I agree, stop the pork barrel spending..though perhaps an overall small part of the budget, it is certainly a start. It removes special interest groups from getting specialized funding from Senators and Representatives. Funding for any project must stand on its own merits, not at the whim of a Senator or Representative.
As a Massachusetts resident who has enduring the RINOsaurs Weld, Celucci, Swift, Romney and almost Baker, I have been saying this for years: claiming to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. They are seldom called on this, so I'm glad to see Senator DeMint starting this discussion.
The socially liberals are fine to a point but they miss the one point we need to face, by accepting lower and lower standards in the name of being socially liberal we have accepted moral and ethical standards so low that we have no expectations of any high standards and that has brought us to near ruin and yes...fiscal bankruptcy. We need to find some middle ground on social issues and tighten up on the spending.
“You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative” I don't even know what that means. I am altogether conservative. But if being a "social conservative" means, for example, government restrictions on gay marriage, or ANY marriage, for that matter, I'm not on board. I don't see marriage policy to be within the legitimate purview of government and I think that to say otherwise is an abandonment of conservative principles.
It takes wisdom and knowledge to be a fiscal conservative. How can anybody actually believe that we can tax and spend ourselves into prosperity? Sheer idiocy! But to be a social conservative in our permissive society, one must actually believe in God--the God of the Bible. Most everybody today wants to do whatever they want, whenever they want; and believe that there will not be any consequences. In the Scriptures God warns us and also promises us that what we sow we will reap--for good or evil.
I agree, stop the pork barrel spending..though perhaps an overall small part of the budget, it is certainly a start. It removes special interest groups from getting specialized funding from Senators and Representatives. Funding for any project must stand on its own merits, not at the whim of a Senator or Representative.
ReplyDeleteAs a Massachusetts resident who has enduring the RINOsaurs Weld, Celucci, Swift, Romney and almost Baker, I have been saying this for years: claiming to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. They are seldom called on this, so I'm glad to see Senator DeMint starting this discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe socially liberals are fine to a point but they miss the one point we need to face, by accepting lower and lower standards in the name of being socially liberal we have accepted moral and ethical standards so low that we have no expectations of any high standards and that has brought us to near ruin and yes...fiscal bankruptcy. We need to find some middle ground on social issues and tighten up on the spending.
ReplyDelete“You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative” I don't even know what that means. I am altogether conservative. But if being a "social conservative" means, for example, government restrictions on gay marriage, or ANY marriage, for that matter, I'm not on board. I don't see marriage policy to be within the legitimate purview of government and I think that to say otherwise is an abandonment of conservative principles.
ReplyDeleteIt takes wisdom and knowledge to be a fiscal conservative. How can anybody actually believe that we can tax and spend ourselves into prosperity? Sheer idiocy! But to be a social conservative in our permissive society, one must actually believe in God--the God of the Bible. Most everybody today wants to do whatever they want, whenever they want; and believe that there will not be any consequences. In the Scriptures God warns us and also promises us that what we sow we will reap--for good or evil.
ReplyDelete