Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
No snark taken, and I understand your point.This is not a snarky comment at all, but a question... I have often heard the term "fiscally conservative, social liberal". But they appear to be mutually not compatible to me. A socially liberal government would need high taxes to support all the issues. Unless the meaning is liberal in non-taxable issues such as gay rights, sports betting, relaxed drug laws, etc as opposed to increased welfare benefits and other low income subsidies supported by increased taxation?
At the risk of inducing a bacon odor, you'll note I said I'm a social moderate, not liberal. WRT social spending, while I definitely believe in personal responsibility, I also know to some extent 'there for the grace of (insert chosen diety) go all of us.' A wealthy developed society has some responsibility to the legitimately less fortunate IMO, but where I'd draw that line is not where an ardent liberal might draw it. An even easier example IMO, we can't spend too much on combat veterans in my opinion, we owe them our best.
OTOH, Tea Party fiscal talking points don't appeal to me either. Just my view...
Last edited: