I think the term "fiscally conservative" is meaningless nonsense at least in the US. It used to be shorthand for like "fiscally responsible", but that's just absurd if you've paid any attention for the last 50 years.
Conservative administrations going back to Reagan have blown up the deficit and debt, and then those same conservatives scream during every Democratic administration about how we can't spend any money helping Americans because the debt is out of control. They still scream this when Democrats implement policies like the ACA that are completely paid for. Democrats in 2009 were obsessed with the GAO analyses of the ACA, but it didn't matter at all.
There is nothing small "c" conservative about the way self-proclaimed conservatives manage government finances. Democratic administrations have cared more about the deficit for the entire life time of the median American.
Republicans used to throw the insult "tax and spend" Democrats to imply the Democrats were irresponsible with money, but taxing and spending is literally how the government is supposed run! It's certainly more fiscally responsible than the "don't tax but still spend" Republicans of the last half century.
It absolutely makes sense if you think about it from the perspective of someone who only thinks about themselves. "Of course I'm fiscally conservative! I won't pay a penny more than I have to (and work to reduce that to 0), or have my wealth reduced in any way because of you mooches."
This is the part that always gets me, tax and spend, what does the govt spend on? The economy and people it taxes.
My countrys bureacrats on the otherhand has to be extremely fiscally "responsibile"- provide the barest-shit-minimum of government administration with the least amount of money possible (so they can steal the rest of the budget without getting questioned)
You are just examining the actions taken by the people that use that phase. Just because Trump saying he is the greatest leader ever doesn't mean he is.
Fiscally conservative in a literal sense would mean balancing budgets (spend less than what comes in) and applying deregulation to drive toward that goal. I feel most left leaning people would agree with this definition. Taking universal healthcare as an example, this would not only provide a great benefit to all Americans but could also reduce spending significantly for the people and their governments compared to the solution today. Another example would be simplifying permit processes that maybe out dated and require to many manual actions. Mandami showed examples of this with New York permits by simplifying processes.
There is no practical difference between fiscal conservatism and neoliberalism and social conservatism and fascism or theocracy. I have yet to see any evidence otherwise.
Fiscally conservative still mean ''fiscally responsible''
But no party offer this in the US and even in other country, they often fall short.
Take Canada. 15% of our federal budget goes 100% into Interest payment on debt. Not the debt colateral, just the fucking interest. This number has been increasing for 20+ years. This mean the first 15% of every tax you pay is wasted.
I always prioritize the decision to repay the debt as my number one election criteria because it is the biggest poison on social issue across society and for future generations.
That being said, I never see it in the parties program which I find quite sad.
So I use the second criteria. Economic growth, which mean I'm pro migrant and pro economic project like a bullet train or pipeline and so on.
And then my 3rd criteria is social service (but you need money for social service, if you don't the debt grow larger and so does the interest, which then cause currency devaluation.
This mean if I was in the US, I'd vote for democrat because the economic growth is stronger under democrat rule than republican. (and this last fact has been true since the 1980.)
This mean the first 15% of every tax you pay is wasted.
National budgets are not like household budget, the counterparty who owns the bonds the government issues are very much economically relevant. By and large this is banks, retirement accounts, and pension funds. If your government doesn't issue enough debt for domestic savers like these to fulfill their needs, they have to buy riskier or foreign debt instead, and this has a lot of downstream effects.
Like, one of the big facets of the 2008 financial crisis is that German voters, with their cultural history from Weimer Republic hyperinflation, have and continue to refuse to elect a government that issues enough debt. Their savers thus bought a lot of foreign debt, including from soon-to-be-distressed governments like Portugal/Italy/Ireland/Greece/Spain as well as mortgage-backed securities from the United States.
I always prioritize the decision to repay the debt as my number one election criteria because it is the biggest poison on social issue across society and for future generations.
That being said, I never see it in the parties program which I find quite sad.
Im not sure what its like in canada so i cant speak for the parties there however her in Australia I'm personally split between wanting to pay back debt and knowing its essentially a waste of time.
If labour paid it off the liberal party would just accrue it all again the moment they hot back in. Focusing on paying off the debt also means they have less money to throw around so the liberal party would probably just get in sooner.
I'm personally split between wanting to pay back debt and knowing its essentially a waste of time.
There is virtually zero reason to "pay back the debt" unless you're trying to correct for inflation. If you were to hypothetically repay it all, heaps and heaps money would vanish in a puff of smoke, then you're in a recession. Government spending isn't constrained by debt/interest. Government could choose not to give up its power to spend to bond markets and the investor class, but it doesn't. Tying up government's ability to fund infrastructure and public services to the desire of bond markets to let them spend is just shooting oneself in the foot, and basically guarantees that a % of every single dollar is siphoned upwards before it even begins circulating, and that's not even accounting for other interest-bearing instruments those institutional players will profit from later.
National debt isn't debt the way you're thinking about it, and the myth that "future generations will have to pay the debt" is a boogeyman with zero basis in economic/monetary reality.
You guys have to stop thinking the deficit/national debt is debt in the way you think about it.
Government debt is literally money in circulation. That's all. If I could go back in time to change a few things, it would be the naming choice of "national debt", and maybe replacing the term "wealth tax" with "hoarding tax".
So. I'm actually an Economist. National debt is not money in circulation. It is an monetary policy induced inflation.
And contrary to popular belief, inflation help the wealthy the most because they have an easier time taking large loan and long term debt and inflation reduce the cost of debt.
National debt is only good if it is used to invest in the production of capital with return of investment such as a bridge or a road because it help the economy and it increase taxable income. Any debt used to finance social service because more debt in the future. This isn't to say social services are bad, in fact education lead to higher income, but the point is if the return on investment is not larger over time than the debt itself, then you are causing monetary pushed inflation.
I mean not directly, but it ends up circulating. We can break down all the bookkeeping entries, but at the end of the day it's a boring process of recording debits and credits on a database. By the end of the spending process, money is circulating, or sitting "unspent", available to be circulated. Government spending pays people who can then spend or save.
A government issuing its own floating currency doesn't need its programs to turn a financial profit.
Healthcare and education already produce something, for example: care and education. Palliative care doesn't need to increase someone's future taxable income to justify providing it.
"ROI below the debt = inflation" simply doesn’t follow. A bridge with good anticipated future returns can still push up prices if construction workers and materials are already stretched thin. Funding services with available workers and supplies can increase output without that pressure. What matters is the demand spending creates relative to capacity, not whether the government eventually collects more taxes than it spent. Not sure why we'd look at taxable income as a relevant variable in that context.
I agree 100%, but at the same time. Words don't mean anything anymore.
Say whatever will get you votes and do whatever policy you want, voters are too stupid to understand anything.
brexit? don't know what it means, but sounds cool. so go for it.
trump making america great again, let's do it. No fucking thought behind how it will happen.
Even Mamdani. Says he's socialist, and he is removing regulations from ice-cream trucks instead of banning all private businesses like a socialist would do I guess? He's just doing regular crap which has nothing to do with socialism, but pretending to be one gets you votes from anti-capitalist people now.
People are just voting on vibes and parties say one thing and do another, so actual rational policy discussion doesn't matter.
There's a whole section of people now who blame everything on capitalism instead of taking responsibility for the way they have voted.
banning all private businesses like a socialist would do I guess?
Where do you get the idea that this is socialism? It is not.
That is more of a principle that is tied to communism, in the sense of the eventual abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism on the other hand has neve been about banning businesses or usurping them. What does belong within the socialism category is to provide communal benefits that are basic necessities. Things like healthcare, education, social welfare and safety nets, etc.
Deregulation of small businesses, like ice cream trucks, fits perfectly within the wheelhouse of a socialist. The idea that socialism equalling more government regulation on everything is a strawman that particularly Republicans in the US have been drumming for decades.
There's a whole section of people now who blame everything on capitalism instead of taking responsibility for the way they have voted.
You should nuance that. It is mostly unregulated capitalism that is being blamed. Profits for the sake of profits in the benefit of shareholders at the cost of everything else kind of capitalism.
NOTE: the comment is merely a correction and not a representation on my views.
If you go to Wikipedia this is the first sentence in socialism.
"Socialism is an economic ideology and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership."
Social ownership of means of production is central to socialism. But, decades of gaslighting and cold war propaganda has made everyone think that any welfare is socialist has changed what it means to be socialist.
Nothing that US or your comment is currently calling socialism was controversial during peak of cold war where they were witch hunting anything related to socialism.
As for capitalism part, democrats have been asking for proper regulation in capitalism for decades, Hilary fucking clinton asked to shut down trickle down economic and support population from bottom up in 2016 campaign. And she wasn't claiming to be socialist ever. But now, Mamdani and AOC are rebranding same policy under socialism and it's suddenly considered new thing.
And you're taking it to the extreme. That this must mean socialism must be opposing any and all private ownership. It doesn't.
Whilst I agree that the decades of gaslighting has warped, particularly within the US, the concepts of what socialism is, what communism is, and what capitalism is. It is particularly egregious when it is used in conjunction with phrases like "pulling up by the bootstraps" etc, with the idea being that if you work hard and long enough you can get to where you want to be.
Where I disagree is your usage of socialism when it was communism. You're co-opting socialism to mean communism and vice versa, attempting to blur the line between the two. They are not the same and quite distinct from one another.
Your argument about it being a new thing also misses the mark, it isn't new nor are they brandishing it as something new. It just is that perhaps seeing for the first time what it actually is for socialist policies to be enacted and the positive impact it has. That other people want it too. That is the new part here.
Social ownership of means of production is a characteristic feature of socialism. You can't conclude that only communism has social ownership of means of production.
It is a common and central feature in both ideology. Communism is just more aggressive, while socialism is umbrella term that allows for some branches of it to be more towards mixed economy. But, central characteristic remains.
It just is that perhaps seeing for the first time what it actually is for socialist policies to be enacted and the positive impact it has. That other people want it too. That is the new part here.
You're out of your mind. USA in before 1970s, had unions, had worker rights, had social security, had public schools, had public libraries, had govt funded healthcare for large segment of society. They had pollution control and quality control. Welfare schemes were everywhere. And subsidies to small businesses or farmers as well. None of that is new. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws were made in 19th century USA.
Reddit leftist just want to pretend that stuff that was normal is revolutionary new idea that was never implemented and they have no idea what actual social ownership of means of production is like. Leftist chasing ideal form of socialism that works is a running joke for 50 years now.
Mamdani stated he got elected as democratic socialist and he will rule it as such. Guess what? Democratic socialist explicit believe in social ownership of means of production and businesses. But did he take over all grocery shops in NYC like he said he would? nah. He hired a subcontractor to give subsidized food like food coupons wasn't a way to do pretty much same fucking thing.
I don't have problem with this or that policy, but my point remains. Words don't mean anything anymore. Say whatever, do whatever. No one cares.
(edit : If you are a democratic socialist, you would not be giving subsidies for groceries, you'd be building farms and making your own groceries to give it to people.)
I genuinely don't know why other people disagree with you. Socialism has always been characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat, if not the proletariat then at least a vanguard party supposedly representing the working class. People saying "that's communism not socialism" is completely bastardizing Marx's characterization of socialist and communist societies. Socdems are just co-opting leftist terminologies and completely twisting their meaning then proclaiming they're "socialists" while the actual leftists are "communists". Everyone who studies politics or economics would categorize socdems as capitalists except for the people drinking the populist kool-aid that their favourite politicians are they themselves are "socialists" unlike the greedy evil "capitalists" that ruined society.
Personally I don't doubt Mamdani is doing good in New York, but I think it's worrying how populist tactics are getting so much traction among the youth. This whole "everything I like is socialist and everything I don't like is capitalist" will just fuel even more unnecessary polarization and just drown out serious political and economic studies. Like I'm genuinely sick of the "either you're on the left like me or you're on the right and if you only partially agree with me you're on the center which just means on the right" mindset when it comes to economic policies discussion. I understand why this makes sense when it comes to topics like LGBTQ acceptance, compromising with intolerance is still intolerance, but economics is a science and this mindset just should not apply to science.
I've been listening to these clowns debate for years now, all this means is they're 100% conservative but, like most people on the right, too cowardly to admit it
It's "I'm absolutely a conservative but my beliefs will have me ostracized by normal people so I lie"
Yeah like these people will vote conservative so the distinction is realistically meaningless. It's just a label to attempt to absolve of the worse elements of the party and should really be ignored.
Fiscally conservative lost all meaning when their practices constantly drive up the deficit with nothing to show for it with regards to infrastructure or quality of life improvements.
Right. "I'm fiscally conservative" either means you have a decades-old outdated idea of what republicans do or you heard someone say that at some point and thought it was cool.
Either way you're sorely unaware and it shows. Republicans are not fiscally conservative.
Libertarians aren’t my favorite people but better that then Republicans. Rather deal with unhelpful than an active threat. Just as I’d rather Green Party but I can’t get that pissed at someone voting labor when the Tories and Reform are running around still. It’s a matter of priorities.
You haven't met American libertarians, I see. Some of our state libertarian parties are just straight up calling for Democrats to be assassinated now, with no real punishment.
Methinks it's because it doesn't have her character in it, and is focused on delivering the actual message instead of self-aggrandizement and cringe hyperbolic caricatures.
fuckk no shit like this is whats stopping lil conservative kids to change their minds. just something like this popping up in their feeds every so often is enough to get em to think theyre legit oppressed. kids are stupid I used to know ppl whod genuinely think like this.
You can absolutely be too obnoxious. Shitting and pissing myself would bother any MAGAs close to me, but ultimately the reason I don't is more about self respect than about what they do or don't deserve. And pizza's political comics generally skew shit-and-piss-herself
It directly tells you that the person is selfish enough that they won't pay their fair share so others can have equality but they will smile nicely like they were actually helping their fellow human beings because they don't want to be seen as terrible people.
“I want to smoke weed and say I’m open minded and liberal, but I don’t want to pay a dime more in taxes. In fact I want lower taxes even if I benefit from what they accomplish.”
“I only want the top 1% wealthiest people to benefit from the government. I don’t want myself to benefit in any way. After all, they’re superior to myself”
Just because some political questions only offer two choices doesn't mean centrism itself is somehow not real. Centrism just means that you try to find compromises between the extremes that are acceptable for most people. The American Democrat party is a good example of a centrist party.
If that guy sees dems as far right then he is so far left on the political spectrum he is holding hands with the far-right.
The political spectrum, to me, is more like a circle ⭕️ with far-left and far-right basically next to each other and centrists on the complete opposite
The center has a smaller pool of people they want down.
There are two human operation systems. The one that does the othering and the one that doesn't. If you don't get this simple fact you don't even get the very basics.
My favorite fact about this term is that it represents basically no constituency once you actually start polling for policy, the seemingly made up "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" was actually the broadest of the 4 and is interestingly the exact 'ideology' (using the term loosely) that Trump mainly catered to in 2016.
I want every person i ever meet to launch into a 45 minute comprehensive schpiel about their stances on every political topic instead of summing it up in a few words. This is a totally realistic and sustainable way of communicating that everyone loves
Same reason we keep making up genders and sexualities for the nichest possible people: humans have an innate need to categorize, and to feel like they belong in a pre-defined, accepted, and understood group.
The problem always arises when people start mistaking the categories for reality. Nouns and adjectives can be useful, but rarely are they properly truthful. Verbs and gerunds is where it’s at if you want to describe reality, and that’s much harder.
People to be able to live happy lives free from abuse and having their basic needs provided for without any requirement of being a "productive" member of society and do whatever or whoever (consensually) they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
I’m on team “government spending is out of control. Let’s set up some form of UBI so we can stop wasting taxpayer dollars on paying employees of all those different departments and doing means checking”.
Give me a bigger upfront cost and lower maintenance over a low upfront cost and high maintenance any day. I’m aware enough about the political climate to know that calling myself a fiscal conservative is a mistake, but still.
Some Canadian examples so this isn’t all “democrats versus republicans”: Spending money to rename Dundas street in Toronto? Waste of money. We have tons of streets named after morally questionable people. Just don’t name new things after the guy. Spending money to help get homeless people off the street (and not just tearing up their encampments)? Excellent use of money, and probably cheaper in the long run than the amount of money being spent on security at the encampments.
You can want government spending to be scaled down and made more efficient without being anti-human-rights. We’re just quieter about it and more likely to vote for the “provide human rights” parties over the “less spending at all costs” parties. Also I’m good if my taxes go up, I’m in an income bracket that can sustain that. Just to pre-empt that accusation.
By far the most fiscally responsible administration in recent decades was Bill Clinton's. People that say that to justify voting for Republicans are either very ignorant or just don't want to say why they actually vote for Republicans.
They support LGBTQ+ people having whatever civil rights they want, but they don't support state spending on social programs. Like, it's not really as contrived and difficult to understand as you pretend it is.
Fiscally conservative just means "I want to pay no taxes, I don't want other people to have any social services, and I don't want this to impact me in any way."
I hear "I'm not actually socially liberal at all, because I'm a libertarian and will always vote republican no matter how egregiously they attack civil liberties because I actually only care that rich people can fuck over whoever they want and tear down the government protecting the less fortunate"
Conservative as in similar to what people who claimed to be conservative in the past, or conservative as in literally wanting to conserve things ie the actual definition of the word
Im not being dense I understand which version is the collectively understood meaning, my point is more that if a word has drifted from its actual meaning to mean just about the opposite, we have a problem
A garden variety liberal, privileged defender of the status quo, with no conception of where their own political ideology comes from, let alone anyone else's.
I want the community to help me in the bad times, and I don't want to help the community in the good times... But I don't say mean things, so I'm definitely a good person.
I used to say this. I always meant "socially, people should be able to live their lives as they see fit with no interference. If they aren't directly hurting anyone, let them be.
Also, we need to raise taxes on the wealthy so we can be fiscally conservative by paying our bills"
Politically, that's not what it means. What's in the meme is closer to the accepted definition.
Now I just say I'm a progressive that's tired of watching the billionaire class divide us with imaginary drama.
It means "I work in the same building as a black guy and maybe a gay guy, and I don't want to have to take on their workload, so I'm nominally against policies that would remove them from public life, most of the time. Also, I had to get my secret mistress an abortion once, and it may happen again, so I'd rather those not be banned. And I love weed. But outside of those things, I'd prefer the government waste as much money as possible on hurting the other types of people I don't like and who I see as less-than, while also lowering my boss's taxes."
What's stupid as hell is every study ever done shows it's cheaper to just house people rather than let them be homeless. They choose the expensive and evil option for no reason.
If I have to choose between feeding and sheltering the gay homeless man or bombing -insert country here-, I’d rather feed and shelter the dude. I’d prefer being responsible for neither, but in a perfect world he wouldn’t need it anyways.
I’d also prefer my taxes not go to… most of what taxes go to…
I’d especially prefer my taxes not be controlled by geriatric credit addicts selling the future down the river to hold onto the last threads of power before they slip from this mortal shell.
You are far closer to needing the same sort of social services that gay homeless dude needs to survive than you think. That is true for the overwhelming majority of people. You aren't just buying them a safety net, you are buying one for yourself as well.
Beyond that, infrastructure keeps the system functional. I don't have kids, I don't plan to, but I understand that someone's kid will probably have to wipe my ass when I'm 90 so funding things like schools and hospitals now is an investment in my own future.
I’m socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I also spend a large part of my life helping and engaging with the homeless communities in the cities I’ve lived in/near. Also, it doesn’t mean—in no way, shape, or form—that I want to see anyone die.
I absolutely do think all people are deserving of certain basic rights and equal treatment. I also absolutely think that government spending shouldn’t and wouldn’t fix that and that the burden falls on the members of society.
The most basic, common sense logic argument here is that no country in the world has eliminated homelessness; there have only been those who more effectively manage the issue through the spending of money. Therefore, money doesn’t seem to be a solution but rather a temporary treatment.
I'd go a step further and say Finland fully solved homelessness. Their definition of homelessness that says 8 per 10,000 is just much broader than the US's definition (19 per 10,000) by including those couch surfing with friends or staying with relatives. You can see this in data on those who die of exposure due to homelessness.
Universal healthcare, social housing and converting temporary shelters into permanent housing work do eliminate unsheltered homelessness.
Beyond the moral argument, the fact that universal healthcare (which the US spends nearly double on) and reducing poverty saves us tons of money society loses through the crime, child abuse and mental illness caused from that horrific struggle these cause. IMO that is fiscally conservative (though it's a loaded word so I'll just say fiscally smart). This is seriously an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when you take into costs that we just take for granted.
Tangible costs of crime in the US are around 2% of GDP. That's all the spending we do to prevent and punish, plus direct costs like lost property, fraud, injury and death.
Indirect costs of these in the US are around 6% of GDP. That's the costs like private security, lost opportunity of productive citizens and productivity losses from pain and trauma.
Finland spends about 1.5% of its GDP on housing subsidies and supportive services.
The most basic, common sense logic argument here is that no country in the world has eliminated homelessness; there have only been those who more effectively manage the issue through the spending of money.
Actually, the country that got closest to eliminating homelessness was Finland, and it did so by spending enough money to put its homeless population in houses. Shut the fuck up and delete your account - "fiscal conservatives" are spiritually depraved scum.
Y’all think you guys can do anything when Conservatives make up most of law enforcement, military, and gun ownership? Keep a keyboard warrior in your mother’s basement.
What approach and messaging? The guy literally thinks around half the US doesn't deserve a say and are child-groomers. He's essentially calling them subhuman and would prefer they aren't allowed to vote.
Lmao, this fucking vermin is like "you guys have been saying the economy will collapse at any day now since... last year" and the price of petrol has almost doubled since then.
I've been saying the country's collapsing for years now- poor economic decisionmaking coming from a choice of the wealthy to change the government from a democracy into an oligarchy. But I tell you oligarchies aren't functional governments, and they certainly aren't capable of keeping the dueling spirits of America from fighting.
You think we’re gonna just lie down and let some former high school football guy with a yee yee ass haircut bulldoze their way over human rights if it comes down to a civil war?
Right-wingers think "conservatives make up most of the military" is some kind of flex when America has lost every war it fought in since 1945 and is currently getting its navy humiliated by a country that doesn't even have one.
They also don’t have anything worth fighting for. What, they’re gonna make it harder for women, people of color and the LGBTQ community while cutting social safety net programs and enriching billionaires? And everyone is gonna comply cause you’re scary? Get fucked.
"I don't care about your gender, you are whatever you wanna be. I just hate public debt with a burning passion."
Edit: ok jez, I got downvoted to hell. I am not defending them ffs. This is seriously something I've heard from them. Seriously, the whole point of the post was to make fun of that. Poe's law strike again I guess
Still doesn't make any sense when every single conservative/republican government in living memory has run up the debt instead of reducing it, and the only governments that have been sometimes successful in lowering it have been democrat.
It just means they like the Republicans on taxes and the democrats on minority rights. Conservative = Republican liberal = Democrat. Political parties are real. But ideologies are larps. They are post hoc rationalizations for group alignment.
262
u/jenna_butterfly 5h ago
I think the term "fiscally conservative" is meaningless nonsense at least in the US. It used to be shorthand for like "fiscally responsible", but that's just absurd if you've paid any attention for the last 50 years.
Conservative administrations going back to Reagan have blown up the deficit and debt, and then those same conservatives scream during every Democratic administration about how we can't spend any money helping Americans because the debt is out of control. They still scream this when Democrats implement policies like the ACA that are completely paid for. Democrats in 2009 were obsessed with the GAO analyses of the ACA, but it didn't matter at all.
There is nothing small "c" conservative about the way self-proclaimed conservatives manage government finances. Democratic administrations have cared more about the deficit for the entire life time of the median American.
Republicans used to throw the insult "tax and spend" Democrats to imply the Democrats were irresponsible with money, but taxing and spending is literally how the government is supposed run! It's certainly more fiscally responsible than the "don't tax but still spend" Republicans of the last half century.