Can you be socially progressive and fiscally conservative?

If you could actually count on the States, religions and corporations not to be assholes, then yes. As you can't, Federal government needs to step in and that costs taxpayer money.

FROM THE PRIVATE DONATIONS THEY RECEIVE!

That, and from the direct payment from the patient themself.

I keep hearing both "Planned Parenthood uses all this taxpayer money for abortions" and "Planned Parenthood makes most of their profits from abortions." Which is it?

Why not? Your definition of it seems to be "put government in charge of everything," so . . .

Federal funds can be used for all the many other aspects of the of PP, ie STD testing, keeping the lights on, stuff of that nature. But women are on the hook for paying for abortion themselves, IIRC. It's also one of the more expensive procedures by a long shot.

On a related tangent to this, I once had to visit a Navy Financial relief center and the application had a list of what the money could not be used for. Abortion was one of those, since this was an organization funded entirely by active duty and guess who pays us on the 1st and 15th?

Oh it's a fantasy now that donating clothes helps the poor, when did that change @Anna and @Diacanu ?

Based on the definition in the article (up for debate, of course):

.

I know I used it as an example before (), but I think helping the poor counts less as progressivism and more as being a good person.

Yeah, about that...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5798612

It's several years old, but still relevant.

An argument could be made, and I've actually heard people say this, that because of social programs and the taxes that are involved, people may be less inclined to donate or do anything more to help. Perhaps if we had a choice, more people would be inclined to help. Maybe the government is making things worse?

ETA: I certainly can't afford to do anything more, even though I want to, but I'm getting taxed too much.

I haven't read this. Please submit a short summary so we can all learn: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-su...etween-taxes-and-charitable-giving-1450062191

Wait, you are providing a link you haven't read and you want me to do a book report? If you have an argument to be made, I'm not doing your homework for you.

The article relies on a specious premise: that government is the source (or the best source) of social progress.

The government declared war on poverty in the 60s. Has this policy abolished poverty? Or has it left poverty alive and well, despite trillions of dollars having been spent?

The government declared war on drugs in the 80s. Has this policy eliminated drug addiction and drug crime? Or has it engendered the rise of drug cartels and turned inner cities into war zones?

The government heavily intervenes in health care. Has this policy made health care more affordable over time? Or has it driven costs so high, that health insurance has to subsidized for millions?

The government has a near-monopoly on primary and secondary education. Has this policy improved student outcomes in the last 30 years? Or has it put education on a continuous decline?

Yes, it's probably impossible to be a fiscal conservative and a progressive. But I dispute that "progressives" actually create much progress.

Has the government actually been able to claim fair amounts of tax from those who benefit most from federal infrastructure, and thus been able to implement those policies fully, or has it been hobbled by lobbyists?

And I dispute that "conservatives" actually conserve anything, they seem set on reverting the jam to the fruit, then the seed, and then - definitely - the shit the seed grew in.

Anything is possible.

But that doesn't mean anything is likely.

Why not, indeed. You just need to be clear when you say you're socially progressive what it means to you. I have yet to offer a definition.

Most vice crime laws target lower-income groups.

Job training programs are often the first thing cut in a financial crisis.

This I agree with.

[QuoteoThe government heavily intervenes in health care. Has this policy made health care more affordable over time? Or has it driven costs so high, that health insurance has to subsidized for millions?[/quote]
Insurance company pushing into every aspect of health care made it unaffordable to many well before Obama came into office.

Bit of a mixed bag, tbh. We've already got fat too many states as it is pushing creationism in school, even with the current oversight..But there's also been the push to connect funding to better performing school instead of directing more funds to underperforming schools. We had a discussion on this in another thread about how once Germany put more resources into the underperforming schools, they saw more children from such school enter into the Gymnasium college track there.

It's not government oversight so much as how the oversight is working.

I'm not going to suggest "pushing creationism" is a good thing. ?

But if the students end up scoring highly in math and science what does it matter

Aren't high performances in math and science (or STEM) kind of the holy grail of public school achievement these days?

Because bronze age fairy tales have no place in a science class. Period fucking dot.

How many atheists are pushing for evolution and the big bang theory to be taught alongside Adam and Eve in Sunday Schools?

I'll wait.

People shit fucking bricks if the five pillars of Islam are mentioned in the context of world history for a week, but teaching about Moses parting the red sea as he rode on his Brontesaurus is a-ok for a history lesson in some areas.

my turn!

How do you define social progress?

Poverty as a function of time:

I conclude the programs of the 60s helped.

um, "just say no?"

Government has never heavily intervened in health care. What are you talking about?

Costs are high due to a dysfunctional market and scared consumers. People do not make informed purchasing decisions when their life or their loved one's is at stake. Drug companies wine and dine doctors who are making most of the decisions.

And you are comparing US performance to where, exactly?

Define social progress.

Can you link to something that indicates this is actually taught anywhere?

I'll wait.

Gotta love the way the regressives are trying to take classical liberalism out of the picture.

And the answer is "no" because the people who call themselves "progressive" these days are Marxists, so of course they can't be fiscally conservative. Now, can someone be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Absolutely, that's pretty much just called "libertarian."

So, say I wanted to get a cyst removed, would I be on the hook for that?

I mean I've always thought I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social issues but on the financial side of things I'm as hyper capitalist as it gets. I mean my job is raping the ocean of its fish in an unsustainable manner and exploiting cheap labor to produce it so I can sell at the highest margin possible and be taxed as little as possible at the same time.

Jesus H. Christ, do you not recognize hyperbole when you see it!?! Or are you deliberately being obtuse?!!!

I doubt there'd be enough left to qualify for a bank account.

Arkansas education thinks hyperbole is the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and obtuse is the opposite of hypotenuese.

That doesn't even make sense.

Aww...that's acute response. But everyone knows that a hypotenuese is a large aggressive African mammal often found in rivers.

Really? I conclude the exact opposite. Look at the trends of the curves before 1965, when the Great Society programs kicked in.

In any event, the chart you posted shows that the poverty rate was lowest in 1973. No improvement in 40 years?

Are you serious?