Are Republicans still a National Party?

[Animale]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Fiscal conservatives favor spending on police and other methods directly targeted at a problem. Those further on the left favor spending on the (perceived) causes of the problem. It's a lot more expensive to fund social programs than a police force, but there's a causal link between poverty and crime. Imo it's also more productive though, especially in the long term. (educated labor force, fewer issues with outsourcing/globalization, better informed voters)

But that's where the political/ideological difference is.

The bolded is actually not true you know. Typically, it's cheaper to prevent crime through social programs than to fund law enforcement and the resultant jailing of criminals.

So, the true fiscal conservative SHOULD support greater social spending to reduce crime, because other methods are actually more expensive and require larger government spending in the long term.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Sharmai

Honest Question? What is the difference between these two? Any examples? I read wiki on the topic and what I get from it is Fiscal conservative means spending only the money for which you have not the money which you expect to get when making your budget. While social might well spend on what they expect to have.


Is that accurate?

I ask because from your definition I feel I am both fiscal and social which doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it? I want whats best for the people and only where needed government.

In some ways it involves how far you think government needs to go. You need to consider that for every law you pass you will incur additional cost to enact/enforce said law. Because of that from a fiscal conservative standpoint every new law needs to be strictly required by whatever document empowers the government to act (in this case the Constitution and Bill of Rights)

An example of where Fiscal and Social conservatism differ:
Gay Marriage - Fiscal conservatives do not see any legislation one way or the other on this as required by the constitution as by definition if there is no legislation on the matter the individuals rights reign supreme and the problem is solved in accordance with the constitution and without spending money to govern it. The social conservative sees is as "wrong" and therefore needs to be legislated to ensure a "morally right" society. A fiscal conservative might believe that gay marriage is wrong (as is every individuals right to believe) but they also know that there isn't a justification for legislating that belief.

By it's nature fiscal conservatism can lean towards Libertarianism. This can be seen in the axiom that "my rights extend only to the point that they do not interfere with the rights of another." A social conservative is OK with making laws which curtail a persons rights even if that is not needed to ensure the rights of another (like gay marriage).

[Sharmai]

So wait on gay marriage fiscal conservatives don't really care one way or another so long as no more money is being spent (or more government being required) in the matter?

If such is the case it would seem there should be two social conservative parties. Social (religious) and Social (non-religious).... I those that support gay marriage, those that don't support gay marriage and fiscal those who don't care just don't charge them any money or make government any bigger.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Specter has come to his senses.

Arlen Specter Switching Parties Today

Filibuster that bitches. The 18% goes to 17.5%.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Sharmai

If such is the case it would seem there should be two social conservative parties. Social (religious) and Social (non-religious).... I those that support gay marriage, those that don't support gay marriage and fiscal those who don't care just don't charge them any money or make government any bigger.

Just like there should be 2 or 3 Democratic parties based on differences there as well. The social and fiscal conservatives are bound together because unless they pony up numbers neither will be allowed to be in a position of political significance. Same thing happened on the Democratic side where you have several different camps under one banner. It's a big problem with the two party system.

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

Specter has come to his senses.

Arlen Specter Switching Parties Today

Filibuster that bitches. The 18% goes to 17.5%.

With the democratic party showing they are willing to use parliamentary procedure to get major policy changes in the US through without any chance of extensive debate of filibuster (which I admit Bush did as well) there is no reason for the Republicans to want to hold on to some magical filibuster capability. Also, Specter is a RINO who was essentially already on their side. It's that he was for the first time facing real competition coming forward for the 2010 elections from within the party. So he is switching to the Democrats who will embrace him.

Make sure to welcome the degree to which he is a king of the earmark to your party since you're supposedly the "anti-earmark" party now.. right?

[Tristinn]

There's no more room for common sense in the republican party.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Animale

The bolded is actually not true you know. Typically, it's cheaper to prevent crime through social programs than to fund law enforcement and the resultant jailing of criminals.

I should have clarified: social programs cost more in the short term. I'm with you on the long-term advantages.

Generally, the social and fiscal spheres should be considered separately - just tends to work out so that social ideas shape fiscal ones and the other way around. (e.g. why drugs still are illegal, even though that causes huge costs whereas legalizing them would raise revenue.)


Does an extra seat in the senate do anything major for Democrats? Aren't they getting close to a filibuster-proof majority now?

[chaos]

If the Franken thing ever gets resolved, i think that puts them at 60.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Haus

Also, Specter is a RINO who was essentially already on their side.

That's exactly why the Republicans find themselves in this mess. A man who is a moderate by most accounts and was very friendly to the previous Republican administration as head of the judicial committee is/was an outcast in the Republican party for no better reason than that he is a moderate. Can we really be surprised that the party is in the state it's in when the moderates have been chased out?

It's disappointing that you've come here taking part in a pretty sensible analysis of why the republicans are where they are only to descend into using that Limbaugh-ism. RINO... give me a break.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Rush Limbaugh is on the air right now telling people not to buy American cars. He is saying it is anti-American to buy American cars because Obama and the UAW own the car companies. So this puts the rednecks in a dilemana. NASCAR is only there because of American cars.

Therefore, do you rednecks listen to your Messiah Rush Limbaugh and let the American cars companies fail and lose your precious NASCAR or do you support the American car companies? Quite a predicament. Remember if you buy an American car you will have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh.

If you are in a Union and vote Republican you are a dumb fucker.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by chaos

If the Franken thing ever gets resolved, i think that puts them at 60.

I don't think it does, but as I mentioned it doesn't really matter. They can always find 1-3 people they can put in an earmark to buy on any given piece of legislation.

As for the out-casting of moderates, are you implying that the Democrats haven't also done this? It's just that they have such a desire to maintain their majority at this point they'll be more lenient. There's already discussion of Obama meetings to "get the Democrats in congress on the party line". There are as many people, maybe more, who are labeled DINO's as RINO's.

The reality is that there should be a large enough group in the middle to tell the people at both extremes to shove it. But the extremes run the parties because the easiest way to get elected often is to campaign on "but I'm not THAT GUY!" distancing. Reason for this being that many people don't want to think about the smaller subtle differences. They WANT black and white, so that is what the parties will give them!

[Heylel Teomim]

As hyperbolic as IRB can be, he's right to an extent. Unless you hate queers and are afraid of blacks, there's really not a lot of room left for your ideas in the Republican party. It doesn't have to be that way, but at this very moment, it's true. We can only hope they raise themselves back up to the status of legitimate opposition soon. I shudder at the thought of a one party nation for any length of time, even if it's the guy I voted for.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Haus

As for the out-casting of moderates, are you implying that the Democrats haven't also done this? It's just that they have such a desire to maintain their majority at this point they'll be more lenient.

I'm not implying it. I am saying it plain as day. The democrats built their majority through moderates. To assert that they are only now taking in moderates to maintain a majority is not telling the truth. Claire McCaskil's rise to senator in 2006 comes to mind as one important example. In contrast, I can't think of one person the democrats have run out of their party except Leiberman, and he is no moderate.

Also, I have never personally heard a mouthpiece for the democratic party use the term "DINO". In fact, I've never heard it before period. The term RINO is a derogatory term invented by right wing radicals like Limbaugh in order to 1) make clear that they dictate the Republican Agenda and 2) pin point people that they believe aren't seeing that agenda through and coerce them into getting in line.

[Itzena]

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
No further comment required.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Itzena

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
No further comment required.

The Republican Party indeed will get even more extreme. Now if you even have a foreign sounding name you will be unpatriotic and a socialist. Then if you do not have blond hair and blue eyes you are unpatriotic and a socialist.

40 years of being out of power may be too few. I think they may make 100 years.

Hail!