Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Big versus small government isn't just about the dollars being spent, but what they are being spent on.
Well, gee, gbaji. Just say "I'm a social Conservative".
Clarity and all that.
Except that would not be clarity. It would be a misrepresentation. The term "social conservative" has a completely different meaning than what I'm talking about.
A closer term would be "fiscal conservative", in case you are curious.
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's like arguing the difference between spending money on rent versus spending it going out to the movies.
"Movies" here being equivalent to "social programs" so, in your view, frivolous.
Movies being equivalent to anything that is not a necessary function of a federal government (I thought I was abundantly clear on this). That generally includes social programs, but the motivation is not to oppose the social change/improvement/whatever, but because those things aren't necessary functions of the federal government. This is part of what I'm talking about. Liberals think in terms of agreeing or disagreeing with the thing itself, and thus if you oppose spending on that thing, you must oppose the thing. Conservatives think in terms of necessary functions of government and believe we should limit government action (and spending) to the greatest degree possible to just those things that are necessary.
A liberal supports federal funding for food stamps because he doesn't want people to go hungry. He assumes that a conservative views funding for food stamps the same way, and thus the conservative's opposition to that funding means he wants people to go hungry. But the conservative's reason is that this isn't a necessary function of the federal government, and thus we shouldn't fund it that way. The conservative doesn't want people to go hungry, but believes that there are better ways to feed people than creating "big government" programs.
It's a disconnect regarding motivation that I'm trying to point out. I find it interesting (and a bit frustrating) just how hard it is for most liberals to even see that it's possible for personA to oppose something for completely different reasons than PersonB supports it.
Quote:
Aaaaand, while we're at it: "Rent = Military" in your world I guess. Liberals are arguing that maybe you don't need Versailles when an apartment block will do.
Sure. And that's a perfectly valid argument. But that's not the argument I responded to. The argument I responded to was "How can you claim to oppose spending on <some social program> on small government grounds, when you don't oppose spending on the military?". That's a totally different argument.
Edited, Oct 13th 2014 7:11pm by gbaji