It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by AmericanPitBull
Welcome AmericanPitBull. Hope you enjoy yourself and get something out of the forum. I just joined officially myself just a few months or so ago. It was nice to be a lurker but just couldn't hold my tounge (or fingers? eh whatever) anymore and felt compelled to sign up just to tell others exactly what I thought
Now for a more fitting welcome maybe...
I never understand people who say they are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, to me that sounds like someone saying I am an orange but I am also a banana. I mean a fiscal conservative is one who advocates the avoidance of deficit spending while a social liberal believes that the government has a large role in providing services funded from deficit spending.
> I believe in running things as I have to by budgeting limited resources. I am a relatively financially poor person but i budget my funds so there is money for my personal "social programs". Services do not have to come via deficit spending when we spend more on "defense"( piss poor description of what it really is) than the rest of the world combined. The money is there if it was treated like a family buget instead of a open checkbook. So to answer I believe in a helping hand up that is not holding a gun<
Any thoughts on that? I read how you would fund the spending with cuts to the military and I agree that would make a nice band-aid for the short term but isn't there around $60 trillion or more in unfunded liabilities? Seems short sighted although I would agree a step in the right direction.
>as I said closing the enormous tax loopholes that bleed revenue and produce no benefit. Increased tax on the top tier "job creators" and tax liabilities for not creating jobs on asset shuffling. Severe penalties for american companies for outsourcing and incentives for American jobs. I am no economist but the tally on these alone should put a big plug in the bleeding wound<
I would support a safety net I just don't think the government should run it. I don't understand why people feel like only the government can handle social issues...
> Do you have a viable alternative? Churches like to only help their own flocks, corporations will skim them dry and I do not know of any other organizations neutral enough to do this job for everyone. So in cases like this it falls to government to "promote the general welfare". Another thought was to take corps back to limited scope and duration with no political power as vehicles to administer social programs but it would have to be a publicly held non-profit type system with a citizen board of directors and a strict financial policy<
vehicles to administer social programs
"promote the general welfare"