First: I hope everyone reading this realizes that Scott and I are good friends who just disagree on politics, and there is nothing personal in our debate!
Duke Frost said:
Mike, you are talking working condition regulations, not business practice regulations. Child labor, safety in the workplace, etc. etc. are a completely different subject and have no bearing on business practices. You're comparing apples to oranges. And even so, economic conservatives are not against safe workplaces, they're against tax and spend.
Currently yes, but the examples I gave were certainly accurate historically. The conservatives were against laws prohibiting child labor and workplace safety and all those things, and fought tooth and nail against them.
This is basically true of lots of society's changes though, and makes sense: conservatives don't like change. They were against social security and medicare. They were against civil rights and women's rights, and currently are against gay rights (for instance). And then society changes and they catch up. You won't find many conservatives who are now against social security or in favor of child labor.
Please understand that I am speaking in generalities, of course.
And I agree that there are not many fiscal conservatives left, even among Republicans. The deficit always grows under the GOP and shrinks under the Democrats (well, until now). The GOP spends just as much if not more than the Democrats, they just spend it on the military and tax breaks for the wealthy, whereas Democrats spend it on welfare and stuff.
Duke Frost said:
Relaxing regulations the way Clinton did was certainly economically liberal. He (or those who pressured him if you are to believe his alibi) were attempting to "help" the average citizen, not the corporations. Basically they were giving away money/homes (or thought they were). What is not liberal about that?
It's not fiscally liberal, which is what we were discussing. Reducing oversight of the economy is not the solution, as our current situation shows.
But even so, we're now arguing over semantics, almost like we're discussing sports: My team is better than yours!
Duke Frost said:
The way I see it, an economic liberal says "I know how to spend your money better than you do, gimme, gimme, gimme." An economic conservative says "Give us some money to take care of neccesities for the country and keep the rest." Though I also believe economic conservatives do not exist in D.C. any longer.
I agree with that last sentence. Conservatives who want to build bridges to nowhere and spend money on military planes that don't work simply because they are built in their district are not fiscal conservatives.
And I'll rephrase your "economic liberal" to say that they want government to protect and help the average person, which means restrictions on capitalism. Economic liberals don't believe that business, left to itself, will do what is best for the country, and believes that when profit is the bottom line, people suffer. Without getting into a long discussion here, an economic liberal is kind of a semi-socialist. I admit it. I think government should be in place to help people. Sometimes that means getting out of their lives and letting them live it as they want and sometimes it means there should be a national health care policy so that people get their basic needs met.
Duke Frost said:
The founding fathers believed the government needed to provide a few basic needs through taxes: an army and roads mostly. We are so far away from that it's ridiculous. The government has taught so many Americans to be dependent and unmotivated.
I dunno... I think advertising has helped that as well, I wouldn't just blame government!
But yeah, the entitlement attitude so many Americans have is terrible. I just think it's a societal thing, and isn't based solely on welfare. Rich kids who have never been on welfare have the same attitude. Government has some part in it but is not solely responsible. As a kind of self-made guy myself, I know the value of hard work. On the other hand, I got where I am today because of government student loans, grants, and (for a while) subsidized housing, so there is a middle ground here.
We could discuss this topic at length!
Duke Frost said:
If I'm not mistaken, people went to war in the 1770s and died and even killed their neighbors because they were overtaxed.
Scott
Well, not entirely -- the rallying cry was "no taxation without representation." They were protesting not having a say in the government, not the taxes in general. Certainly as soon as the USA was formed, they put in taxes.
But its better than the alternative.