Many people claim to be… “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. How does that work?
You don’t want to spend money but you still want to charge high taxes?
What would “fiscally liberal and socially conservative” look like, and how come you don’t see many people make that claim?
Oh, wait, that would be today’s Republican Party… wants to spend money but not charge taxes or even pay for it.
Maybe they don’t make the claim because, deep inside, they’re ashamed of themselves for abandoning the call of fiscal conservatism that they still preach. Then again, they don’t have to abandon said claim… enough people are sucker enough to still fall for it.
I think the federal government spends too much money. Period. It’s like they have a checkbook with a never-ending flow of money, at least in their heads. And this isn’t at all related to who’s in office or who’s controlling Congress. No one these days seems to want to slow the tide of spending. Then again, it could be that things are just more expensive than they used to be. Toilet seats that were a bargain 20 years ago at $200 are now costing the Feds $750. Inflation, you know. Essentially, though, what it comes down to, IMO, is that the government is not a good capital steward. There’s a lot of waste, a lot of room for vast improvement.
I personally feel like from a tax standpoint, I’ve been wrung dry. Last year, I paid more than $30k in taxes. So you’d have a very difficult time convincing me that I’ve not yet done my part to pay my way.
BUT … I believe that sometimes, people need help. At some point in our lives, most people will experience some financial difficulties. Even if it’s not necessarily our responsibility to help those who need it, it’s the right thing to do. I think where it goes off the rail is when we give unending help, or help over and over again.
I think that help from the government should work like this: Lost your job and can’t find another one right away? Here’s some welfare and food stamps; we’re going to give you two years to get back on your feet. Need to get some training so you can go into a different field because there’s nothing available in your own field? Here’s a little money to go to trade school and learn a new skill. You’ve got two years for that, too.
It shouldn’t be a situation where children are raised on welfare and a cycle starts to form which keeps a person on welfare from birth to death. Yet, that happens, perhaps more frequently than we know.
re: Your part about welfare and food stamps, etc.
I agree that there should be some sort of safety net, and I also agree that it should not be set up as what amounts to a lifetime benefit.
But what gets me is how, in some programs, they’re quick to pull the rug out from under you. For example: You’re only allowed to make so much money, and as soon as you make more than that… Boom!… you’re cut off. I’ve never understood that.
Just because you’re beginning to make decent money again doesn’t mean you’re out of the woods just yet. This quick action could very well throw you back down into an economic abyss, possibly even killing any hope you were starting to have.
Yeah, I’m there with you. I’ve often thought that they should give someone six months before they cut it off entirely. Maybe the person receiving the aid doesn’t get the full amount, but to cut it off completely? No.
This is a big reason why, IMO, the “cycle of welfare” isn’t broken for some families.