anyone here still a fiscal conservative without the other crazy stuff?

I'm a fiscal conservative, and close to a REAL libertarian in value. Not those fake disgrace of a libertarians. So basically spending cut on massive scale in every sector, tax increase on everyone, balanced budget, all to pay down the debt.

$31 316 043 200 000, thats how much debt we're currently in, or approximately $31 trillion.

Debt Clock

we need to pay debt off hard!!!

Yes and no.

I do believe in fiscal responsibility, but I don't believe that means "do not spend".

There is a lot we need to fix in this country and it requires the spending of money and investment of resources. I think taxes need to be increased across the board for the most part, while decreased in some specific cases.

At the same time, the US on average has a higher tax rate than many "socialist" countries (specifically the Scandinavian ones) while reaping none of the same benefits they have. Where else does the public pay for the construction of hospitals, and then have to pay for their use at the same time, while paying for medication whose research was likewise paid for by the public?

You don't fix a leaking roof by not spending anything and letting it rot and collapse; you fix it by spending a bit to patch it up, thus saving a lot of money in the long run. A penny spent now is a dime saved later, in other words.

People think socialism, capitalism, and fiscal responsibility need to be mutually exclusive but they really don't have to be.

I feel bad for legit libertarians, there are too many people that are faux anarchists that see libertarianism as the conservative way to rebel against the system and they just make it a really toxic area to be associated with. These people idolize Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson and they memorize certain facts about the finance system, toss in some conspiracy theories, and suddenly they think they're some enlightened country-culture conservative when really they're just the cynical version of a college know-it-all hippie.

Not saying that about you, FYI; you seem to have a pretty reasonable stance financially.

First i'll say im ashamed of the conservative party, they have really fallen by the way. Putting aside all their other problems, they have abandoned their core principle of balanced budgets, debt repayment. Its a disgrace and a black eye to all real conservatives. Yes, I get it, it might not be popular, but at the end of the day every citizen regardless of politics respects a government that acts responsibly with money.

I disagree with that statement on penny saved now is one saved later. When you allow restaurants like mcdonalds to pile up on every block, candy manufacturers and oreo company making record profit in the billions of dollars, then its no wonder your health care spending is going through the roof. Putting that aside, the military spending is also far too high. We need to get our allies to pay more, Trump was 1000% correct on that. Cut our spending, and get our allies to step up. Defense shouldn't be up to a single country to take care of.

the funny thing is, i'd be happier to pay higher taxes if the government outlines a plan to cut spending massively, balance budgets and pushes forward a real transparent plan to pay down the debt. Once we're in a recession, we can spend a bit more, but in normal times like now, go hard on the debt.

@blaznwiipspman1: You sound like you want government intervention rather than capitalism.

I don't know what you mean by that but if it means the debt gets paid down, i'm happy with that.

Also we're not capitalist. Any country that supports patents, trademarks, IP laws is a communist country in my eyes.

We're capitalist. Very much so with the emphasis on the corporations.

On the one hand you complain about patent protection and on the other you want the government to stop McDonald's etc. from opening restaurants.

@blaznwiipspman1: those candy and fast food manufacturers have lobbyists, use tactics that should be illegal (such as specifically targeting low-income neighborhoods).

Coca Cola, makers of "vitamin water", were allowed to market something that is essentially soda as a health drink. When taken to court, they simply said "no one would mistake vitamin water as healthy" in the face of them advertising it as such.

If we simply said "No" to these companies, then we'd have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. My town of 60,000 people has about three McDonalds; what if 30 years ago we simply said "You can only have one McDonald's per city and/or per 100,000 people". How much would that have saved on medical care?

we aren't capitalist, and we never were. The amount of regulation in place, much of that in place to help out corporations, nobody can honestly say we're a real capitalist country. The moment you add things like patents, IP, and trademarks, you're automatically disqualified from any discussion of capitalism. Ideas aren't property, it goes against the 1A its a literal slap in the face. If we're already going this far, we might as well fine the shit out of mcdonalds, who profit billions of dollars every year while people get fatter and fatter and our health care costs keep going up.

Regulation doesn't stop capitalism. Regulation was a response to unchecked capitalism actually.

Candy and fast food is found in every demographic.

@LJS9502_basic: I like how you derail the topic, which was about our out of control debt, the out of control spending, and $31 trillion dollars and climbing without any real plan to pay it off.

And yes regulation stops capitalism. You can call it something else, but it sure aint capitalism.

these companies are very predatory, and rely on people being uneducated to keep gaining profit. Meanwhile their trash food make people diabetic, and even worse. They use these ads to tempt people, target low income people especially are targetted the most.

All in the name of "capitalism", lol. If they cared about capitalism, they wouldn't have all that bs patents, trademarks, IP and other beneficial laws that the wealthy and rich use go take over the world.

More people need to be educated about these trash companies so they don't keep getting away with it.

I was responding to YOUR post. That isn't derailing. As far as debt, governments will ALWAYS have debt.

@blaznwiipspman1: Thanks for posting. I get into this argument with conservatives often, that cutting taxes while in debt is not "fiscal responsibility". Glad to see there are some out there that understand this.

100%, only idiots would ask for tax cut, when debt is piled so high. We need spending cuts AND tax increase to pay down the debt. They can start on spending cuts by firing half the politicians, then cut spending on every single program, then tax the shit out of the rich, and raise taxes on middle class and the poor too. There is no free lunch for anybody, pay that shit off. Everybody needs to make sacrifices to get this done, nobody is exempt.

@blaznwiipspman1: I think so. But if you want to discuss this seriously, I ask, how do we bring down the numbers rather than increase the national debt. There needs to be a serious study. Into this phenomenon.

And I think you’re right. You know something….under the Clinton administration we had 44% tax rate. Guess what?? We had a 200 billion dollar surplus. Why don’t we get back into the things that work anymore??

Oh wait, Republicans will wine about not cutting more taxes.

@outworld222: those are loser Republicans, we need real conservative Republicans.

@blaznwiipspman1: ✔️✔️

I don't know what you mean by a tax increase on everyone...

But I'd be cool with slashing spending by a shit ton and just doing a 10% flat tax on everyone regardless of income. Lower class, middle class, upper class.

They cut them for the wealthy, the ones most able to survive at that tax rate.

Which economically impacts lower income brackets.

@sargentd: poor people are hurt far more by that 10% tax cut and rich will benefit greatly. It's a scam. Especially when the rich have been milking things like patent laws, trademarks and IP to get so rich in the first place, they need to pay 70% tax to make it fair.

I will agree to 10% flat tax if the wealthy are willing to give up all their patent protections, IP and everything. No intellectual property rights, we go for a true free market.

Also everyone should pay some tax, even the poor. But that depends. Obviously poor people can't pay 10% of their income when they're struggling to eat, and pay rent.

Currently the middle class are the ones getting raped by taxes the most.

The lower class gets exempt while also using all the social services the taxes are paying for.

The upper high class has enough money to pay lawyers and accountants to find as many loopholes/write offs as possible to pay as little taxes as possible.

The middle class are carrying all the weight and benefit the least in this current system.

I'd like to see a 10% flat tax for everyone from the guy making 20k a year to the guy making 2 million a year.

10% everyone pays 10%. Flat tax, get rid of loop holes for the super rich, and no exceptions from the poor.

10% of what you make no matter who you are, and gut spending, so we can start moving in a positive direction.

@blaznwiipspman1: I agree, no loop holes, no write offs, no games to be played by the rich. 10% every year. No matter what. That's what you pay.

But I don't care if you don't like that it's fair with the poor. the lower class should pay their 10%, just like the middle class will pay 10% as well.

That's truly fair.

You made 20k this year?

Then you pay 2k in taxes.

You made 2 mill this year?

Then you pay 400k in taxes.

I support it across the board, no special treatment. No loopholes and no exemptions.

@blaznwiipspman1: "they need to pay 70% tax to make it fair."

That's insane and not fiscally conservative.

I can be fiscially conservative, or fiscially liberal depending on circumstance.

When things are going well for the economy, I tend to be more fiscially conservative, while fiscially liberal when the economy is not doing as well.

That said, I do believe we need to find ways to reduce spending. I do not believe in absolutist ideologies such as socialism or communism.

Not through blanket cuts. But rather asking things like... why do we pay so much for healthcare? Why are cities spending so much on maintainance and infrastructure, why are the costs of amenities bankrupting cities?

@Maroxad: "When things are going well for the economy, I tend to be more fiscially conservative, while fiscially liberal when the economy is not doing as well."

This sounds backwards to me.

Feel like it makes more sense to be more fiscally conservative when the economy is doing bad.

Makes more sense to be more liberal with spending when things are good, not when they are bad...

@sargentd: a simple tax like that is fair when the rules are fair. When the rich are abusing ip laws, there is no way to give them a flat tax. Get rid of the protections, and I will agree with you. A simple 10% flat tax would make a ton of sense. But these guys are monopolies, created by rules they made to rig the system with the government help. There is no way in hell a 10% flat tax makes sense in the current environment.

A 10% flat tax would decrease revenue, which goes against the idea of paying down the debts, heck it wouldn't even be enough to cover the budget. The rich control nearly 70% of the wealth made.

But on the other hand. I agree everyone should pitch on. We all need to contribute to make this country great, whether that's $100 in tax or $1 billion.

You often need to spend money when the economy is doing badly. So when private spending is going down, the public spending can offset this by increasing. When private spending goes up, public spending goes down.

Republicans do not own conservatism, just as democrats don't own liberalism.

In my view, the Republicans are shifting towards not being conservative, and the Democrats are shifting away from traditional liberalism.

Republicans can't evolve, and are now the party of Alex Jones conspiracy theorists. And don't conflate Trump with the party, he has always been his own construct.

Democrats are conflating progressive ideas with woke ideology.

Ironically, most of the electorate sit centre left, centre, or centre right. That doesn't attract the news or social media hits.

Your 100% correct. Its only going to work if the democrats and republican rewrite the tax codes.

But most of them benefit themselves from the current tax codes...

So unfortunately don't think it will ever happen, because our government is full of swamp monsters more worried about their own pockets.

This is why the middle class is getting ******.

The super rich get to use the rigged tax codes to avoid a fair share.

The poor/lazy pay nothing and benefit the most from all the social spending using tax dollars. (which politicians are promising them for votes)

The working middle class cant abuse the tax codes and pay their fair share but dont necessarily even need the majority of what the tax spending is going towards...

I hate it.

Side note: Really liked the honesty from Trump here...

And when things are doing well, or in normal times, there is little evidence to suggest that increased spending does much to stimulate the economy. So might as well use these times to build us a surplus can then be used when things are going badly. To help get out of the bust cycle. For reasons you explained :)

The public spending comes from the tax pool though..

So if you are increasing public spending. Then taxes on the people are raised...

Raising taxes during a period where Private Spending is down (which is down because the PEOPLE have less money to spend...)

raising their taxes while they have less money... is counter productive.

Raising taxes on people when the economy is doing bad doesn't make sense.

Exactly. That is NOT the fair way to tax.

It would be the fair way to tax.

If the politicians who have promised to re write the tax codes for 20 years... ACTUALLY re wrote the tax code...

Hang on, no, we've discussed this before. Those are a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism turns everything into a commodity - not just physical property, but intellectual property as well. Capitalism also ensures there's a system of individual property rights so people can claim ownership of that property (e.g. copyright), and can sell rights related to that property for more profits (e.g. licensing). In contrast, communism is all about collectivism - everything is shared among the community, and nobody could possibly get wealthy by hoarding an idea.

You don't like the government intervention parts, but those are also the result of unchecked capitalism.

No it's not even close to being fair.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/flat-tax-pros-cons-examples-compared-to-fair-tax-3306329

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-flat-tax-a-good-idea/flat-tax-will-benefit-only-the-rich

I'm not sure why you want to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

You don't need to raise taxes, because you have already built a surplus from when times are good.

This isnt some voodoo economics I am proposing either. This is standard fiscal policy in a lot of industrialized countries.

@Planeforger: people can have ownership of things, but ideas aren't property. Again, it's a violation of the 1A. Even Benjamin Franklin didn't get a single patent for any of his inventions. He felt it was a disgusting over reach and that ideas should be shared freely. Ideas are very much part of expression, the right to free speech and fall under the 1A. Without the government specifically pointing to patents and classifying them as property they simply wouldn't be.

Capitalism doesn't turn ideas into property, government does, let that sink in.

Big sigh....

Like, the biggest sigh.

I don't believe that fiscal conservatives really exist. It's only a talking point for when Republicans are out of power. Once they're in power it's all about giving as much money as possible to the richest class of America at the expense of the poor and middle class.

which is correct.

Where was this attitude when republicans increased spending by 1.7 trillion dollars and reduced tax income by nearly the same amount under Trump? Where was it when Obama supported a 4 trillion dollar reduction deal during his tenure and republicans rejected it?

Fiscal conservatism is a talking point, pure and simple. What it is not, is an actual goal, and it never will be.

I tend to be conservative fiscally speakings but i do think that education, infraestructure and healthcare are worth spending money on.

Though with several caveats, like for terciary education i think only hard sciences should be subsidized and with a generous scholarship program for high achieving or above average low income students. I am very oppose to financing arts and soft siciences since I see them as recreation. I also like eat at school programs for low income areas even those that serve dinner as well, but hate the programs to give laptops to low income students as they become toys.

When it comes to infraestructure, i like to prioritize logistics, energy and water management. I am not a big fan of extending internet access to rural areas, i think it's wasteful and i think telecomuncations infrastructure should be fianced by private companies.

I am also not a big fan of government affordable housing. I think housing can be done better by market forces, perhaps with some limits to prevent monopolies. In fact I think government housing and zoning laws are one of the main reasons for housing shortages.and they should be removed.

I believe government direct employment should be kept at a minimum and should not be used as a tool to fight unemployment since it can waste too much of the limited tax income.

I am ok as well with financing some specific industries if they are considered to be key for national security but only for a limited time, i oppose permanente subsides like the agricultural subsidies since they created inneficienes and are easily exploited by large companies that don't need them.

I approve of devoting a large part of the GDP to research and development (up to 3.5 %) but only for hard sciences and to aspects that have medium term potential

for return of investment in terms of increasing GDP growth.

I consider health care to be the hardest topic to deal with since i can become massively expensive but at the same time it provides a key service for population wellbeing and productivity. For this i lean to a mixed system though I admit i lack knowledge in this area.

@Serraph105: those are disgraced of Republicans, nobody should point to them and use them as an example, there is no real conservative that doesn't support fiscal measures. Absolutely none, and if you do, you're not a conservative, only a bum, worse than those woke liberals. Alot of conservatives are getting distracted with the other nonsense, we need to stick to our true mandate of cutting the shit out if spending, raising the shit out of taxes, on everyone, and paying down that debt. We can cut taxes again once the debt is under control. I want to see a republican candidate promise to lower the debt to 30 trillion, heck just lower it period, that would be awesome. No more spending, no more free lunch, just whack away at our debt. This nonsense free money is an absolute disgrace and it needs to end.

Also I've said it 100 times before, while I liked trump, he did alot of great things and exposed the swamp. The one thing I absolutely hated about him was how irresponsible he was with money, he should never have given out those tax cuts and instead put that money toward the debt. It would even set a great example to the kids, if the government is being responsible with money, everyone else should be too.

Yes, but to different extents.

Unhealthy, mass-produced food is cheap...healthy and natural, minimally-processed food is expensive.

Like with McDonalds targeting poor neighborhoods, I'd be curious what the socioeconomic levels surrounding a Whole Foods would be.

Yet they're the republicans in power and the ones who keep getting voted back in time and time again. Why should I believe that "real republicans" are fiscally conservative when republicans constantly prove that they are not so?