativism, in all forms, is not a real ideology. It’s narcissism. A conservative will redefine conservative values based on their own identity.
So the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” idiot is lying to themselves about who they are. They want fiscal policies that benefit themselves, and they don’t want to be labelled a bigot, but they are fine with bigots in office as long as they get the fiscal policies that benefit themselves.
Ask them what they mean by “fiscal conservative,” and they will probably vaguely gesture and say “lower taxes.” What they mean is “lower taxes for me.” Fiscal conservatives still want to spend government money on programs they like. They want boondoggles in their backyard, earmarks and pork barrel projects, and social safety nets as long as they are the recipient (Medicare, Social Security, Veteran benefits, etc.)
They want to frame it as responsible restraint. Pull funding from programs they don’t understand, like scientific research, or don’t like, like foreign aid (except of course if strong ties to their home country).
And when they say lower taxes, when pressed, they will describe how their property tax or income tax or capital gains tax or death tax is really bad “for the economy.” They want good schools and roads and infrastructure, but they want someone else to pay for it.
Calling themselves conservative gives them license to be as selfish as they want to be without having to admit that they don’t actually have any values.
The hatred of property tax really pisses me off.
I have a mortgage on the house in which I reside. I have to pay property tax on the house in which I reside. My annual property taxes are less than half the minimum monthly payment for my mortgage. If I can afford my monthly payment I can afford my taxes. If I can’t afford my monthly payment the taxes aren’t the problem.
And what do I actually get for that less than half a monthly mortgage payment in annual taxes?
- 2 large parks with miles of walking paths, a playground, a basketball and a soccer court, all maintained and within 2 blocks
- maintained roads to my house that are cleaned regularly
- decent schools nearby
Yes, I recognize I got lucky and am privileged enough to have, not just stable housing, but that which I “own,” but that just makes my distaste of the hatred of property taxes all the greater.
My problem with property tax is that (in the US) it creates a system by which areas with high property tax revenue (rich areas) recieive more money for schools. This is not bad on its face, but in the long term, it creates systems where poor neighborhoods have bad schools, can’t fund improvements, can’t attract good teachers, can’t attract residents, lose on tax revenue… and it cycles.
Hawaii has an interesting sysyem by which residents only pay tiny property taxes IF their primary residence is their only livable real estate.
“I don’t hate women and minorities but I don’t see anything wrong with an economy built off of their exploitation.”
“I vote Republican, but I’m self-aware enough to know that I should be embarrassed about it.” (In the US)
I’ve heard it more the exact opposite way. “I vote Democrat but I am really tired liberals doing nothing to curb government corruption or tax the rich more.”
Eliminating corruption is not “fiscally conservative,” it’s just fiscally responsible. Same with taxing the rich.
“We should run the government like a business!”
Then why cut revenue as soon as you take power?
Yeah. A lot of folks I’ve met view it as fiscally conservative though.
Removed by mod
As someone who said this when they were younger
“Uninformed idiot”
now that I’m older I’m fully liberal since i am more informed.
But don’t you know? YoU’Ll gEt mOrE cOnSeRvAtIvE aS yOu AgE! Biggest fucking lie of my life.
Same here.
“I don’t actively hunt members of marginalized communities with one of my many obnoxiously customized firearms but I still have a weird kink for giving tax cuts to billionaires in exchange for a worsened quality of life because I have a 12 year old’s understanding of how the world works.”
If they’re American I would point out that they have no representation for their conservative views because there is no fiscally conservative party in the United States.
I always just reference this article:
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
And say the modern Republican party started with Nixon.
“I pay lip service to minorities, but don’t want to allocate resources to their needs”
Euro perspective - When I hear fiscally conservative, that means supporting a governmental policy that is frugal with spending and responsible with public assets and finances.
This has several parts, here are some of the most important:
a) Keeping a balanced budget - the government should not be spending more than it is collecting from taxes and income. (A little debt in dire times is fine, but that should be payed off when possible)
b) Responsible management and long term planning - the planning horizon should be counted in decades
c) Focusing on core tasks: national security, infrastructure, healthcare, education etc.
d) Not raising taxes unless strictly necessary, lowering them if it is permissible according to the above.
Socially liberal => supports personal liberties
Now why does government debt even matter? Well, because debt is owed somewhere, and if it becomes large may mean that the government is beholden to other parties for the debt.
What party runs on the platform of fiscal irresponsibility?
Usually fiscal irresponsibility comes in the form of lavish promises (subsidies, tax cuts, projects etc.) with a jarring absence of an answer to the question “How are we going to finance this?”
Right, the entire phrase, at least in the US, is intended to short circuit the broader conversion about roles and mechanisms of government. It’s begging the question. What US conservatives call “fiscal responsibility” typically just means “I don’t think the government should spend money on things which don’t personally benefit me.” Or even “I want other people’s children to pay for my entitlements.”
Right, but (at least in the US) those politicians will turn around and tell voters that they’re fiscally conservative. And they will believe it.
Well, that’s just called lying - US politicians haven’t been fiscally conservative in a long time.
Compared to Sweden
Yes, they lie about it and their base eats it up.
Not raising taxes unless strictly necessary, lowering them if it is permissible according to the above.
The tax rate is never the issue. If the gov can push through a responsible plan for spending our consolidated resources so it costs less than we’d need to pay separately, then it’s a win. Fuckwit conservatives talk a about reducing taxes and conveniently omit how they’ll reduce costs to match. Hint: Here, it’s always food inspectors and anti-corruption.
The tax rate is never the issue.
Maybe not where you live, but here (Sweden) where the average worker pays ~60% tax on their earned income the perspective is a bit different :)
Right now certainly isn’t a time to be cutting taxes, but when the gov:t ends up… checks notes… spending 74mSEK on modern art for a rail link that had already overran its budget by 30% - it gets a bit jarring. Meanwhile hospitals across the country are in full cost cutting mode due to the ongoing recession and inflation.
So many people with such brutal takes on it – helps to quantify who the audience is on lemmy I guess.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative, to me at least, means that the person is in favour of equality in the sense of equality of treatment from the government, but is not in favour of additional big spending projects to try and have equality of opportunity. They’re pro-choice, but likely against the government funnelling money into providing abortions for women (so abortions available, but not gov subsidized). They’re pro-trans rights in terms of being fine with whoever doing whatever they want with their body/partners of choice, but against government paying for trans-specific gender affirming procedures and parades to highlight those groups. They’re in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
In general, they support socially progressive ideas, so long as they’re fiscally costed out and beneficial to the public purse. They’re against increased government spending / reach, preferring ‘small government’, with the social components placed more on individuals to fund directly.
They’re in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.
I’ve never met someone who was “socially liberal fiscally conservative” who believed this.
They’re usually pro good things, but they don’t want to pay for them, so they’re not actually pro those things at all.
“Small government” and “private individuals will handle it” typically means it just won’t happen.
For starters, the question wasn’t, as far as I know, asking how the ideology / stance fairs in terms of implementation / reality. Like you can give a description of what a communist believes, without having to try and explain Communist Russia / China.
In terms of medicare/dental care, yes, there are soc lib fisc con people that do believe that. Likely not people in the USA, where everything skews right wing – their soc lib is more like “I have a black friend! I’m not racist!”. In more sane countries, there are a good number of people who fall into that ideological mindset, who do support public utilities/health initiatives – it’s pretty common here in Canada, based on people I’ve spoken with.
Like a soc lib fisc con person I know, has previously suggested that we ought to change how roads / cars are handled – arguing that cities shouldn’t have anywhere near as many cars, and that common “paved” roads should be essentially relegated to highways/freeways due to the cost and ecological impact. In their take, city budgets are often bloated by road repair costs due to the over-engineering of what’s required for regular residential activity. Using other road materials would dramatically increase sustainability – and even if it results in more ‘maintenance’ cost/road tolls for car users who still insist on using cars, that’s up to the consumer. I don’t know if they were talking nonsense, but that’s the sort of thing I sometimes hear people in the soc lib fisc con camp say.
I suppose you this touches on how I’m in the US, where everything is skewed towards insane nonsense. It would be extremely unusual to find a conservative of any sort here that would support anything remotely anti-car, for example. Even if it would save money.
Yeah, it’s not too surprising that it’ll have slightly different contexts in different regions.
