I_Like_Dirt wrote:Absolutely there were fiscal conservatives on both sides of the aisle, but they've had very little input and usually gave ground in that fight in order to prioritize other issues while those that were essentially using fiscal conservatism as a shield to grab as much cash as they possibly could for themselves who prioritized fiscal irresponsibility (in their favor) above all else.
That is one perspective. I would look at another perspective - possibly the genesis of the issue. There were many checks on deficit spending until recently (other than during the WWII era). It wasn't until the Reagan era that the tradeoffs started to take hold. Reagan wanted a larger military budget and Tip wanted more spending on social programs. Tip had been thwarted by the sustainable government advocates on both sides of the aisle at the national level.
Reagan agreed to increase spending on entitlement programs and Tip agreed to increase spending on the Military Industrial complex - both to unsustainable levels. Tax cuts, budget deficits, and tax reform became the new norms.
Coming into the first Bush years and through the Clinton years folks on both sides of the aisle were concerned and largely worked together to keep deficits mostly in check. Then the Bush wars, aging of the population and expansion to entitlements blew that up.
I_Like_Dirt wrote:Fiscal conservatism really has been devoured from the inside by the mantra of trickle down economics while social liberals/progressives who also had fiscal conservative inclinations wound up being pushed out as the wealth divide being driven by trickle down economics increasingly became divided along social grounds.
I would largely disagree with this assertion. Trickle down economics had virtually nothing to do with the spending problems we have. Federal revenues have stayed at ~ 18.5% of GDP on the federal level and has increased to well over 20% at the state and local level. Meanwhile, our federal spending has climbed from 18% of GDP to north of 24% of GDP. This is a spending issue.
I_Like_Dirt wrote:Basically, they were pitted one against the other and the cash grab happened, and while they existed, I stand by the statement that, as a movement, fiscal conservatism has been dead for a while. The complete lack of a united front has destroyed any chance of having such policies implemented for some time now. Rights really were a huge divisive force, because rights are expensive, and some fiscal conservatives decided to prioritize rights against violent crimes, the ability to run your own business, etc. and other gravitated towards other rights like education, health care, etc. (yes, they're both rights, regardless of which you think may be more important - they're all really, expensive, really important and wouldn't exist if society collectively decided they weren't important).
Here you make a good point, spending hasn't been prioritized. We didn't meet a spending program that wasn't liked, so we adopted all of them.
I am probably wrong here, but I think you are saying the "rights" based programs are important and rightly expensive. But you don't advocate spending within our limits? I have pointed out before that entitlement spending has crowded out other spending and will eventually consume all of our federal spending.
And herein lies the problem - we can't afford the programs we have - but we are advocating the expansion of the same programs. This is Einstein's definition of insanity.
Now I will pick on you and your party specifically. The term "rights" has been adopted to thwart sustainable government. In addition, at the state and local level, fiscal sanity was sacrificed for public union wages and benefits. Is the DNC leading the charge on sustainable government? Yeah okay - that was a rhetorical question. And I could have picked on the Rs - but at this point, that is way too easy.
