I was a deficit cutting conservative...

...before being a deficit cutting conservative was cool.

As you have to go back to Nixon to find a 'deficit cutting conservative', I'm left to wonder if such a thing still exists or if the endangered species has gone extinct.

Deficit and spending cuts are indeed in current vogue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264325/spending-cuts-are-hot-political-marketplace-michael-barone

Nixon is often perceived as a conservative but ideologically he was more of a pragmatist consumed with his own survival. He touted price controls and once proposed a guaranteed government payment of $1,000 to every man, woman, and child in the republic. Why, then, was his administration the last to nearly balance the federal budget? Maybe his Quaker background. Maybe the fact that the U.S. Congress was filled with survivors of the Great Depression. I don't know the answer to that one.

But I believe that the prevailing mood is one of spending cuts and deficit reduction. Obama did not take us there but he appears to be swept up in it. His change of heart is implausible but may be proof he can read the poll numbers as well as the rest of us. What is the driver of this phenomenon? Ultimately, I believe, the Tea Party and the mid-term election of 2010. That's just me. Whatever it is, I say, let's ride it.

Aaron wrote:As you have to go back to Nixon to find a 'deficit cutting conservative', I'm left to wonder if such a thing still exists or if the endangered species has gone extinct.

I took a look at the presidents and congresses since the time of Truman. I think you'll find that deficit cutting went out of vogue beginning with Nixon and the Democratic Congress of his time.

ohio county wrote:Deficit and spending cuts are indeed in current vogue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264325/spending-cuts-are-hot-political-marketplace-michael-barone

Nixon is often perceived as a conservative but ideologically he was more of a pragmatist consumed with his own survival. He touted price controls and once proposed a guaranteed government payment of $1,000 to every man, woman, and child in the republic. Why, then, was his administration the last to nearly balance the federal budget? Maybe his Quaker background. Maybe the fact that the U.S. Congress was filled with survivors of the Great Depression. I don't know the answer to that one.

But I believe that the prevailing mood is one of spending cuts and deficit reduction. Obama did not take us there but he appears to be swept up in it. His change of heart is implausible but may be proof he can read the poll numbers as well as the rest of us. What is the driver of this phenomenon? Ultimately, I believe, the Tea Party and the mid-term election of 2010. That's just me. Whatever it is, I say, let's ride it.

Color me a pessimist OC but I don't trust anyone from either side to reduce the deficit. History has proven that the left doesn't want to touch entitlement spending and the right doesn't want to touch defense spending. The only true out I see is gridlock, preferably with a Democratic President as it's been proven time and again, when you have a Democratic Congress and a Republican President the left will concede defense spending to continue social spending and vice versa. I'm all in favor of a strong TEA Party Congress that's offset by a extremely liberal White House. It's the only sure thing as far as I can see.

You're probably right, Aaron. You'd think I'd learn by now. They broke my heart so many times I don't even trust either party any more. That's why I'm so hopeful the tea party can flex their muscles and am willing to entertain the evangelicals. Well, that and the fact I'm a believer...

I like Aaron, I'm very pessimistic when it comes to politicians on either side of the isle. Neither the republicans or democrats has the will or courage to cut. Both are just wrapped up in the blame game and fearmongering for the sake of votes. I guess all we can hope for is as Aaron said, a strong TEA Party Congress and very liberal President. At least thing would come to a halt and they couldn't do much damage. I could even live with an evangelical congress just as long as the legislative and executive branches were opposites in agenda.

You have no idea how disappointed I was when Rand Paul agreed to speak at the Faith Conference. I know Stephanie doesn't believe he isn't politically copulating with the far right but I just don't see it. And I liked Bachman until I saw her on Stossel's show stating the Novermber was not only a mandate for fiscal measures but for social issues as well. I wish I could believe but I just can't. I do hope that I am wrong though.

Aaron wrote:You have no idea how disappointed I was when Rand Paul agreed to speak at the Faith Conference. I know Stephanie doesn't believe he isn't politically copulating with the far right but I just don't see it. And I liked Bachman until I saw her on Stossel's show stating the Novermber was not only a mandate for fiscal measures but for social issues as well. I wish I could believe but I just can't. I do hope that I am wrong though.

The way I see things social and fiscal issues go hand in hand. We are where we are today, because of laziness, greed, and lack of charactor. Consider the present example as sat by Obama. His solution to the debt crisis is taxing the rich and being fair. While it plays well in some circles consider the following, a person is taxed on what they earn during the year. Yes, some people do quite well. Now the vast majority of the fiscal problems this naiton faces comes from entitlements. The question that has to be answered in a ledgitmate way is, where is the morality, the fairness, in forcing a person who has worked and succeeded to pay for a person that hasn't or won't. The fact of the matter is, taking one's income at the barrel of the government gun is not benevlance, it is theft.

Obama's statement and plan illustrates the basic fact that he has no regard for the property of others. Instead his only has regard for continuing to enable folks who prefer to depend on the government for their existance. They prefer him because he continues to foster the lie that they are owed by the government and by those that have succeeded.

While this may not be the best example of what I am speaking, the point I want to make is social and fical issues go hand in hand. Further, the fiscal mess we find ourselves in today is the direct result of the social mess we have fostered over the past 50 years.

I have no clue what Michelle Bachman or Rand Paul believe socially, but I do agree with Michelle Bachman we saw a mandate coming from the Tea Party to clean up the fical and social ills that face this nation during this last election.

I'm not talking about entitlement spending Cato, I'm talking about issues such as gay marriage, prayer in school and religion. Michelle Bachman doesn't want to clean up the social ills, as you say. To borrow from one of your favorite statements, she wants to use the force of law to impose her personal beliefs on all of America.

Aaron wrote:I'm not talking about entitlement spending Cato, I'm talking about issues such as gay marriage, prayer in school and religion. Michelle Bachman doesn't want to clean up the social ills, as you say. To borrow from one of your favorite statements, she wants to use the force of law to impose her personal beliefs on all of America.

Are you saying that as you posted, "And I liked Bachman until I saw her on Stossel's show stating the Novermber was not only a mandate for fiscal measures but for social issues as well". Means she wants to use the force of law to impose her beliefs on all of America?

Speaking personally, like many fo the Tea Party folks, all I want is the government out of my life and leave me alone and not involve me in policy I find abhorant. Though I don't have kids in school any more, if any kid wants to pray in school, nobody has the right ot stop them. Niether does any government school person have the right to ridicule them for their religious beliefs. And don't tax me to indoctrinate my kids or grandkids into the ways of secular humanism. If homosexuals want to get married, fine, but don't force me to rent to them. Niether give them special rights because they are homosexuals. Additionally, abortion is the law of the land. That is an item that speaks to just how low and pathetic many in our government and much of public have went, however, it is the law of the land. If a woman wants to murder her unborn child, she's allowed, however, don't tax me to provide funding to organizations that support or provide abortions.

There is a difference in prayer in school and Prayer in school, if you take government funds while renting then you can not discriminate and if you don't like the curriculm at the local school, put them into private school and indoctrinate them in any way you want.

And I've been involved in public schools for the past 17 years and I've not seen secular humanism taught anywhere. In my experience, it's a counter-argument put out by those who want religion taught in schools.

Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (often with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy that espouses human reason, ethics, and justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Secular Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the Humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology — be it religious or political — must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith.[citation needed] Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.

Capitalization of "Humanist" is the recommended and normal usage within the International Humanist and Ethical Union, though some member organizations, such as the Council for Secular Humanism in the United States, continue to use the adjective "secular".

source

Aaron wrote:There is a difference in prayer in school and Prayer in school, if you take government funds while renting then you can not discriminate and if you don't like the curriculm at the local school, put them into private school and indoctrinate them in any way you want.

First, I don't care if religion is taught in school or not. If that is what people, so be it, so long as attendance is voluntary. If people don't want anything to do with religion in school, so be it, that is their choice. I'm not like either the left or right, I'm capable of making my own decision and choices. If I don't like what the public school system does, you are right, I can enroll my kids in private school or home school them.

Aaron wrote:And I've been involved in public schools for the past 17 years and I've not seen secular humanism taught anywhere. In my experience, it's a counter-argument put out by those who want religion taught in schools.

Everyone sees what they want. However, if you want to fix the fiscal problems in this country, who had better start dealing with the centers that continue to turn out class after class of entitlement minded folks.