The Sins of Relativism, Soft-Despotism, and Progressivism

[Darkbloom]

You confuse ease with success. It is not easy to be fiscally conservative and serve the least. It entails the discipline to spend wisely and not waste money.

Being fiscally conservative entails bare minimum taxation to maintain a minimalist government. No formulation of a minimalist state entails the welfare state. Contradiction in terms.

As to facts comparing MI to Indiana, the 2009 deficit in Indiana was larger as a percentage of the budget than that of Michigan.

So apparently the libs in MI did better than the Cons in Indiana.

Thursday, 22 April 2010 03:44
The budget struggles facing each of the 50 states during the fiscal year of 2009 were the toughest of the decade. Michigan was ranked as one of the worst ten states in terms of its economy. This has caused a major increase in the budget deficit and has challenged legislators to rethink Michigan’s budget structure. By comparing its budget to that of it neighboring states, the positive and negative qualities of each can be recognized.

In 2009, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan all faced budget gaps totaling billions of dollars. Out of the three states, Illinois faced a shortfall of $2.5 billion or 15.1% of its total budget. Michigan followed in dollar amounts with $2 billion, equaling 8.5% of its budget, and Indiana fell short by $1.2 billion, or 9.1% of its budget.

michiganpolicy.com/index…iefs&Itemid=96

You’re cherry picking. Indiana is required by law to pass a balanced budget and is currently going through adjustments due to recently added property tax caps. It still has a Rainy Day Fund and an unemployment rate nearly five points lower than MI.

Here you see very liberal states with bad economies. Only Alaska and Arizona stand out as conservative states among the ten.

Meanwhile, Texas, a state WITHOUT an income tax is easily the economically healthiest state in the union.

But, I don’t find it at all surprising that libs want to force states to follow a certain model. But it is terribly frustrating that they want to force a model that doesn’t work.

 

[CPA2]

I live in California and the biggest problem we have is the state constitutional requirement of 3/4 approval to raise taxes. We may have a majority of Democrats in our state legislature but we have had a lot of Rep governors who blocked or vetoed progressive legislation. Our fiscal mess is in large part a result of these two things. The 3/4 rule results in the 1/4 minority holding the rest of us hostage. It isn’t the Dems fault. We can’t get even a small tax increase on the wealthy or corporations which we need during this fiscal crisis when the bottom rung folks just can’t bear anymore - so we cut all of our services to the poor - the folks who need them the most - while the rich are none the worse for wear. Personally, I find this abhorrent.

I have never seen a tax cut that I did not like. I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. I never vote for taxes, no matter how good it sounds.

**Raising taxes is useless. The government just spends the extra money. **

The only way to cut government is to cut the money that it gets. **Cut taxes! **Unfortunately, we cannot do that with the federal government because they create their own government money, the dollar.

The big problem is not taxes. The big problem is spending!

 

[portarica]

Being fiscally conservative entails bare minimum taxation to maintain a minimalist government. No formulation of a minimalist state entails the welfare state. Contradiction in terms.

You’re cherry picking. Indiana is required by law to pass a balanced budget and is currently going through adjustments due to recently added property tax caps. It still has a Rainy Day Fund and an unemployment rate nearly five points lower than MI.

Here you see very liberal states with bad economies. Only Alaska and Arizona stand out as conservative states among the ten.

Meanwhile, Texas, a state WITHOUT an income tax is easily the economically healthiest state in the union.

But, I don’t find it at all surprising that libs want to force states to follow a certain model. But it is terribly frustrating that they want to force a model that doesn’t work.

I didn’t cheery pick Indiana, you did and compared it to liberal states.

And for the Texas cite you linked to, the job loss rate in Tx went from 4% to 1.5 and nationally it went from 5 to 1.7%.

So Texas went down 2.5 % the country went down 3.3%. Texas’ rate went down by 62.5% and nationally it went down 66%. And if the national rate is only .2% higher now than TX it means some other states are probably lower than TX.

Can you at least give some examples that support your contentions? And how about some states that practice what Jesus taught? Like I said before its easy to be fiscally conservative if you don’t help the least, its much harder, but doable if you practice what Jesus preached.

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

I didn’t cheery pick Indiana, you did and compared it to liberal states.

And for the Texas cite you linked to, the job loss rate in Tx went from 4% to 1.5 and nationally it went from 5 to 1.7%.

So Texas went down 2.5 % the country went down 3.3%. Texas’ rate went down by 62.5% and nationally it went down 66%. And if the national rate is only .2% higher now than TX it means some other states are probably lower than TX.

Can you at least give some examples that support your contentions? And how about some states that practice what Jesus taught? Like I said before its easy to be fiscally conservative if you don’t help the least, its much harder, but doable if you practice what Jesus preached.

Peace

You didn’t cherry pick Indiana, but one piece of data while ignoring the nearly 5 point difference in unemployment, the fact that MI has an industrial base that is on government provided life support, that Detroit is fast becoming a ghost town, etc.

I’ve given ample examples for my contentions, as evidenced by your reference to them. I also find it striking you have nothing to say about the other link.

Granted I’m not a theologian, but I fail to recall the passage in the Gospels where Christ advocated state control of the government.

No internally coherent definition of “fiscally conservative” can contain the notion of a welfare state. Contradiction in terms.

This is more akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it to. It sounds good to be “fiscally conservative”, but the burdens to actually meet that standard are unappealing, so you simply inflate the definition of the term.

 

[portarica]

You didn’t cherry pick Indiana, but one piece of data while ignoring the nearly 5 point difference in unemployment, the fact that MI has an industrial base that is on government provided life support, that Detroit is fast becoming a ghost town, etc.

I’ve given ample examples for my contentions, as evidenced by your reference to them. I also find it striking you have nothing to say about the other link.

Granted I’m not a theologian, but I fail to recall the passage in the Gospels where Christ advocated state control of the government.

No internally coherent definition of “fiscally conservative” can contain the notion of a welfare state. Contradiction in terms.

This is more akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it to. It sounds good to be “fiscally conservative”, but the burdens to actually meet that standard are unappealing, so you simply inflate the definition of the term.

One can be fiscally conservative and liberally social. There are some liberal groups that are fiscally conservative and some conservative groups that spend wildly.

You just don’t associate doing Jesus’ work with having the ability to be fiscally conservative. That is understandable given that most conservative causes are not about Jesus’ work.

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

One can be fiscally conservative and liberally social. There are some liberal groups that are fiscally conservative and some conservative groups that spend wildly.

Until you show me how the semantically impossible is in actuality possible, you’re in effect saying you reserve the right to redefine words as you see fit AND that I’m bound to those redefinitions.

I’d also ask you to show me how possible and impossible are synonyms.

You just don’t associate doing Jesus’ work with having the ability to be fiscally conservative.

I don’t associate the welfare state with being fiscally conservative, and neither does any honest, competent speaker of the English language.

That is understandable given that most conservative causes are not about Jesus’ work.

Peace

Ahh, the ad hominem attack that is always evidence of an argument lost.

I give to the Church and routinely volunteer. You know nil about me.

Conservative causes have everything to do with people keeping the just fruits of their labors so they can INDIVIDUALLY and as a CHURCH dispose of those funds in a Christ-like way.

And the burden of proof is on you to show where Christ taught us that the way to bring about the Kingdom is to have the government control the economy. Until then you’re just prattling.

 

[portarica]

Until you show me how the semantically impossible is in actuality possible, you’re in effect saying you reserve the right to redefine words as you see fit AND that I’m bound to those redefinitions.

I’d also ask you to show me how possible and impossible are synonyms.

I don’t associate the welfare state with being fiscally conservative, and neither does any honest, competent speaker of the English language.

Ahh, the ad hominem attack that is always evidence of an argument lost.

I give to the Church and routinely volunteer. You know nil about me.

Conservative causes have everything to do with people keeping the just fruits of their labors so they can INDIVIDUALLY and as a CHURCH dispose of those funds in a Christ-like way.

And the burden of proof is on you to show where Christ taught us that the way to bring about the Kingdom is to have the government control the economy. Until then you’re just prattling.

When I post facts that contradict you, you say I am making an ad hominem attack on you?

Then you accuse me of not understanding that when you state something as a conclusion I must rely upon the fact that your definitions of words are the only ones that count.

Fiscal conservatism isn’t about what the money is spent upon, it is about not spending the money wastefully. You are confusing policy goals with fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps you are somehow equating not spending money on social justice as being fiscally conservative , maybe because many self described “conservatives” don’t want to spend money on social justice issues.

Take for instance, the billions of dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan , that is an example of conservative war policy and fiscal irresponsibility. The fact that the wars may have been as a result of conservative policy, doesn’t make them fiscally conservative.

Now, do you understand the distinction between the concepts of being fiscally conservative and enacting conservative policy?

I know the distinction between possible and impossible, but did you know that if there is even just one instance where it is possible to be fiscally conservative about social justice , your argument involving absolutes (possible vs. impossible) is faulty?

Also what’s with the CAPS? I may be deaf, but I am not blind.

Peace