well what you are saying is pretty horrendous/selfish/unforgiving/completely devoid of compassion or concern for other human beings, so your argument that social liberals/fiscal conservatives aren't ethically reprehensible is kind of falling on its face!
DIDNT INVEST? FUUUUCKK YOUUU yeah that's the exact opposite of terrible jeff, i agree!
You seem to think that his throwaway line of "social liberal" is indicative of having genuine compassion. There's a reason he hasn't come back to defend his views, even though he's clearly been back since he started crying to DS minutes later about how I called him retarded for not even reading what he linked (funny how he also forgot to post the link to the article in question, seeing as how it refuted him JUST A WEIRD COINCIDENCE THERE); it's because he doesn't actually CARE about social liberalism. The fiscal conservative, social liberal, is the walking contradiction. To them, civil rights requires no money to maintain; just SAY you have rights and they will come true. Separation of church and state for them is true to an extent (most tend to be strong atheists) but they want to neuter the state and view the church as a business entity, where they have the right to make their own schools and education systems. It is impossible to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative; your average person who says this is in reality just another conservative, which is why they kowtow so firmly to the Republicans and so often ascribe to a thought process of "both parties are equally bad". The economic conservatism far outweighs the social liberalism because they misguidedly think that destroying government is a quicker way to create civil liberty than to work within the system, because the government is JUST. TOO. CORRUPT.
The idea that the government spends money on things "they think I need" sums this up well. Somehow, the modern neocon believes the government can slash everything and somehow no one will ask for any of those services again, that public administration and bureaucracy will never be called for again. They believe that if you slash taxes you can see a benefit in economy, that "rational actors" can choose to buy pensions and they will be just as successful without government, even that education and prisons should be privatized. When confronted by the evidence to the contrary, they pull a Communist saying; REAL conservatism just hasn't been implemented yet.
The problem here is that real conservatism CANNOT exist. They want to shrink the Federal Government. There's absolutely no real reason to do this; they don't want to shrink the Fed because of some real world problem it's causing. They want to shrink it because in their ideology, that's going to be the right thing to do.
Then the conservative is faced with a dilemma. What happens when you slash those services? People demand them back. Believe it or not, people do expect the government to serve more than a defense purpose, and they will ask for their libraries and their social security, and the modern conservative is in a dilemma. The result is that he still has to pay for services while slashing taxes. They cannot shrink government, but they are also wholely unwilling to improve it since they don't like the idea of government at all, so you get not only a bigger government, but a more ineffective one.
Alan Wolfe goes into detail on this in one of the best pieces of political polemic I've read in a while:
If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.htmlYou cannot exist as an economic conservative and a social liberal. To be a social liberal is to demand that government take stances and stances require money, something the economic conservative cannot bear to live with.
They also have incredibly stunted understandings of economics, raised in vacuums and full of jargon that has no application to the real world. For instance, the private accounts plan that Jeff is outlining. President Bush first suggested the plan, claiming Social Security was in some crisis (one that does not exist) and that under the current system, today's generation will suffer under the old system.
Patently false of course, since the old system gives MORE benefit than the private accounts system. Then there's the fact that private accounts overwhelmingly fuck the poor or anyone not pulling in six figures a year.
Whoops! Anyone going for the private accounts will recover forfeited benefits through their accounts “if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.” But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, “the full amount in a worker’s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero." Hooray! Also the perception that the private account is safe from NASTY BIG GOBBMINT is a lie, you have to buy into government mandated stocks and with restriction comes less gains since you can't ever get that big pay day. I'll bet money Jeff will argue that HIS plan is much better, see, you can just funnel all your cash into any stocks you want. Whoops, there goes another salaryman out the window. The firefighters wanted to catch him but
FUCK NO TO SAFETYNETS.
My favorite part though is the not so subtle implication that the government's social security is somehow this horrible idea and putting people in a roulette wheel (in Jeff's dichotomy, it seems that's the only option) that ends up refunneling money back to the rich is a much better scheme. Of course, anyone with even cursory research into the subject can tell you that SS is held by US Treasury securities, widely regarded as the best investment in the world.
You'll notice how there is no evidence of private accounts doing better. That's because, well, there really IS none. There are theories, all untested, and highly controversial to boot. The reason Jeff wants private accounts is because HE thinks it's a better idea. Somehow Jeff, king of the stock market, believes neutering social security and going to private accounts, despite being laughable at best and inhumane more likely, is a good idea because it's part of his ideology. And he likes his ideology because he thinks it's full of good ideas.
The exercise of economic conservatism and social liberalism at the same time is like farting in an elevator; it's a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing because it's going to get sucked away in a few seconds anyways. Slash the Social Security benefits and let people invest in horrible stock options instead! Destroy the prison system and sell it to Walmart! Castrate the government and let ME do it better! Affirmative action? Try hardwork, pal! Evidence? Please!
Is not a man entitled to the sweat on his brow?
Gaming World Forums
U.S Presidential Primary Thread #2
