is this whole liberal / conservative dichotomy

I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative
however, I do believe in certain programs that help those who cannot help themselves and I fully support government subsidized education programs... ultimately, I feel that these programs make society better for everyone

so where do I fall in this system of binary opposition?

11/20/2005 1:35:50 PM

I hate how no one realizes that "left" and "right" is not the same as "liberal" and "conservative" and not the same as "democrat" and "republican."

11/20/2005 1:37:53 PM

[new]

11/20/2005 1:55:42 PM

^^^

1. For the most part, I agree.
2. There is, however, a very real coupling between SOME fiscal and social issues. Sometimes you gotta pay to play.
3. If I'm remembering correctly things that you've posted, I'd say you're more of a social liberal, fiscal moderate.

11/20/2005 2:54:03 PM

one of my best friends in hs saw me on campus one time wearing my Toronto Maple Leafs sweatshirt one time and came up and started cracking on me. Makes sense, shes a Canes fan. But she dragged politics into it. "Why do you love socialism so much you fucking Canuck?" WTF?

11/20/2005 3:35:18 PM

^^ yeah its likely that I'm a fiscal moderate

11/20/2005 4:39:31 PM

Eliminate government subsidized political campaigns and political parties.

Problem fucking solved.

11/20/2005 6:23:04 PM

remove re-districting power from the hands of elected officials

problem fucking solved.

shit, even a regular grid based districting system would give us better results than the gerrymandered shit we've got today

11/20/2005 7:22:12 PM

Snewf: You would be a "New Democrat"

11/20/2005 7:45:02 PM

I doubt these "New Democrats" want change as drastic as the change I desire

11/20/2005 7:55:35 PM

^ Actually, I think I fit into the same category, and believe me, I want some drastic fucking changes.

Excoriator hit another rusty nail on the head, too.

11/20/2005 9:51:55 PM

Quote :

"Eliminate government subsidized political campaigns and political parties."

i dont see how this would change too much, especially the party removal. people would still group themselves in relatively large groups to consolidate the vote and win, at most we'd end up with one or two more major parties. not to mention that, like communism, it would take generations upon generations to change the mindset.

11/20/2005 10:10:23 PM

Hmmm. Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative?

You might have a bit of Libertarian in ya.

11/20/2005 10:21:58 PM

always with the charts

11/20/2005 10:23:24 PM

Describe "drastic changes"

[Edited on November 20, 2005 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2005 11:54:37 PM

Count me in on the whole "New Democrat" bit,

'cept i'm also borderline pro-life.

11/21/2005 12:43:19 AM

Yea, where did all the "New Democrats" Go? While Clinton was in office, I think everyone realized they were a "New Democrat", then suddenly Bush was in office and a Republican was a Republican and a Democrat was a Democrat. Fuck That

11/21/2005 8:30:28 AM

Libs 1
Cons 0

11/21/2005 8:35:06 AM

Quote :

"Dueling economists Commentary: Debating Clinton's economics By Dr. Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch Last Update: 12:03 AM ET Nov. 15, 2005 HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- After my experiences of the past few days, I thoroughly subscribe to the old saying that if you laid 1,000 economists end to end, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion. Last week I had the honor of participating in Hofstra University's 11th Presidential Conference, "William Jefferson Clinton: The 'New Democrat' From Hope." It examined Bill Clinton's presidency from numerous perspectives. I moderated the panel that analyzed and discussed Mr. Clinton's domestic economic policy. We delved into the reasons for the unparalleled prosperity that characterized his term in office, and what they mean for the future. Besides myself, there were seven other economists on the panel, four presenting original papers, and the other three serving as commentators. Two of these commentators were members of the Clinton administration. You know what? About the only thing we all agreed on was that there was no recession under Mr. Clinton's watch. On just about everything else -- even the very notion of prosperity -- there was disagreement, or, at the very least, differing interpretations of what transpired during that era. On Monday I heard another economist opine on a business talk radio program that he couldn't understand why there's so much pessimism out there. He criticized everyone from the media to other economists for not agreeing with him. Disagreements like this are why economics has come to be known as the dismal science. Understand that economics is not a hard science like chemistry, biology and physics, where there are eternal verities. It's a social science that deals with people, where data and other phenomena can be subject to varying interpretations. Two otherwise reasonable economists looking at the same data can come to two entirely different conclusions, depending on how they view the world. This is because most economists' views tend to be colored by their political beliefs -- not surprising, since the field was originally called political economy. The Hofstra panel disagreed over whether Bill Clinton's policy of eliminating the budget deficit, thus bringing down long-term interest rates, was responsible for the skein of 120 months without a recession. Of those presenting papers, three said it was caused by bubbles in the stock market and the dollar, while one thought that the policies worked -- but for reasons that differed from the conventional wisdom. Needless to say, the two economists from the Clinton team gave themselves full credit for the good times of the 1990s, saying that their economic policies worked exactly as expected. My view? I side with the speaker who said that their policies worked not because they were "new Democrats," but because they knowingly or unknowingly used old-fashioned Keynesian economics: they took from the rich, whose marginal propensity to consume is low, and gave to the poor, who will spend every extra dollar you give them and then some. The drop in interest rates alone was not enough to offset the drag created from getting rid of the budget deficit. As for the brouhaha over the outlook for the coming year, it can best be described as murky. Those stats that are visible show good growth accompanied by a pickup in the rate of inflation. This spells more rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. See column from Oct. 4. See column from Oct. 11. But the rub is that there is a slowdown out there -- only it's just over the horizon, undetectable to most economists but inevitable, when you stop and think about it. See my column of Nov. 1. As another old expression goes, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Dr. Irwin Kellner is chief economist for MarketWatch. He also is the Weller professor of economics at Hofstra University and chief economist for North Fork Bank."

11/21/2005 10:30:27 AM

This isn't a problem at all.

11/21/2005 2:01:35 PM

I would argue that the bigger problem is actually the return of swing music.

11/21/2005 3:39:11 PM

The Democrats of today are not liberals, they are socialists. I am a liberal. I believe that something should not be illegal unless it infringes on your rights somehow.

11/21/2005 4:38:19 PM

^ok ............ this is silly

11/21/2005 5:08:16 PM

He means classical liberal.

11/21/2005 6:52:38 PM

well, while youre on it, NOONE in todays world is close to being a classical socialist, using the definition defined by the French in the first half of the 19th century, which is much more humane imho and actually allows for less government.

using classical definitions to define modern ideologies is silly, tho. just use the terms everyone knows today.

[Edited on November 21, 2005 at 6:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2005 6:56:46 PM

this thread contributes so much.

11/21/2005 7:06:50 PM

for me to poop on

11/21/2005 7:11:59 PM

11/21/2005 7:18:59 PM

Quote :

" One of the biggest problems we face is this whole liberal / conservative dichotomy"

100% agreed

12/14/2005 1:19:19 PM