Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
I F*****G hate this phrose.
And I say that as someone who used to identify that way.
The problem, and it applied to me too, is that no one can actually tell you what they mean by it.
I've come to the conclusion that it means some variation of:
1) I WOULD support good social programs, and a progressive agenda, if it was free.
2) I have a limited number of social causes I think we should spend money on. Anything outside of that narrow view is considered "Liberal" fiscal policy
3) I want the reason we have poor social programs, and crumbling health care to be because we have low corporate taxes, and are too reliant on oil and gas revenue.
I would honestly like anyone here who identifies this way to actually explain tome what they think it means.
|
No. Thats ridiculous.
I'd support good social programs if you could show me how they can be sustainably funded. If that requires Tax increases, then so be it. But show me that you're not just wasting the money, that its going to what they're saying its supposed to be going to.
If you want umpteen billions for schools and hospitals where do you expect the extra to come from for whatever your program-du-jour is?
I'm not going to be Judge, Jury and Executioner, but if you implement programs you can't fund then they're going to fail, so there needs to be more behind the concept than hopes, dreams and good feelings.