4 ms·

Ok so as a somewhat left wing libertarian I'll give my 2 cents. Most of us on the economically conservative side are against taxes wherever possible. The only

Ok so as a somewhat left wing libertarian I'll give my 2 cents. Most of us on the economically conservative side are against taxes wherever possible. The only thing we like less than taxes is spending. The ideology that I follow and most other conservatives I know follow is that the government should strive to spend the least amount of money necessary to guarantee the services that it promises its citizens. With that in mind, taxes should only be raised to guarantee sufficient funds for all promised services and should only be lowered when there is money left on the table. (i.e. depreciation or discontinuation of services or increased operating efficiency) Now as to where those taxes should be concentrated is largely dependent on who you are talking to however personally I believe that taxes should be focused solely on consumption of goods and services rather than taxing people on income and assets but then again this is just my opinion. The problem with what does and doesn't classify as economically conservative is that raising taxes is against the goals of conservative ideology however it is one of a handful of options for maintaining a balanced budget. The other is reevaluating spending and cutting costs where they can be cut. Like everything else it is a matter of tradeoffs and economic conservatives tend towards cutting costs before increasing taxes. The only issue is that the republican party tends to ignore the cutting cost part and I wouldn't really consider the party to be considered "economically conservative" in their current state.

cryptoz 9y ago
I find this fascinating. > the government should strive to spend the least amount of money necessary to guarantee the services that it promises its citizens. I am of the opposite opinion. The government should spend an excess of funds to do these tasks, and should strive for that excess as a goal. To me, your solution would result in roads that fall apart after 10 years instead of 100, would result in infrastructure failures daily, would leave most people out-in-the-cold when there is a disaster in their family or in their community. A government that strives for quality and care for its citizens, rather than for lowest cost, will actually save money in the long run. The more economically efficient way to allocate money is to spend potentially more than the minimum required up front to increase the likelihood of success for a project and to reduce the chances of things falling through the cracks. Do you think the FDA should "strive" to spend the least amount of money possible in ensuring that our food is safe to eat? That sounds to like we'd have a lot of false positives/negatives in their testing, and we'd have a lot more sick people and we'd have a less productive economy for it. I do not, and will not ever, understand the idea of a government being cheap to save money. It will not work. It produces low-quality societies that leave their poor to starve and die of sickness rather than help them heal and be back in the workforce making money and paying taxes. Have a nice evening.

cryptoz 9y ago

I find this fascinating. > the government should strive to spend the least amount of money necessary to guarantee the services that it promises its citizens. I am of the opposite opinion. The government should spend an excess of funds to do these tasks, and should strive for that excess as a goal. To me, your solution would result in roads that fall apart after 10 years instead of 100, would result in infrastructure failures daily, would leave most people out-in-the-cold when there is a disaster in their family or in their community. A government that strives for quality and care for its citizens, rather than for lowest cost, will actually save money in the long run. The more economically efficient way to allocate money is to spend potentially more than the minimum required up front to increase the likelihood of success for a project and to reduce the chances of things falling through the cracks. Do you think the FDA should "strive" to spend the least amount of money possible in ensuring that our food is safe to eat? That sounds to like we'd have a lot of false positives/negatives in their testing, and we'd have a lot more sick people and we'd have a less productive economy for it. I do not, and will not ever, understand the idea of a government being cheap to save money. It will not work. It produces low-quality societies that leave their poor to starve and die of sickness rather than help them heal and be back in the workforce making money and paying taxes. Have a nice evening.