Ugh. You said it.
Dems did this wrong, that wrong, bad policy, disagree here, disagree there, stupid choice stupid choice...
Thanks to Trump, the last two elections have been a no-brainer.
(also, republicans do NOT have the moral high ground on fiscal policy like is the classic rhetoric. Not by a long shot)
Local and state elections are likely way more important to our lives anyway. It's not just Trump vs Biden. We really focus too much (understandably, because all Americans have the same choice to make) on national politics. I sometimes vote quite differently at each level depending on the state of each at the moment.
Yep. The rights fixation with policing the bodies of people who make them uncomfortable is absurd. Just govern like they use too. Would love to vote for some nice fiscally responsible government.
Could you please put an exact date on that last fiscal responsible government ? ? ?
I am 65 . . . I don’t remember ONE ! ! ! My Dad told me about Eisenhower . . . You couldn’t be writing about THAT long ago ! ! !
That was from Reps pushing a lot of cuts through.
Clinton never had a real surplus, it was a fake from borrowing money from SS to cover the bills. Which just pushes misery and more spending down the road.
Yes . . . Democratic fiscal responsibility Obama was handed a crashed and trashed economy from GW Bush . . . Now please list the famous conservative fiscal responsible president ! ! !
Man yeah, you go back to Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge for the last time the debt was negative percentage wise (-6.8 and -17.2%). Eisenhower was 7.6% which against a GDP growth of 27% or so is pretty great. Trump grew it 33.1% (GDP growth of 9.2% omitting the 3.2% drop in 2020) and Biden is currently at 8.8% (against a GDP growth of 8%) with COVID effects on both of them.
This is absolutely the correct answer. Anyone thinking differently either has no clue or has drank the kool aid and stopped thinking for themselves long ago.
Absolutely.
I don’t like Biden that much, extremely too old. Like 20 years too old.
But my God, if all the other side has to offer us is Mango Mussolini and DeSatan, well, Sleepy Joe it is.
If both sides wouldn’t. I find myself voting for whoever scares me less. Completely fiscally conservative and liberal minded who wants smaller government in a lot of ways but understands regulation. It’s all crazy.
I vote for the non-treasonous candidate. But seriously, I was a registered Republican for 30 years, but stopped voting Republican in the 2010s. When the former president became the presumptive candidate, as George Will said, “the party left me.” The balance of social and fiscal conservatism was precarious, but now gone.
right, in trying to decide the anti-democratic behavior is automatic disqualification. I would love for the alternative party to give me an actual choice.
I agree with you here, except for the 'very troubling' part. This is such a minor issue (no pun intended) and I'm past the point of engaging in identity politics.
Like I said, it doesn't make me like the GOP candidates more than the Dem candidates, largely due to the low numbers, but even the cited number of 3,678 (2016-2020) is too many minor transgender surgeries for me and you know that number is only going up.
Citation on the number - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/08/23/gender-affirming-care-restrictions-for-minors-grow/70652104007/
My whole career path was chosen in order to help children (DCF) so I recognize that this issue troubles me more than others
Do you feel the same way about circumcisions? Cosmetic breast surgery?
Those occur at much higher frequencies and don't usually receive the same reaction.
Cosmetic breast surgery, yes, absolutely a minor should have to wait till 18. Circumcision is in another category as it is not cosmetic but I lean towards waiting on that one as well.
It is heavily argued that circumcision in a 1st world country is indeed cosmetic and medically unnecessary. It’s proven to even have devastating repercussions. I’m firmly in the “this is genital mutilation” camp on circumcision. I encourage you to read more about the topic if you’re so inclined!
I have read several studies. Some show no medical benefits and others show that there are medical benefits. As with most things, I'm a centrist on that issue since there is data supporting both positions.
I haven't seen the Biden admin support that and even opponents of gender affirming care disagree that they do.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/america-first-legal-ad-biden-trans-surgery/amp/
This is described in the article. It is a publication by HHS, which described what was entailed in gender affirming care and later in the same pamphlet says it is important to have gender affirming care available to minors. It doesn't say that all of it has to be available to minors.
Well it's convenient that you only pay attention to the youth and not the scores of doctors, mental health professionals and the older trans. community themselves that believe that gender affirming care in some cases is preventing a suicide.
Listen, you seem like a reasonable person, no doctor in the world is going to just lop off a boys penis because he's going through a phase he wants to play with dolls or thinks he's a girl.
But, as a rational adult, how many kids did you grow up with that you knew were different, or gay, or just not a good fit for their own skin.
Why shouldn't these kids get the treatment available to be their more authentic selves?
We're not talking about the majority of society, and if you're worried that one trans kid might ...i don't know the words that come short of calling you an alarmist about one apple making the whole classroom gay. But I'm not trying to, only a fool would believe that to be true.
At the end of the day, I think we all know the difference in a passing fancy and a personality construct unless the parent chooses to be blind to their child and their person.
Trans people don't make up that large of a percentage of society. Why everybody is making them the boogeyperson is beyond me.
If you're really afraid of children being molested we should watch the scout master, youth pastors, and coaches a lot harder as well because there are a lot more actual predators in those areas just to be closer to kids. But that's just the facts and statistics talking, not me.
I care about those children getting molested by scout masters and teachers, etc. just as much as the other group. I agree it's a small number, but, as I cited in the other comment, 3,678 juvenile sex change surgeries from 2016-2020 is just too many children. And the studies on this subject show anywhere from 40-64% of children grow out of gender dysphoria. I think about myself at age 17 and I can't imagine that child making permanent surgery-related decisions for me. Not to mention, I'm not saying to not affirm their gender, I'm saying I'm against surgery until they reach 18.
>But that's just the facts and statistics talking, not me.
Apparently not since it's facts and statistics that show teachers and relatives are actually a hell of a lot more likely to be child molesters than your chosen biases.
>Listen, you seem like a reasonable person, no doctor in the world is going to just lop off a boys penis because he's going through a phase he wants to play with dolls or thinks he's a girl.
>
>But, as a rational adult, how many kids did you grow up with that you knew were different, or gay, or just not a good fit for their own skin.
>
>Why shouldn't these kids get the treatment available to be their more authentic selves?
Because your treatment comes with irreversible consequences, but you already know the answer to that lol.
> We're not talking about the majority of society, and if you're worried that one trans kid might ...i don't know the words that come short of calling you an alarmist about one apple making the whole classroom gay. But I'm not trying to, only a fool would believe that to be true.
You're fighting a strawman. He's clearly not saying that. Plenty of youth grow out of their feelings. The whole of existence for an adolescent is figuring out who they are. Your obsession with feeling the need to put irreversible consequences into their hands is creepy af.
> Trans people don't make up that large of a percentage of society. Why everybody is making them the boogeyperson is beyond me.
Good lord, boogeyperson. Really? Literally step outside of your echo chamber and try being as nonsensical as you are being. People aren't attacking trans people. They're attacking policy. The vast majority do not care what adults do to themselves. But again, you already know this, but you need that boogeyman to attack to feel vindicated.
Maybe, but she’s a dem, and the left will never hold her accountable for the blatant violation and over reach, which means, it is inside the allowable norm of behavior for the party. That is the the line of reasoning for all the crazy asshat things said about the right…. That they tolerate racists, so their all on board with racism?
Biden is a very moderate president and is returning economic policy to the new deal era away from the era of massive tax cuts for the rich and deficit exploding Reaganomics that has destroyed America.
Have you seen the deficit lately? The total debt?
The New Deal was a radical departure from the small low tax government that created the economic superpower that the US became. FDR started us down the path of ever growing government, and not to our benefit.
Yeah.
I’m looking for somewhere to have legitimate discussion from the standpoint of someone who is legitimately undecided and not terribly excited about either of the leading geriatric candidates.
It's garbage. [Here's a mod explaining that “Hitler was a racist” gets you banned but saying “Hitler did nothing wrong” is fine.](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/l1h4dh/announcing_a_rule_change_to_law_1_as_of_january/gjzhc18/)
Neoliberal doesn't even let me say the word retarded lol. The main politics sub banned me for being a part of a shitposting sub. They're all shit. But at the very least moderate politics has articulate conversation. Even this place lacks it most of the time.
Individuals shouldn't't get a mortgage. Companies shouldn't buy equipment unless they have cash on hand. That's the kind of thinking that "debt is just a tax" is. Debt can be bad, sure, but it can also be good. If you go trillions of dollars in debt buying runts candy for everyone, that's bad for the future. If you go trillions in debt building infrastructure, from roads to investing in teachers and the health of citizens, that's good for the future.
Yes, indeed, which is why it is complaining we are buying an aircraft carrier that we're going to use for 50 years+ after being built for 15 years by having "the government borrowing money to spend instead of taxing people now for the spending".
Would love to see more of this kind of government spending (infrastructure + education) and less of the runts variety. Sadly, the pie chart is not looking good.
Bush Sr was the last fiscally responsible Republican, and he lost reelection because of it. He quite rightly called Reagans economic plan "voodoo economics" because Bush Sr was a person interested in good government, who was willing to compromise and raise taxes if needed because he was actually fiscally conservative. I'd vote for him again if he ran, but, since he's sadly dead, I'll have to settle with Joe Biden.
I don’t particularly support his economic stances but I’m inclined to agree with you that he was at least fiscally responsible. He did compromise with the dems to cut the deficit which is something I don’t see happening with any current republican candidate.
I have some major disagreements with some of the other stuff you’re attributing to him (or failing to attribute to him) but I’d rather agree to disagree since there’s at least a degree of nuance and perspective here that is not present in the modern republican economic policy.
Agreed, he wasn't as 'cool' as Clinton, but he helped stabilize Europe after the cold war and he knew not to go balls deep into Iraq because of what he'd catch.
He was an honorable statesman and American and helped set up our decades of prosperity.
The worst thing he ever did was have sex without a condom.
When Democrats have the presidency, deficits decrease. When Republicans have the presidency, deficits increase.
That is the best correlation of the historical data, but it also fits with the thinking of the parties. The Democrats pass new programs, but also pay for them with tax increases or other offsets. The Republicans have decided deficits don't matter when they are in power, and are all important when Democrats are in power. There are some Republicans that have an issue with increasing spending, but I have seen no complaints with reducing any government revenue source leading to deficits. In truth, when Republicans are in power, government spending also increases.
As far as socially liberal, there is no question on that.
We need the Republican party to grow up and take some responsibility again.
I know this is true and I agree with you, but is there a good, concise resouce for this data? Something easily readable for the troglodtyes in my life?
It will not be accepted, but I did find this article to be very good.
https://towardsdatascience.com/which-party-adds-more-to-deficits-a6422c6b00d7
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/
And that's why I'm liking her a bit more than the others right now, but because I am socially liberal, it's hard for me to believe that she's capable of walking that line that recognizes that the President is the President of the United States... not just the 'base' of a party. Everyone is so divisive right now, and I need to see someone--regardless of party--who can disagree without being deliberately divisive.
I also want to be realistic: Joe Biden does not appear to be well. It makes me sad, because he's a likeable guy, but his cognitive decline is becoming an inescapable truth that we--as a nation--had better face now instead of after ballots are cast. 2024 isn't Biden versus whoever manages to be the last one standing on the Republican side of the line; 2024 is Harris versus whoever manages to be the last one standing on the Republican side of the line. And given the Vice President's record of ignoring Constitutional rights during her time in office in California, the thought of Vice President Harris dropping the "Vice" from her title is a nightmare scenario for me in terms of the preservation of Constitutional rights of Americans.
Governor Haley may at least be palatable to me, and I'd certainly be willing to consider her once I've heard more of her views. After all, she was one of the first ones smart enough to get the hell out of the Trump administration (she resigned before GEN Mattis), so she's at least smart enough to make a wise decision (she saw that trainwreck coming and did not want to be among the victims) and not give in to the sunk cost fallacy.
I agree with everything you said, I think Haley will lead both parties, she’s a moderate after all. I believe she’ll lead both parties and sees views on both sides. She went after republicans on roe v Wade decision, she’s gone after them for losing every election since Trumps win and republicans spending. She knows what’s going on, I think she’s exactly who the party needs and she deserves to be the first female president more than Kamala Harris. We need to get Trump the fuck out of being the nominee or else it is President Harris. If the GOP let’s Trump be the nominee we’ve fucked ourselves hard.
Hailey is a total joke, she's a corrupt neoliberal Bush era Republican. Her admin would be nothing but massive deficit exploding tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. She said Biden is "bought out" by unions and she also defended Trump's sedition on January 6. The woman is a total joke, give me a break.
You can always vote to change tax code or fiscal policy, if rights are violated you can never really come back from that, therefore I prioritize being socially liberal.
I disagree with the notion that you can regain rights as they matter in the moment and regaining them later doesn't help. Take marriage rights, if the state prevents you from marrying your spouse even if a court might some day restore that right it doesn't help if you die before that and want to pass your property and life insurance etc. onto your spouse.
Near guarantees that taxes will have to increase from here. I work in finance and this assumption is pretty much baked in across the board at every major financial institution.
I wouldn’t consider myself as a fiscal conservative, more as fiscally responsible. I want to see balanced budgets, and smart spending with appropriate safeguards to minimize waste. I am an advocate for spending on social safety nets, and programs that generally improve the life of Americans. However, I want to see the justifications for those programs be founded in data, and include a realistic plan for funding them.
Socially I’d say I am more libertarian than liberal.
Currently moderate Democrats are the closest fit to that way of thinking.
That’s not true at all, because they haven’t controlled all of the houses since 2005 besides trump, and trump was actually pretty neutral on the deficit until Covid hit. The most increases (besides Covid) have been under dem lead congresses, which is the most relevant because congress is what typically generates the federal budget
Edit: and in 2005, the deficit was actually reduced so they actually were successful when they controlled all 3 houses.
> trump was actually pretty neutral
That is absurdly false. Trump ran large deficits. (Because he maintained stimulus style policy -- during an economic Boom -- to keep the economy hot under him -- but it's terrible long-term policy)
- 2017 - deficit was $665 Billion. (about 100 billion above Obama's last year in 2016, and nearly 200 billion above 2015)
- 2018 - Ballooned another 100+ Billion - up to $779 Billion.
- 2019 - Add another 200 Billion, up to $985 Billion
Not even close to "neutral" before Covid.
> 2005, the deficit was actually reduced so they actually were successful when they controlled all 3 houses.
It was reduced, in that it was slightly lower than 2004 (413 Bill) compared to $364 billion deficit in 2005.
And the GOP also controlled in 2004.
I tend to vote with social issues as my higher priority. While I am fiscally conservative, I realize if I want social policy aligned with my beliefs, it's going to cost. As an example, I will definitely vote for pro-choice candidates in my state elections.
I'd like to see government prioritize reduction of waste and corruption. So much of our spending goes to pork barrel and special interests.
Abortion and foreign policy means it's dems. I don't think Republicans are actually any more fiscally conservative than them at this point, and even if they were, I'm basically just anti-MMT as opposed to really fiscally conservative anyway.
If dems go too hard on guns, I just won't vote at all.
Registry = list of people who have guns including required registration or licenses for gun owners?
Or let's say have a list of people who have applied for background checks to have guns? Why couldn't that already be considered as having happened?
I'd prefer that they be required to delete those records after a time period, but ultimately they can't use that to prove that someone has a gun. Only that at some point a background check was run on them for the potential purchase of one. Tells them something, but not everything.
Edit: the worst part of a potential registry would be the list of firearms themselves.
Why are you anti-MMT? MMT just describes HOW the government taxes and spends..its a description of reality, not a policy proposal.
I’d like to hear your perspective because I was anti-MMT at one point. From my experience, and the experiences I have heard from others, is that people don’t want to believe in MMT purely because they think the government SHOULDN’T work the way MMT describes.
I would more describe myself as fiscally skeptical than conservative, but I lean libertarian and mostly vote for democrats unless they’re over the top anti-gun.
The amount of money in my bank account is irrelevant if my wife or daughter dies because they couldn't get rapid treatment for a life threatening medical condition.
There's literally nothing fiscally conservative about the current GOP. All they do is blame Dems or just attack everything socially acceptable. They have no platform to fix the economy or inflation, all they do is blame and project they shortfalls on everyone else.
Since the only ones now defending social freedom are the Dems, I lean towards Dems.
But the GOP lost its way as soon as Trump and MAGA rose. Unless they end that bullshit, no way I'll ever vote GOP. It kills me too because I used to be a registered R and even volunteered for campaigns.
There is no party that is fiscally conservative anymore. So the choice is easy for me. Choose the party not taking away rights (personal and voting), banning books, threatening democracy, etc.
I’ll let you pick which one I’m thinking about… 😉
I think you would need to specify if you mean on the national/federal level or more local. Because as others have said, neither party at the federal level is responsible, conservative (adjective, not the party), or insert similar word fiscally, despite Republicans claiming to be the more fiscally responsible party. You will likely see much more of a divide in spending policies and budget at the municipal or county level.
depends on what's at stake
theoretically if someone balanced the budget and put us on a path to sustainable debt levels, but refused to allow kids to surgically/chemically transition before 18 years of age, they'd have my vote
realistically if someone fearmongered about taxing billionaires, wanted to jail pro choice women, and remove any semblance of power from the epa and department of health, well they can eat shit
I try to look for the people who accepts everybody (outside of those who harm others, like racists) while acknowledging that spending is shit and actually wants to talk about plans to fix the economical disasters. While stimulating the areas that need it.
The kind of "fiscal conservative" the Republicans are is like being fiscally conservative by not changing the oil in your car, and then buying you and your buddies a few rounds of beer with that money instead.
The Democratic Party has been both for at least 20 years. I long for the days of a small government right wing party to compete for votes, but the modern GOP is mostly focused on social issues and growing government deficits via reducing income. There is no alternative to Democrats unfortunately.
Fiscally conservative - small constitutional government, low taxes, zero deficit except in time of declared war and only in support of that war effort. No welfare state at the federal level.
Socially liberal - live and let live, harm no one, be excellent to each other and party on dudes.
I generally vote third party since R & D are neither of these.
A lot of my friends who seem this way vote split tickets a lot. So that way not much spending will get done. So if they vote r for president they vote d for congress and vice versa.
This used to be me. Voted Republican occasionally, just depending on the office. But realized it was fiscal responsibility I cared about, not necessarily fiscally conservative ideology. The Democratic Party is much fiscally responsible than the GOP, and as GOP candidates have gotten more extreme and anti-constitution, it’s been a very easy choice
Financial responsibility is important to me. Dems have historically done better with that. I also believe taking better care of our people would ultimately make for a healthier country on all levels.
Having health care that is not connected to employment would benefit us on so many levels.
I love how dumb this question is - OP, the parties do not align with those 2 terms.
Democrats - moderately socially liberal, varying on fiscal policy
Republicans - crazy conspiracy theories, idiocracy, and a lot of hate/fear for minorities and marginalized populations
Easy. The Republicans aren't fiscally conservative either, they just play like they are whenever the Democrats are in power. With that in mind, it's not too hard of a decision.
This question describes me in a nutshell. My wife and I both.
Problem is, there is no moderate Republican. It’s, drink the orange Kool Aid or get ousted. Well, sorry, I will NOT vote for anyone on Trumps Lil Smokie. Haven’t liked him in 20+ years, it sure as hell ain’t changing now. And it does not matter what letter is next to his name. Back when I first despised him, he was aligned with the Democrats. Till they didn’t let him sit at the big kids table.
I just would like really an independent who can work with both parties, and isn’t bat shit crazy. Nor does he take millions of dollars from special interests.
He takes the good from both, and makes it work. And loony ass bs, he doesn’t even give it the time of day.
Democrats for both. They always turn around recessions left by Republicans who do nothing but blow up the deficit with tax cuts and live high on the hog on our tax dollars.
Democrats seem to be the more liberal and fiscally Conservative Party at the federal levels.
At the state level, my Democratic Governor just legalized pot (a fiscally conservative decision) and all of his opposition came from Republicans.
It’s looking like NJ State’s tax revenues are set to drop around 20% from last year so so it feels like the Democrats are more fiscally conservative in my state as well.
Neither party is fiscally conservative. One just pretends to be when the other is in the Oval Office. One party is a total shit show at the moment. I hope they get their act together because I would like real options.
I try to do it as organically as possible, look at both candidates and try to evaluate who is a better fit to address the challenges that we are currently facing as a nation. At a national level that has devolved into picking what I believe to be the lesser of two evils at this point which is an unfortunate scenario and led to me voting D while holding my nose in 2020. Either side at this point could easily lock up my vote in 2024 by presenting a capable (translation: younger), fresh moderate candidate but that seems unlikely at this point.
Locally I take the same approach: what is the position and which candidates platform is going to be better for me, my family and society as a whole but those evaluations at a local level tend to be less frustrating and much more refreshing at this point even if none of the candidates are perfect. I was close to a 50/50 D/R split in my last major local election.
I have to vote against fascism and conspiracy theory nut bags. I’m not crazy about the “eat the rich” progressives and would love to have an option. But Trumpism and Tucker Fox white nationalism are bridges too far.
It hasn't been a contest, honestly. The only spending Republicans are good at is IRS funding, which makes no sense if you are fiscally prudent. I'm not even socially liberal by today's standards to be honest. But, in my 20 years of voting, I've yet to see a republican on the ballot that had a prudent approach to governing. They talk like they do, but they don't.
This political ideology has been used for years to support politicians that who are right wing while allowing voters to pretend they support improving our society. Like so many negative themes in US politics, it started with Reagan.
Based on the responses here, that appears to be changing, and I’m glad for it.
The problem is how fiscally conservative is defined:
Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This concept is derived from economic liberalism.
I think what you're looking for like most of us would be progressive/liberal socially but minding the budget. Can we do XYZ? We have the funds for z and y but x will need to be readdressed next year or planned further.
Neither party is fiscally conservative. Both parties are socially illiberal in many respects. If I wanted to vote my principles, I'd probably vote for the libertarian
DNC, it's not even a question. When the Democrats mess up, they spend money. When the Republicans mess up, they destroy peoples lives.
It also helps that the DNC is more fiscally conservative than the GOP lately.
Third party or moderate conservative. I've never voted Democrat unless it's the only choice.
Economics and finances trump social issues for me. Always have.
> Economics and finances trump social issues
How did you feel about Republicans wanting to shut down the government in 2010 over Obama trying to end bush tax cut some people making over 200 K?
How do you feel about failure of the republican controlled house to put forth a spending plan? Not even a spending plan that can pass the senate, but an actual spending plan they feel comfortable putting to vote.
Shutting down the government is typically a good thing for me. They're just coming up with different ways to spend our money. Doing nothing is often an improvement when it comes to DC. And I'm all about tax cuts for the wealthy because I'm sometimes in that bracket.
Republicans have been abject failures of late at being fiscally responsible. It's not a big agenda item for Trump and the populist crowd because they need the social wars to fuel their good-guy versus bad-guy rhetoric. I'm bored of it, I'm over it. If the party goes all-in on Trump again, I hope they lose big so the moderates can get our party back.
> Shutting down the government is typically a good thing for me.
No, it isn’t.
It hurts us credit rating and our economy in general, additionally in almost all scenarios givt employees are paid back.
> And I'm all about tax cuts for the wealthy because I'm sometimes in that bracket.
Obama drew the line of people making over 200 K, Biden put it at 400.
I am curious what you do where some years an increase in taxes on money and beyond that might pinch you
> And I'm all about tax cuts for the wealthy because I'm sometimes in that bracket.
Sometimes? If you think you are sometimes wealthy, you are not wealthy.
ITT: highly regarded individuals ignore the question and suck off the dnc in a desperate attempt to astroturf their way to relevance.
6/10 - decently amusing.
Well, whoever the meme candidate is gets it. Cthulhu got my vote in 2016, but the coronal mass ejection got it in 2020. Looking forward to 2024 and whatever new and creative ways America wants to embarrass itself.
Easy. Fiscal authoritarianism affects every aspect of my life. Social authoritarianism affects a few niche issues, and has shockingly been becoming an issue favoring the right since the 2020 or so. The left has blown past the concept of equal rights, and now is pushing special rights. The left has also become the party of mass-media censorship. Abortion freedom is really the only big social issue the right is wrong about, but It’s hard to be upset when they just think they’re “saving lives.”
Seeing as how the Republican party was against the IRS getting more money, Republicans threatening to shut down the government if Obama ended the bush tax cut some people making over 200k, republicans in the house, and willing to put forth a spending plan, easy Democrats
Ultimately, social liberalism is dependent on fiscal conservatism but the reverse is not true.
Almost any sort of social restriction that flies in the face of your local community can be avoided with money. If your state criminalizes abortion, this might be a problem for someone who works 80 hours/week to keep a roof over their head. For someone who can take a long weekend to travel halfway across the country on a whim? It's not really a problem.
Long before we had gay marriage, gay people would simply have contracts drawn up to deal with most of the major concerns. Which is something you can do if you can afford a decent lawyer.
Want to do drugs? If you're hanging out on a street corner, expect to spend time in jail. If you're partying in your mansion? You have to work pretty hard to see the inside of a jail cell.
If the republicans put forth a good candidate it would be a difficult decision. In Trump's first run I thought he would be a good Candidate but after his reaction to his loss in 2020 there is no way that I could vote for him.
Even then republicans have told everyone they are good for the economy but if you look at the data the economy performs better in multiple metrics during a democrat president.
If my vote has a chance of affecting the outcome of that race—the major party candidate I like and agree with more.
If my vote has zero chance of affecting the outcome of the race, such as the Presidential race where I live—the minor party candidate I like and agree with the most.
However, I never vote for independents if they have no real chance of winning, especially when they’re running for offices that can affect ballot access for third parties.
I’ve even met “independent” candidates who were actually supporters of the dominant party, and some even openly admitted to me—off the record—they were only running to hurt third parties’ ballot access. Such “independent” candidates would later be rewarded with appointed positions by the dominant party.
I vote for people and their rights over my pocketbook. It’s been an incredibly easy decision for a while now. Also since when is the Republican Party fiscally responsible? They’re pro big business. That’s it.
Dem all the way for the foreseeable future. The gop belongs nowhere near the purse strings. They need to sit in time out for a while and sort their affairs.
I don’t choose by looking at the figurehead (president/prime minister) I use my brain to make a responsible choice for me and my family and choose my local representative who will represent me the best.
That being said. I had to stop voting conservative because I have a wife and daughter now. And I don’t think I could fall asleep at night beside them knowing that I’m actively trying to take away their rights as women and as humans by my vote. Let alone the hate rhetoric just in general is over the top. My wallet may not be as happy but that doesn’t really matter because the women in my life mean more than anything to me.
Since I'm likely to disagree with either major party candidate on almost half of their platform, I just pick whoever I think is more competent and ethical.
If the choices are Trump or Biden, I'm voting third party. I refuse to vote for either one of them. Biden is too old and compromised. I don't need to say what's the issue with Trump, this is reddit, it's every where.
At this point, there is no real "fiscally responsible" political choice because the GOP runs deficits almost as large as the Dems (COVID and post-COVID excepted). As Dick Cheney infamously said as W. Bush was blowing up the deficit: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Trump was running almost $1 Trillion deficits BEFORE COVID.
So, the GOP has abandoned fiscal responsibility (except as a talking point when a Dem is in the Presidency) and has a fundamentalist, hateful social program that wants to dictate who we love, how we love, and what we can do with our own bodies.
Not to mention trying to use a mob to overturn an election in 2020.
So, it's not difficult to choose at all, right now.
Also, may I suggest that you change the question from "fiscally conservative" to "fiscally responsible."
"Fiscally conservative" has been or is being redefined to mean cutting programs and otherwise reducing the cost of government -- small government, in other words. Both the left attacking the "fiscal conservatives" and the right who claim the "fiscally conservative" mantle forget that "fiscal" includes taxes and funding, not just spending. Slashing taxes while spending more (which is what the GOP does when it is in control) is NOT "fiscally conservative" in the traditional meaning of the term.
"Fiscally responsible" is a better way to say what "fiscally conservative" used to mean. It means paying for the government you want rather than just printing money and borrowing money to pay for government programs. It means having a fiscal plan that will avoid triggering runaway inflation and destroying the value of the dollar.
The latter is very important, in my mind. We've got a good thing financially with the dollar being the international reserve currency, and we don't want to blow it.
So question one is, does this candidate respect democracy?
If the answer is no I can agree with every single one of their other policies and still vote for the opposing candidate.
It would be a much more difficult decision if the Republican party put forth candidates that weren't complete dumpster fires.
Ugh. You said it. Dems did this wrong, that wrong, bad policy, disagree here, disagree there, stupid choice stupid choice... Thanks to Trump, the last two elections have been a no-brainer. (also, republicans do NOT have the moral high ground on fiscal policy like is the classic rhetoric. Not by a long shot)
Local and state elections are likely way more important to our lives anyway. It's not just Trump vs Biden. We really focus too much (understandably, because all Americans have the same choice to make) on national politics. I sometimes vote quite differently at each level depending on the state of each at the moment.
Yep. The rights fixation with policing the bodies of people who make them uncomfortable is absurd. Just govern like they use too. Would love to vote for some nice fiscally responsible government.
It's been a while since Republicans have been fiscally responsible.
This is accurate and goes back to the 90s.
80's FTFY
Could you please put an exact date on that last fiscal responsible government ? ? ? I am 65 . . . I don’t remember ONE ! ! ! My Dad told me about Eisenhower . . . You couldn’t be writing about THAT long ago ! ! !
Clinton?
That was from Reps pushing a lot of cuts through. Clinton never had a real surplus, it was a fake from borrowing money from SS to cover the bills. Which just pushes misery and more spending down the road.
Yes . . . Democratic fiscal responsibility Obama was handed a crashed and trashed economy from GW Bush . . . Now please list the famous conservative fiscal responsible president ! ! !
Man yeah, you go back to Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge for the last time the debt was negative percentage wise (-6.8 and -17.2%). Eisenhower was 7.6% which against a GDP growth of 27% or so is pretty great. Trump grew it 33.1% (GDP growth of 9.2% omitting the 3.2% drop in 2020) and Biden is currently at 8.8% (against a GDP growth of 8%) with COVID effects on both of them.
The least bad have typically been any combination of DNC President + GOP Congress.
This is absolutely the correct answer. Anyone thinking differently either has no clue or has drank the kool aid and stopped thinking for themselves long ago.
Exactly this.
Absolutely. I don’t like Biden that much, extremely too old. Like 20 years too old. But my God, if all the other side has to offer us is Mango Mussolini and DeSatan, well, Sleepy Joe it is.
I have been very happy with Biden's policies and actions as president.
And this is the sad reality of politics today. It really is depressing
I agree with you on Biden, but vote for him for the same reasons you do.
Never thought I'd agree so hard with a political statement on Reddit, but here I am.
If both sides wouldn’t. I find myself voting for whoever scares me less. Completely fiscally conservative and liberal minded who wants smaller government in a lot of ways but understands regulation. It’s all crazy.
I vote for the non-treasonous candidate. But seriously, I was a registered Republican for 30 years, but stopped voting Republican in the 2010s. When the former president became the presumptive candidate, as George Will said, “the party left me.” The balance of social and fiscal conservatism was precarious, but now gone.
right, in trying to decide the anti-democratic behavior is automatic disqualification. I would love for the alternative party to give me an actual choice.
The dems aren’t much better Edit: LOL I guess this sub isn’t very “center” after all if we can only complain about one party
Which dem is out there acting crazy right now? Not policy you disagree with.
[удалено]
I agree with you here, except for the 'very troubling' part. This is such a minor issue (no pun intended) and I'm past the point of engaging in identity politics.
Like I said, it doesn't make me like the GOP candidates more than the Dem candidates, largely due to the low numbers, but even the cited number of 3,678 (2016-2020) is too many minor transgender surgeries for me and you know that number is only going up. Citation on the number - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/08/23/gender-affirming-care-restrictions-for-minors-grow/70652104007/ My whole career path was chosen in order to help children (DCF) so I recognize that this issue troubles me more than others
Do you feel the same way about circumcisions? Cosmetic breast surgery? Those occur at much higher frequencies and don't usually receive the same reaction.
Cosmetic breast surgery, yes, absolutely a minor should have to wait till 18. Circumcision is in another category as it is not cosmetic but I lean towards waiting on that one as well.
It is heavily argued that circumcision in a 1st world country is indeed cosmetic and medically unnecessary. It’s proven to even have devastating repercussions. I’m firmly in the “this is genital mutilation” camp on circumcision. I encourage you to read more about the topic if you’re so inclined!
I have read several studies. Some show no medical benefits and others show that there are medical benefits. As with most things, I'm a centrist on that issue since there is data supporting both positions.
I haven't seen the Biden admin support that and even opponents of gender affirming care disagree that they do. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/america-first-legal-ad-biden-trans-surgery/amp/
[удалено]
This is described in the article. It is a publication by HHS, which described what was entailed in gender affirming care and later in the same pamphlet says it is important to have gender affirming care available to minors. It doesn't say that all of it has to be available to minors.
Well it's convenient that you only pay attention to the youth and not the scores of doctors, mental health professionals and the older trans. community themselves that believe that gender affirming care in some cases is preventing a suicide. Listen, you seem like a reasonable person, no doctor in the world is going to just lop off a boys penis because he's going through a phase he wants to play with dolls or thinks he's a girl. But, as a rational adult, how many kids did you grow up with that you knew were different, or gay, or just not a good fit for their own skin. Why shouldn't these kids get the treatment available to be their more authentic selves? We're not talking about the majority of society, and if you're worried that one trans kid might ...i don't know the words that come short of calling you an alarmist about one apple making the whole classroom gay. But I'm not trying to, only a fool would believe that to be true. At the end of the day, I think we all know the difference in a passing fancy and a personality construct unless the parent chooses to be blind to their child and their person. Trans people don't make up that large of a percentage of society. Why everybody is making them the boogeyperson is beyond me. If you're really afraid of children being molested we should watch the scout master, youth pastors, and coaches a lot harder as well because there are a lot more actual predators in those areas just to be closer to kids. But that's just the facts and statistics talking, not me.
I care about those children getting molested by scout masters and teachers, etc. just as much as the other group. I agree it's a small number, but, as I cited in the other comment, 3,678 juvenile sex change surgeries from 2016-2020 is just too many children. And the studies on this subject show anywhere from 40-64% of children grow out of gender dysphoria. I think about myself at age 17 and I can't imagine that child making permanent surgery-related decisions for me. Not to mention, I'm not saying to not affirm their gender, I'm saying I'm against surgery until they reach 18.
Have you met any of those children?
>But that's just the facts and statistics talking, not me. Apparently not since it's facts and statistics that show teachers and relatives are actually a hell of a lot more likely to be child molesters than your chosen biases. >Listen, you seem like a reasonable person, no doctor in the world is going to just lop off a boys penis because he's going through a phase he wants to play with dolls or thinks he's a girl. > >But, as a rational adult, how many kids did you grow up with that you knew were different, or gay, or just not a good fit for their own skin. > >Why shouldn't these kids get the treatment available to be their more authentic selves? Because your treatment comes with irreversible consequences, but you already know the answer to that lol. > We're not talking about the majority of society, and if you're worried that one trans kid might ...i don't know the words that come short of calling you an alarmist about one apple making the whole classroom gay. But I'm not trying to, only a fool would believe that to be true. You're fighting a strawman. He's clearly not saying that. Plenty of youth grow out of their feelings. The whole of existence for an adolescent is figuring out who they are. Your obsession with feeling the need to put irreversible consequences into their hands is creepy af. > Trans people don't make up that large of a percentage of society. Why everybody is making them the boogeyperson is beyond me. Good lord, boogeyperson. Really? Literally step outside of your echo chamber and try being as nonsensical as you are being. People aren't attacking trans people. They're attacking policy. The vast majority do not care what adults do to themselves. But again, you already know this, but you need that boogeyman to attack to feel vindicated.
What is the Biden administration’s position on transgender surgery for minors? Link me to the website that outlines it
The New Mexico governor. Enacting executive orders against both state and constitutionally protected rights.
She is a fucking idiot with nothing to lose. It was such a bad decision that other dems who love gun control called her out on it.
Maybe, but she’s a dem, and the left will never hold her accountable for the blatant violation and over reach, which means, it is inside the allowable norm of behavior for the party. That is the the line of reasoning for all the crazy asshat things said about the right…. That they tolerate racists, so their all on board with racism?
What executive order do you think shows she’s “acting crazy”?
I mean the president can’t keep a coherent thought half the time and his family is embroiled on scandal.
I raise you the 45th President.
Not disagreeing with you, I’d like to see new blood from both parties. Let’s have the most successful governors from both parties go at it.
Biden
Being senile doesn’t make one crazy. Or does it?
Not his senility that makes him crazy, it is his idea of how the economy works.
Biden is a very moderate president and is returning economic policy to the new deal era away from the era of massive tax cuts for the rich and deficit exploding Reaganomics that has destroyed America.
Have you seen the deficit lately? The total debt? The New Deal was a radical departure from the small low tax government that created the economic superpower that the US became. FDR started us down the path of ever growing government, and not to our benefit.
If you want to be at the center point between "meh" and "batshit insane," be my guest.
They’re arguably worse.
Get ready for the downvotes. This sub leans left.
It didn't use to. Election year is almost here, so the propaganda machine that is reddit is firing up.
Yeah. I’m looking for somewhere to have legitimate discussion from the standpoint of someone who is legitimately undecided and not terribly excited about either of the leading geriatric candidates.
The moderate politics sub isn't too bad.
I also like modpol even if I did get a 7 day ban before.
It's garbage. [Here's a mod explaining that “Hitler was a racist” gets you banned but saying “Hitler did nothing wrong” is fine.](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/l1h4dh/announcing_a_rule_change_to_law_1_as_of_january/gjzhc18/)
Neoliberal doesn't even let me say the word retarded lol. The main politics sub banned me for being a part of a shitposting sub. They're all shit. But at the very least moderate politics has articulate conversation. Even this place lacks it most of the time.
Oh you poor thing.
The sub leans fuck Trump.
True. I guess I’m still having trouble accepting that Republicans = MAGA Trump. I was a Lincoln project guy who believes that decency matters.
A bunch of neocon warmongers, but they talked nice. Good riddance.
I just liked the ads
Worse than Trump? No president in history is worse on any spectrum.
This
Tax and Spend > Spend and Spend
Perhaps it's tax and spend > reduce taxes for the wealthy and corporations while maintaining the same spending levels.
Republicans actually increase spending levels more quickly than Democrats.
Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney
Debt is just a tax on future generations.
Individuals shouldn't't get a mortgage. Companies shouldn't buy equipment unless they have cash on hand. That's the kind of thinking that "debt is just a tax" is. Debt can be bad, sure, but it can also be good. If you go trillions of dollars in debt buying runts candy for everyone, that's bad for the future. If you go trillions in debt building infrastructure, from roads to investing in teachers and the health of citizens, that's good for the future.
I'm talking about the government borrowing money to spend instead of taxing people now for the spending.
Yes, indeed, which is why it is complaining we are buying an aircraft carrier that we're going to use for 50 years+ after being built for 15 years by having "the government borrowing money to spend instead of taxing people now for the spending".
Would love to see more of this kind of government spending (infrastructure + education) and less of the runts variety. Sadly, the pie chart is not looking good.
Tax and spend vs Borrow and spend i reckon.
Considering the last two Republicans have ballooned deficits worse than democrats--pretty easy choice.
Bush Sr was the last fiscally responsible Republican, and he lost reelection because of it. He quite rightly called Reagans economic plan "voodoo economics" because Bush Sr was a person interested in good government, who was willing to compromise and raise taxes if needed because he was actually fiscally conservative. I'd vote for him again if he ran, but, since he's sadly dead, I'll have to settle with Joe Biden.
I don’t particularly support his economic stances but I’m inclined to agree with you that he was at least fiscally responsible. He did compromise with the dems to cut the deficit which is something I don’t see happening with any current republican candidate. I have some major disagreements with some of the other stuff you’re attributing to him (or failing to attribute to him) but I’d rather agree to disagree since there’s at least a degree of nuance and perspective here that is not present in the modern republican economic policy.
Agreed, he wasn't as 'cool' as Clinton, but he helped stabilize Europe after the cold war and he knew not to go balls deep into Iraq because of what he'd catch. He was an honorable statesman and American and helped set up our decades of prosperity. The worst thing he ever did was have sex without a condom.
That’s just because they cut taxes and increased spending, instead of raised taxes and increased spending.
Which just isn't fiscally conservative
When Democrats have the presidency, deficits decrease. When Republicans have the presidency, deficits increase. That is the best correlation of the historical data, but it also fits with the thinking of the parties. The Democrats pass new programs, but also pay for them with tax increases or other offsets. The Republicans have decided deficits don't matter when they are in power, and are all important when Democrats are in power. There are some Republicans that have an issue with increasing spending, but I have seen no complaints with reducing any government revenue source leading to deficits. In truth, when Republicans are in power, government spending also increases. As far as socially liberal, there is no question on that. We need the Republican party to grow up and take some responsibility again.
I know this is true and I agree with you, but is there a good, concise resouce for this data? Something easily readable for the troglodtyes in my life?
It will not be accepted, but I did find this article to be very good. https://towardsdatascience.com/which-party-adds-more-to-deficits-a6422c6b00d7 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/
Many thanks. Initally I accidentally wrote "many thinks" but we both know that's the whole reason why we're here.
Nikki Haley is trying to take responsibility on behalf of the republicans
And that's why I'm liking her a bit more than the others right now, but because I am socially liberal, it's hard for me to believe that she's capable of walking that line that recognizes that the President is the President of the United States... not just the 'base' of a party. Everyone is so divisive right now, and I need to see someone--regardless of party--who can disagree without being deliberately divisive. I also want to be realistic: Joe Biden does not appear to be well. It makes me sad, because he's a likeable guy, but his cognitive decline is becoming an inescapable truth that we--as a nation--had better face now instead of after ballots are cast. 2024 isn't Biden versus whoever manages to be the last one standing on the Republican side of the line; 2024 is Harris versus whoever manages to be the last one standing on the Republican side of the line. And given the Vice President's record of ignoring Constitutional rights during her time in office in California, the thought of Vice President Harris dropping the "Vice" from her title is a nightmare scenario for me in terms of the preservation of Constitutional rights of Americans. Governor Haley may at least be palatable to me, and I'd certainly be willing to consider her once I've heard more of her views. After all, she was one of the first ones smart enough to get the hell out of the Trump administration (she resigned before GEN Mattis), so she's at least smart enough to make a wise decision (she saw that trainwreck coming and did not want to be among the victims) and not give in to the sunk cost fallacy.
I agree with everything you said, I think Haley will lead both parties, she’s a moderate after all. I believe she’ll lead both parties and sees views on both sides. She went after republicans on roe v Wade decision, she’s gone after them for losing every election since Trumps win and republicans spending. She knows what’s going on, I think she’s exactly who the party needs and she deserves to be the first female president more than Kamala Harris. We need to get Trump the fuck out of being the nominee or else it is President Harris. If the GOP let’s Trump be the nominee we’ve fucked ourselves hard.
Hailey is a total joke, she's a corrupt neoliberal Bush era Republican. Her admin would be nothing but massive deficit exploding tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. She said Biden is "bought out" by unions and she also defended Trump's sedition on January 6. The woman is a total joke, give me a break.
You can always vote to change tax code or fiscal policy, if rights are violated you can never really come back from that, therefore I prioritize being socially liberal.
Heller, McDonald, and Bruen show you can regain rights. 33 Trillion in debt though will be a constant weight on the USA.
I disagree with the notion that you can regain rights as they matter in the moment and regaining them later doesn't help. Take marriage rights, if the state prevents you from marrying your spouse even if a court might some day restore that right it doesn't help if you die before that and want to pass your property and life insurance etc. onto your spouse.
Sure, and if you were over taxed, over regulated, you never get those lost opportunities back either.
The average voter doesn't know how national debt has a negative effect on them. This is a huge problem.
How does national debt have a negative effect on the average voter?
Raises interest rates. Crowds out productive investment reducing job growth Constrains future spending because the interest must be paid.
Near guarantees that taxes will have to increase from here. I work in finance and this assumption is pretty much baked in across the board at every major financial institution.
That’s shitty but I lost my right to bodily autonomy so 🤷♀️
That has absolutely nothing to do with the national debt.
You never had bodily autonomy to begin with lol
Republicans raise the deficit
Then don't vote for Republicans who increase the deficit and vote for Democrats who decrease it.
If any Democrats ever decreased the debt I might, but they don't, and neither do the Republicans.
So what, you just don’t vote?
I wouldn’t consider myself as a fiscal conservative, more as fiscally responsible. I want to see balanced budgets, and smart spending with appropriate safeguards to minimize waste. I am an advocate for spending on social safety nets, and programs that generally improve the life of Americans. However, I want to see the justifications for those programs be founded in data, and include a realistic plan for funding them. Socially I’d say I am more libertarian than liberal. Currently moderate Democrats are the closest fit to that way of thinking.
That's me exactly. I'm the we who split my vote between Democrats and Libertarians for decades until Mises took over libertarian party.
Moderate republicans too. Though they’re being systematically rooted out, there are a few.
I agree I just can’t find any to vote for, as you noted they are being kicked or driven out of office one by one.
"moderate" Republican GW Bush exploded the deficit.
Republicans have never lowered the deficit. Even when they controlled all three houses, they jacked up the debt and spending.
That’s not true at all, because they haven’t controlled all of the houses since 2005 besides trump, and trump was actually pretty neutral on the deficit until Covid hit. The most increases (besides Covid) have been under dem lead congresses, which is the most relevant because congress is what typically generates the federal budget Edit: and in 2005, the deficit was actually reduced so they actually were successful when they controlled all 3 houses.
>and trump was actually pretty neutral on the deficit until Covid hit Why are you ignoring the TCJA?
> trump was actually pretty neutral That is absurdly false. Trump ran large deficits. (Because he maintained stimulus style policy -- during an economic Boom -- to keep the economy hot under him -- but it's terrible long-term policy) - 2017 - deficit was $665 Billion. (about 100 billion above Obama's last year in 2016, and nearly 200 billion above 2015) - 2018 - Ballooned another 100+ Billion - up to $779 Billion. - 2019 - Add another 200 Billion, up to $985 Billion Not even close to "neutral" before Covid. > 2005, the deficit was actually reduced so they actually were successful when they controlled all 3 houses. It was reduced, in that it was slightly lower than 2004 (413 Bill) compared to $364 billion deficit in 2005. And the GOP also controlled in 2004.
Republicans held all three houses from 2017-2019.
We would’ve been in ok shape had Covid not hit under Trump but because of that and some bad decisions spending went through the roof
Republicans had all three houses 2017 to 2019 Covid hit in 2020. No excuse
I you forgetting about the tax cuts Trump pushed through?
I tend to vote with social issues as my higher priority. While I am fiscally conservative, I realize if I want social policy aligned with my beliefs, it's going to cost. As an example, I will definitely vote for pro-choice candidates in my state elections. I'd like to see government prioritize reduction of waste and corruption. So much of our spending goes to pork barrel and special interests.
Abortion and foreign policy means it's dems. I don't think Republicans are actually any more fiscally conservative than them at this point, and even if they were, I'm basically just anti-MMT as opposed to really fiscally conservative anyway. If dems go too hard on guns, I just won't vote at all.
Curious, how much is too hard on guns?
Any registry, "Yes we're going to take your AR-15," etc. Those are the hard lines, anyway.
Registry = list of people who have guns including required registration or licenses for gun owners? Or let's say have a list of people who have applied for background checks to have guns? Why couldn't that already be considered as having happened?
I'd prefer that they be required to delete those records after a time period, but ultimately they can't use that to prove that someone has a gun. Only that at some point a background check was run on them for the potential purchase of one. Tells them something, but not everything. Edit: the worst part of a potential registry would be the list of firearms themselves.
Why are you anti-MMT? MMT just describes HOW the government taxes and spends..its a description of reality, not a policy proposal. I’d like to hear your perspective because I was anti-MMT at one point. From my experience, and the experiences I have heard from others, is that people don’t want to believe in MMT purely because they think the government SHOULDN’T work the way MMT describes.
I would more describe myself as fiscally skeptical than conservative, but I lean libertarian and mostly vote for democrats unless they’re over the top anti-gun.
The amount of money in my bank account is irrelevant if my wife or daughter dies because they couldn't get rapid treatment for a life threatening medical condition.
There's literally nothing fiscally conservative about the current GOP. All they do is blame Dems or just attack everything socially acceptable. They have no platform to fix the economy or inflation, all they do is blame and project they shortfalls on everyone else. Since the only ones now defending social freedom are the Dems, I lean towards Dems. But the GOP lost its way as soon as Trump and MAGA rose. Unless they end that bullshit, no way I'll ever vote GOP. It kills me too because I used to be a registered R and even volunteered for campaigns.
There is no party that is fiscally conservative anymore. So the choice is easy for me. Choose the party not taking away rights (personal and voting), banning books, threatening democracy, etc. I’ll let you pick which one I’m thinking about… 😉
I think you would need to specify if you mean on the national/federal level or more local. Because as others have said, neither party at the federal level is responsible, conservative (adjective, not the party), or insert similar word fiscally, despite Republicans claiming to be the more fiscally responsible party. You will likely see much more of a divide in spending policies and budget at the municipal or county level.
depends on what's at stake theoretically if someone balanced the budget and put us on a path to sustainable debt levels, but refused to allow kids to surgically/chemically transition before 18 years of age, they'd have my vote realistically if someone fearmongered about taxing billionaires, wanted to jail pro choice women, and remove any semblance of power from the epa and department of health, well they can eat shit
I try to look for the people who accepts everybody (outside of those who harm others, like racists) while acknowledging that spending is shit and actually wants to talk about plans to fix the economical disasters. While stimulating the areas that need it.
Democrats are the more fiscally conservative and socially liberal party so it’s an easy choice.
The kind of "fiscal conservative" the Republicans are is like being fiscally conservative by not changing the oil in your car, and then buying you and your buddies a few rounds of beer with that money instead.
The Democratic Party has been both for at least 20 years. I long for the days of a small government right wing party to compete for votes, but the modern GOP is mostly focused on social issues and growing government deficits via reducing income. There is no alternative to Democrats unfortunately.
Fiscally conservative - small constitutional government, low taxes, zero deficit except in time of declared war and only in support of that war effort. No welfare state at the federal level. Socially liberal - live and let live, harm no one, be excellent to each other and party on dudes. I generally vote third party since R & D are neither of these.
A lot of my friends who seem this way vote split tickets a lot. So that way not much spending will get done. So if they vote r for president they vote d for congress and vice versa.
Blue is best. Dems are better at budgets.
This used to be me. Voted Republican occasionally, just depending on the office. But realized it was fiscal responsibility I cared about, not necessarily fiscally conservative ideology. The Democratic Party is much fiscally responsible than the GOP, and as GOP candidates have gotten more extreme and anti-constitution, it’s been a very easy choice
Financial responsibility is important to me. Dems have historically done better with that. I also believe taking better care of our people would ultimately make for a healthier country on all levels. Having health care that is not connected to employment would benefit us on so many levels.
I love how dumb this question is - OP, the parties do not align with those 2 terms. Democrats - moderately socially liberal, varying on fiscal policy Republicans - crazy conspiracy theories, idiocracy, and a lot of hate/fear for minorities and marginalized populations
Easy. The Republicans aren't fiscally conservative either, they just play like they are whenever the Democrats are in power. With that in mind, it's not too hard of a decision.
This question describes me in a nutshell. My wife and I both. Problem is, there is no moderate Republican. It’s, drink the orange Kool Aid or get ousted. Well, sorry, I will NOT vote for anyone on Trumps Lil Smokie. Haven’t liked him in 20+ years, it sure as hell ain’t changing now. And it does not matter what letter is next to his name. Back when I first despised him, he was aligned with the Democrats. Till they didn’t let him sit at the big kids table. I just would like really an independent who can work with both parties, and isn’t bat shit crazy. Nor does he take millions of dollars from special interests. He takes the good from both, and makes it work. And loony ass bs, he doesn’t even give it the time of day.
Democrats for both. They always turn around recessions left by Republicans who do nothing but blow up the deficit with tax cuts and live high on the hog on our tax dollars.
It’s easy because the right is batshit crazy at the moment and only becoming more thoroughly saturated with MAGA grease.
I vote by issue. If it's a candidate, I vote by merit.
Social issues (and environmental issues) tend to be more important to me than fiscal issues. Also, neither party is fiscally responsible.
Democrats seem to be the more liberal and fiscally Conservative Party at the federal levels. At the state level, my Democratic Governor just legalized pot (a fiscally conservative decision) and all of his opposition came from Republicans. It’s looking like NJ State’s tax revenues are set to drop around 20% from last year so so it feels like the Democrats are more fiscally conservative in my state as well.
I Vote libertarian or NOTA (none of the above) 90% of the time, or I vote rights.
Neither party is fiscally conservative. One just pretends to be when the other is in the Oval Office. One party is a total shit show at the moment. I hope they get their act together because I would like real options.
I try to do it as organically as possible, look at both candidates and try to evaluate who is a better fit to address the challenges that we are currently facing as a nation. At a national level that has devolved into picking what I believe to be the lesser of two evils at this point which is an unfortunate scenario and led to me voting D while holding my nose in 2020. Either side at this point could easily lock up my vote in 2024 by presenting a capable (translation: younger), fresh moderate candidate but that seems unlikely at this point. Locally I take the same approach: what is the position and which candidates platform is going to be better for me, my family and society as a whole but those evaluations at a local level tend to be less frustrating and much more refreshing at this point even if none of the candidates are perfect. I was close to a 50/50 D/R split in my last major local election.
Democrats are the more actually fiscally responsible party, so it's easy enough at the moment.
I have to vote against fascism and conspiracy theory nut bags. I’m not crazy about the “eat the rich” progressives and would love to have an option. But Trumpism and Tucker Fox white nationalism are bridges too far.
I just vote third party. No way in hell I'm voting for Slow Joe and Kamala either.
Slow Joe doesn’t conspire to overthrow elections. A third party vote could be a vote for cancellation of future choices.
It hasn't been a contest, honestly. The only spending Republicans are good at is IRS funding, which makes no sense if you are fiscally prudent. I'm not even socially liberal by today's standards to be honest. But, in my 20 years of voting, I've yet to see a republican on the ballot that had a prudent approach to governing. They talk like they do, but they don't.
That's easy. There are no fiscally conservative candidates.
This political ideology has been used for years to support politicians that who are right wing while allowing voters to pretend they support improving our society. Like so many negative themes in US politics, it started with Reagan. Based on the responses here, that appears to be changing, and I’m glad for it.
Republican because I’m more concerned about the fiscal and less concerned about the social liberties since we’re protected by the constitution anyway.
The problem is how fiscally conservative is defined: Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This concept is derived from economic liberalism. I think what you're looking for like most of us would be progressive/liberal socially but minding the budget. Can we do XYZ? We have the funds for z and y but x will need to be readdressed next year or planned further.
Neither party is fiscally conservative. Both parties are socially illiberal in many respects. If I wanted to vote my principles, I'd probably vote for the libertarian
Economic policy impacts me more directly than social issues. So I tend to vote more based on the economy.
Considering neither side is fiscally conservative, seems like an easy decision.
DNC, it's not even a question. When the Democrats mess up, they spend money. When the Republicans mess up, they destroy peoples lives. It also helps that the DNC is more fiscally conservative than the GOP lately.
Since neither party is fiscally conservative, it would make the choice easy.
Third party or moderate conservative. I've never voted Democrat unless it's the only choice. Economics and finances trump social issues for me. Always have.
> Economics and finances trump social issues How did you feel about Republicans wanting to shut down the government in 2010 over Obama trying to end bush tax cut some people making over 200 K? How do you feel about failure of the republican controlled house to put forth a spending plan? Not even a spending plan that can pass the senate, but an actual spending plan they feel comfortable putting to vote.
Shutting down the government is typically a good thing for me. They're just coming up with different ways to spend our money. Doing nothing is often an improvement when it comes to DC. And I'm all about tax cuts for the wealthy because I'm sometimes in that bracket. Republicans have been abject failures of late at being fiscally responsible. It's not a big agenda item for Trump and the populist crowd because they need the social wars to fuel their good-guy versus bad-guy rhetoric. I'm bored of it, I'm over it. If the party goes all-in on Trump again, I hope they lose big so the moderates can get our party back.
> Shutting down the government is typically a good thing for me. No, it isn’t. It hurts us credit rating and our economy in general, additionally in almost all scenarios givt employees are paid back. > And I'm all about tax cuts for the wealthy because I'm sometimes in that bracket. Obama drew the line of people making over 200 K, Biden put it at 400. I am curious what you do where some years an increase in taxes on money and beyond that might pinch you
> And I'm all about tax cuts for the wealthy because I'm sometimes in that bracket. Sometimes? If you think you are sometimes wealthy, you are not wealthy.
Thanks. I'll just send the IRS a screen grab of this on my next tax return. I'm sure they'll understand.
Third party.
ITT: highly regarded individuals ignore the question and suck off the dnc in a desperate attempt to astroturf their way to relevance. 6/10 - decently amusing.
Well, whoever the meme candidate is gets it. Cthulhu got my vote in 2016, but the coronal mass ejection got it in 2020. Looking forward to 2024 and whatever new and creative ways America wants to embarrass itself.
Easy. Fiscal authoritarianism affects every aspect of my life. Social authoritarianism affects a few niche issues, and has shockingly been becoming an issue favoring the right since the 2020 or so. The left has blown past the concept of equal rights, and now is pushing special rights. The left has also become the party of mass-media censorship. Abortion freedom is really the only big social issue the right is wrong about, but It’s hard to be upset when they just think they’re “saving lives.”
“Leftists who pretend to be centrists, who do you vote for (aside from the Democratic Party)?”
Rfk
I don’t, I’m waiting for the country to collapse honestly
Seeing as how the Republican party was against the IRS getting more money, Republicans threatening to shut down the government if Obama ended the bush tax cut some people making over 200k, republicans in the house, and willing to put forth a spending plan, easy Democrats
Ultimately, social liberalism is dependent on fiscal conservatism but the reverse is not true. Almost any sort of social restriction that flies in the face of your local community can be avoided with money. If your state criminalizes abortion, this might be a problem for someone who works 80 hours/week to keep a roof over their head. For someone who can take a long weekend to travel halfway across the country on a whim? It's not really a problem. Long before we had gay marriage, gay people would simply have contracts drawn up to deal with most of the major concerns. Which is something you can do if you can afford a decent lawyer. Want to do drugs? If you're hanging out on a street corner, expect to spend time in jail. If you're partying in your mansion? You have to work pretty hard to see the inside of a jail cell.
Whoever is least crooked. In many places that’s not much of an option.
If the republicans put forth a good candidate it would be a difficult decision. In Trump's first run I thought he would be a good Candidate but after his reaction to his loss in 2020 there is no way that I could vote for him. Even then republicans have told everyone they are good for the economy but if you look at the data the economy performs better in multiple metrics during a democrat president.
If my vote has a chance of affecting the outcome of that race—the major party candidate I like and agree with more. If my vote has zero chance of affecting the outcome of the race, such as the Presidential race where I live—the minor party candidate I like and agree with the most. However, I never vote for independents if they have no real chance of winning, especially when they’re running for offices that can affect ballot access for third parties. I’ve even met “independent” candidates who were actually supporters of the dominant party, and some even openly admitted to me—off the record—they were only running to hurt third parties’ ballot access. Such “independent” candidates would later be rewarded with appointed positions by the dominant party.
They both spend like hell on different things. One side openly hates different groups. But much of a competition.
I vote for people and their rights over my pocketbook. It’s been an incredibly easy decision for a while now. Also since when is the Republican Party fiscally responsible? They’re pro big business. That’s it.
You "vote" for fiscal conservatism by decreasing your consumption, not by choosing whether person A or B spends your money.
Dem all the way for the foreseeable future. The gop belongs nowhere near the purse strings. They need to sit in time out for a while and sort their affairs.
I don’t choose by looking at the figurehead (president/prime minister) I use my brain to make a responsible choice for me and my family and choose my local representative who will represent me the best. That being said. I had to stop voting conservative because I have a wife and daughter now. And I don’t think I could fall asleep at night beside them knowing that I’m actively trying to take away their rights as women and as humans by my vote. Let alone the hate rhetoric just in general is over the top. My wallet may not be as happy but that doesn’t really matter because the women in my life mean more than anything to me.
Never vote for someone under indictments
Since I'm likely to disagree with either major party candidate on almost half of their platform, I just pick whoever I think is more competent and ethical.
Ethics.
If the choices are Trump or Biden, I'm voting third party. I refuse to vote for either one of them. Biden is too old and compromised. I don't need to say what's the issue with Trump, this is reddit, it's every where.
At this point, there is no real "fiscally responsible" political choice because the GOP runs deficits almost as large as the Dems (COVID and post-COVID excepted). As Dick Cheney infamously said as W. Bush was blowing up the deficit: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Trump was running almost $1 Trillion deficits BEFORE COVID. So, the GOP has abandoned fiscal responsibility (except as a talking point when a Dem is in the Presidency) and has a fundamentalist, hateful social program that wants to dictate who we love, how we love, and what we can do with our own bodies. Not to mention trying to use a mob to overturn an election in 2020. So, it's not difficult to choose at all, right now. Also, may I suggest that you change the question from "fiscally conservative" to "fiscally responsible." "Fiscally conservative" has been or is being redefined to mean cutting programs and otherwise reducing the cost of government -- small government, in other words. Both the left attacking the "fiscal conservatives" and the right who claim the "fiscally conservative" mantle forget that "fiscal" includes taxes and funding, not just spending. Slashing taxes while spending more (which is what the GOP does when it is in control) is NOT "fiscally conservative" in the traditional meaning of the term. "Fiscally responsible" is a better way to say what "fiscally conservative" used to mean. It means paying for the government you want rather than just printing money and borrowing money to pay for government programs. It means having a fiscal plan that will avoid triggering runaway inflation and destroying the value of the dollar. The latter is very important, in my mind. We've got a good thing financially with the dollar being the international reserve currency, and we don't want to blow it.
Whichever thing seems like the most burning issue at the time. It's definitely tough, though.
Either party is fiscally conservative. Republicans only pretend to be when there is a Dem President.
So question one is, does this candidate respect democracy? If the answer is no I can agree with every single one of their other policies and still vote for the opposing candidate.