Originally Posted by McBear
Regarding fiscal conservatism, there are several ways to get to an end result. That is where the difference lays.
Many people think that jobs programs provide training and get people who are minimally skilled to improve their lives. <-- BIG GOVERNMENT That in turn improves their income which improves the tax revenue flow. Spend some to make more.
Some folks think that having a healthy population provides an overall cost savings to private enterprise and boosts work output. <-- BIG GOVERNMENT Less time is taken off, less monies spent at state hospitals and less overall infrastructure overhead while also keeping people working.
Again, spend some to make more.
The end game is the same. Reduce the size of Government, the size of Government outlays, the dependence on Government and in the long run a smaller percentage of income going to run the Country. The means to get there differ greatly.
Some think a rising tide raises all boats. That tide is raised when the most possible people are healthy, educated, working and contributing. Some just require help to get there. <-- BIG GOVERNMENT An unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.
As I said, you are a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility (and I believe you are confusing that with fiscal conservatism). And that's a good thing. You are also very comfortable with your convictions. Conservatives promote free enterprise and want central government to provide a strong national defense and some infrastructure, then move out of the way. It's a very different philosophy than yours.
Nope, I know the difference between fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism.
I think some of the confusion is that you believe that ALL Government social programs are "Big Government
". A really good example is health care. Big government would be if we had the US Government run the healthcare system, provide ALL processes and policies and every action was through them. However all that has been talked about by either the Democrats or by me has been for Government to establish regulations REQUIRING that Private Insurance Companies make coverage AVAILABLE. That is just about as opposite as can be while still insuring that people are covered.
"That tide is raised when the most possible people are healthy, educated, working and contributing. Some just require help to get there" Is that "Big Government"? Not as a blanket. There would be elements where government has to step in and pick up the tab but that does remove the fiscal conservatism if the project is determined to have more worth than cost.
As a person who runs his business very conservatively, I sometimes find that I need to spend money to make money. I have to invest in the future with monies now if the ROI proves to be beneficial. That is fiscally conservative. There is no difference if a government does it. They decide that X monies need spent to raise 2X or 2.3X over 5 years. That pays dividends in the long term as less revenue [taxes] have to be levied to cover ever growing infrastructure costs.