Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Uharugger t1_ix93edh wrote

Reply to comment by Usedtoknowsomeone46 in Democrat Chris Poulos Won His Connecticut House Race by a Single Vote by poliscijunki

It's full of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people. Even the first selectman, who is a democrat, is fiscally conservative, which allows for more social programs etc.

0

Barrayaran t1_ix9f83s wrote

I'm not sure I follow -- you're saying being fiscal conservative "allows for more social programs"? I ask because most uses I've read of "fiscally conservative" are specifically about not spending on social programs in order to keep taxes low.

3

Uharugger t1_ix9gxml wrote

Fiscally conservative in this context is just trimming excess where necessary. Making sure funds aren't misappropriated and then distributing them where needed. An example would be, under the old selectmen, the new high school greenhouse (at the time) was allotted $300,000. The person running it said they only needed $100,000 but the school was still given the $300,000. The other $200,000 was no where to be found. This was years ago but that was the kind of bs going on in town for years. The current selectman, who is a democrat, could be considered fiscally conservative. He's great about making sure projects are appropriately managed from a money stand point. Which allows for more funding for social programs, infrastructure projects etc.

3

giant_toad42 t1_ix9nu25 wrote

There is nothing wrong with reallocating money to do maximum good.

Where we deviate from fiscal conservatism - is when the greenhouse is allocated $300k, but only needs $100k - and the director of the greenhouse replaces the windows every year to make sure that the excess $200k is retained in budget.

The additional $200k could have been saved as surplus or reallocated to different programs. I'd prefer it were saved as surplus for when economic downturn hits .. so cuts are not necessary.

1

giant_toad42 t1_ix9mosz wrote

I am fiscially conservative - and my definition of that is - when I expend revenue it must go to something I get a return on. It also means acting ethically and responsibly with the money of the people of the United States.

It's a misconception that "fiscially conservative" equals "no social spending at all". I see social spending as an investment and I demand to see a return on investment. If there is no return, there is no spending - programs should do quantifiable good.

I am willing to pay for free college - for students who take college seriously. Those who do not succeed should be quickly removed from classes and pushed into vocational programs. ( I know a load of very well-to-do plumbers, landscapers, and electricians. )

I am willing to support SNAP/Rent subsidy.

I am not willing to support no-strings-attached SNAP/Rent subsidy for healthy people capable of working.

I believe laziness is real and should not be subsidized.

I do not believe people who are of working age and are "out of the workforce" should be excluded from unemployment numbers.

I believe teachers should be paid more, and pre-k/childcare should be heavily subsidized.

I believe tax excessive loopholes for corporations are irresponsible.

I support a global (worldwide) minimum corporate tax.

I am very willing to spend on infrastructure and reliable high capacity public transit ( EG: bringing back light rail. )

I am willing to allow familes on state aid to receive a graduated standard of living based benefit vs income-based benefit with a hard cut-off.

I am not willing to increase welfare cash benefit / discretionary spend, nor do I support "UBI".

I believe politicians who abuse their power for profit should be prosecuted. ( This includes people on both sides. )

2