Social Conservatives?

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 15, 2012 13:51:25 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:45:09 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

No. The Courts define this. They define religions via the 1st Amendment.

It still doesn't make sense to me. Let's say I'm Amish and I leave the church for whatever reason. I am no longer officially affiliated with the Amish church, don't attend formal church services, but my beliefs are exactly the same. But according to the government, I would no longer be exempt in the same way I was before I was shunned by or left the Amish church.

There are many Christians out there that don't affiliate with a formal denomination. I don't. But my faith is just as important to me as someone who does. What gives the courts the right to say that my beliefs aren't as worthy as someone else's?

I realize that they have to draw a line somewhere so that people don't abuse the system, but it seems extremely unfair for the people who are genuine in their beliefs and seems to be unconstitutional.

The courts don't say that. If you decide you want to get together with your like-minded friends and start a congregation, you could. You could take advantage of religious exemptions that apply to churches, including not paying for your employees' birth control.

[2vermont]

Anyway, this wasn't what this OP was about...and I'll wait to see what the SCOTUS says when that happens.

[2vermont]

Aug 15, 2012 13:57:37 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:47:27 GMT -5 2vermont said:

from the link above:

How does a Catholic or other religious entity qualify for this exemption? It must be a non-profit organization under certain IRS guidelines, and must meet all of the following criteria:

- The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization;
-The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization;
-The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
Got that? The federal government is graciously allowing your parish church to consider itself Catholic. But, not much else would qualify.

That's Cardinal Dolan's analysis, right?
From this:

www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=47161

I'm not sure I believe his sarcastic rhetoric over a pretty straight forward analysis by the AMA.

WRT what qualifies, they're saying basically the same thing. He's just a bit fired up as he should be.

[aw]

Aug 15, 2012 13:54:26 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:51:25 GMT -5 aw said:

It still doesn't make sense to me. Let's say I'm Amish and I leave the church for whatever reason. I am no longer officially affiliated with the Amish church, don't attend formal church services, but my beliefs are exactly the same. But according to the government, I would no longer be exempt in the same way I was before I was shunned by or left the Amish church.

There are many Christians out there that don't affiliate with a formal denomination. I don't. But my faith is just as important to me as someone who does. What gives the courts the right to say that my beliefs aren't as worthy as someone else's?

I realize that they have to draw a line somewhere so that people don't abuse the system, but it seems extremely unfair for the people who are genuine in their beliefs and seems to be unconstitutional.

The courts don't say that. If you decide you want to get together with your like-minded friends and start a congregation, you could. You could take advantage of religious exemptions that apply to churches, including not paying for your employees' birth control.

So, if I own my own buggy-making shop, I could file with the courts and not have to pay for Social Security (because I plan to take care of my own) or my employees' birth control so long as I only sold my buggies to other Christians that believe the same things I do.

The purpose of an Amish business doesn't have to be religious in order to be exempt. They are just required to only sell to other Amish. According to what was posted above, in any other denomination, the purpose of the business has to be about the religion.

Am I wrong in this? I very well could be, this is just what I have always understood about Amish exemptions.

[wawa]

Aug 15, 2012 12:51:04 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Women's rights
Health care
Education
Affirmative action
Environmental policy
Prisoner rights/court reform
Immigration policy
Welfare/social safety net

Can we rewind for a second away from the ACA thing? I want to ask about this list of issues. So if these are the designated social issues - what is the expected conservative vs. liberal view on each?

some of them are easy - bootstraps vs. more skittles! type stuff. But prison reform? education? I'm not sure I understand what the liberal vs. conservative views on those are. It seems like there's a lot of overlap and back and forth between the main parties.

[aw]

Aug 15, 2012 14:01:04 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:51:25 GMT -5 aw said:

It still doesn't make sense to me. Let's say I'm Amish and I leave the church for whatever reason. I am no longer officially affiliated with the Amish church, don't attend formal church services, but my beliefs are exactly the same. But according to the government, I would no longer be exempt in the same way I was before I was shunned by or left the Amish church.

There are many Christians out there that don't affiliate with a formal denomination. I don't. But my faith is just as important to me as someone who does. What gives the courts the right to say that my beliefs aren't as worthy as someone else's?

I realize that they have to draw a line somewhere so that people don't abuse the system, but it seems extremely unfair for the people who are genuine in their beliefs and seems to be unconstitutional.

You, the individual Amish person, were never included to begin with. So there's nothing to exempt you from. The law requires BUSINESSES that provide health plans, to include contraceptive coverage in their plan. Your rogue Amish person is not a business and is not providing others with insurance. Presumably, he would be an employee of a company that provides such insurance to its employees, but if his religious convictions are so strong, I have no doubt he will refrain from drawing on that part of the policy.

I think we're blurring two things. There are business portions of ACA and individual portions. I only brought this up because we are talking about the government's ability to decide which denomations are worthy and which aren't.

Are the Amish exempt from the tax that they personally would incur if they don't have insurance? Can any other denomination do that?

[2vermont]

Aug 15, 2012 14:02:45 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:54:26 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

The courts don't say that. If you decide you want to get together with your like-minded friends and start a congregation, you could. You could take advantage of religious exemptions that apply to churches, including not paying for your employees' birth control.

So, if I own my own buggy-making shop, I could file with the courts and not have to pay for Social Security (because I plan to take care of my own) or my employees' birth control so long as I only sold my buggies to other Christians that believe the same things I do.

The purpose of an Amish business doesn't have to be religious in order to be exempt. They are just required to only sell to other Amish. According to what was posted above, in any other denomination, the purpose of the business has to be about the religion.

Am I wrong in this? I very well could be, this is just what I have always understood about Amish exemptions.

I think MrsA is correct..which isone of the possible results that Cardinal Dolan is talking about. I guess if Catholic Charities wants to avoid going against its faith, it will have to fire non-Catholic employees and only serve Catholics. Awesome.

[MrsAxilla]

Aug 15, 2012 14:02:45 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:54:26 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

The courts don't say that. If you decide you want to get together with your like-minded friends and start a congregation, you could. You could take advantage of religious exemptions that apply to churches, including not paying for your employees' birth control.

So, if I own my own buggy-making shop, I could file with the courts and not have to pay for Social Security (because I plan to take care of my own) or my employees' birth control so long as I only sold my buggies to other Christians that believe the same things I do.

The purpose of an Amish business doesn't have to be religious in order to be exempt. They are just required to only sell to other Amish. According to what was posted above, in any other denomination, the purpose of the business has to be about the religion.

Am I wrong in this? I very well could be, this is just what I have always understood about Amish exemptions.

I'm pretty sure the Amish are required to pay SS, although they tried to make the argument they were exempt for religious reasons. The SCOTUS didn't buy that, IIRC. We discussed that several months ago, I think. I don't believe a buggy-maker would count as a religious organization since his purpose is to sell buggies. But I'm not specifically familiar with the Amish.

[EllieArroway]

Aug 15, 2012 14:05:30 GMT -5 aw said:

Are the Amish exempt from the tax that they personally would incur if they don't have insurance? Can any other denomination do that?

As I understand it, Amish employees who work for non-Amish employers are required to pay SS. Amish employers are exempt, but not every Amish person is. I'm just guessing that it would be the same with the ACA.

[aw]

I just looked it up, I guess I was wrong. The Supreme Court said that only self-employed Amish do not have to pay Social Security. I wonder if other denominations are allowed to do this.

Also, does anyone know if the Amish are exempt from the ACA penalty tax?

[aw]

Aug 15, 2012 14:13:55 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:05:30 GMT -5 aw said:

I think we're blurring two things. There are business portions of ACA and individual portions. I only brought this up because we are talking about the government's ability to decide which denomations are worthy and which aren't.

Are the Amish exempt from the tax that they personally would incur if they don't have insurance? Can any other denomination do that?

What part of the ACA's contraception mandate do you think applies to you individually?

I should have been clearer. We were talking about how the government has the right to define what a religious institution is. I responded by saying apparently they also have a right to decide which religions or denominations are worthy of special exemptions. I wasn't specifically talking about the ACA contraception mandate, but the way the Amish are treated in general. It doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry. Wrong place to discuss this.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2012 13:50:17 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:44:45 GMT -5 y4m said:

Wasn't Obama's compromise for religious institutions something along the lines of "ok--you won't have to pay premiums for contraception, your insurance provider just has to provide those services for free."

Regardless of who you define as a religious institution, I never understood how exactly that's a compromise, since insurance companies aren't generally in the habit of just providing free coverage because the White House said so.

Or how about those religious institutions that self-insure??

The new laws cover self insured groups as well, unless they were eligible for waiver or are grandfathered.

[2vermont]

Aug 15, 2012 14:12:10 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:55:00 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Anyway, this wasn't what this OP was about...and I'll wait to see what the SCOTUS says when that happens.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. This is what Scalia had to say about it:

The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.

“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.

Employment Division v. Smith

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php

Not so clear cut as the rest of your article discusses:

Sadly for liberals, though, the legal basis for a challenge doesn’t end there. Apart from the First Amendment option, there’s another, more substantial judicial route that opponents of the birth control rule can take. After Smith was handed down, Congress passed a law to push back on the ruling, which Winkler said “attempts to provide more protection for religion than the Supreme Court was willing to give.”

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act said any law that burdens religious freedom must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court later said it cannot apply to states (which is why the 28 states that already have the birth control rule the White House wants to take nationwide are in the clear), but held that those requirements shall apply to federal laws. First, the law may not be a “substantial burden” and can only be an “incidental burden” on religious practices; second, it must be justified by “compelling government interest”; third, it must be narrowly tailored to pursue that interest.

Although it was an open question whether the original birth control requirement would pass this level of scrutiny, the White House’s announcement Friday allowing religious nonprofits to opt out (in which case the insurer would be forced to pay for birth control without a copay) appears to restrict the RFRA argument to overturn it.

“This neuters the RFRA arguments entirely, it seems to me,” Winkler told TPM after the announcement. “Now that religious institutions are no longer required to [pay for employees’ birth control coverage], it’s hard to make the argument that the contraception mandate substantially burden religious beliefs.”

Conservatives are less than satisfied with the White House accommodation and it’s unclear how the entities suing over the birth control requirement will react. But either way, one of their two possible routes to pushing back has had a huge impediment thrown in its path by none other than Antonin Scalia.

There were also comments made in the most recent SCOTUS decision on ACA that could be seen as against the HHS mandate.

LIke I said, I'll wait for an official decision on this *particular* matter...and bow out of this discussion for now. Besides, I have a trip I need to prepare for.

[wawa]

Aug 15, 2012 14:21:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:03:55 GMT -5 wawa said:

Can we rewind for a second away from the ACA thing? I want to ask about this list of issues. So if these are the designated social issues - what is the expected conservative vs. liberal view on each?

some of them are easy - bootstraps vs. more skittles! type stuff. But prison reform? education? I'm not sure I understand what the liberal vs. conservative views on those are. It seems like there's a lot of overlap and back and forth between the main parties.

These are not "the designated social issues." They are just a list that I came up with off the top of my head. I think the liberal view of education would be that everyone should get the same education, that it should not be dependent on one's financial position. It's pro subsidized student loans, anti-voucher. It's going to be anti prayer in school, anti-creationism in school. And it's going to be seen as a primary avenue for leveling the playing field.

The socially conservative view point (note: NOT merely the fiscally conservative view point) is that people rise and fall on their own merit so education is not a priority. Attempts to make it more affordable are pointless because those who deserve to go, will find a way to go. Attempts to even out funding between primary, secondary school is "unfair" because people who have made a lot of money deserve to have their money funneled to school their kids. Etc...

Prison reform and Criminal justice issues are very much the same. Liberal = prison for rehabilitiation, social conservative = prison for punishment.

sorry, I know you came up with that list off the top of your head. It looked like a good list to me, and I meant more if we agreed for the sake of discussion that these are the designated issues...

do basically social con = ayn rand? (or we could just move this to the new thread druid started. )

[druidp]

Education is absolutely important. We also feel choice in education is absolutely important, hence our favoring of vouchers - so families can use their tax dollars to select which school their kids can attend, even faith-based ones, although I know that brings the church-state separation to task. We tend to be anti-teachers-union... not that we want teachers to be left on their own, but that we don't think tenure automatically means a teacher who now sucks at their job should be untouchable, or be allowed to be paid while playing video games when they're not even teaching.

I do not agree with prayer in schools, though I'm fine if there are prayer clubs that wish to meet. (That goes for any religion.) So not sure if that skews me from the soc-con side. I kind of don't care about creationism being included either - to me, that's up to the parents and whatever faith they're following and want to see if the kid will follow. But I am all for promoting more critical thinking rather than trouncing poor little Johnny in class because he might bring up God when discussing the origins of life.

Attempts to make education more affordable are not pointless, but it's fairly impossible when contending with the teachers unions. And I believe a soc-con would worry about how to pay for making schools better, and to do so effectively.

But y'know, thanks SBP for speaking for us.

[y4m]

I associate Ayn Rand with fiscal conservatism definitely not social conservatism. In fact I think the Ayn Rand institute is pretty staunchly pro-choice.

[msmerymac]

Aug 15, 2012 13:51:05 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Aug 15, 2012 13:47:27 GMT -5 2vermont said:

from the link above:

How does a Catholic or other religious entity qualify for this exemption? It must be a non-profit organization under certain IRS guidelines, and must meet all of the following criteria:

- The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization;
-The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization;
-The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
Got that? The federal government is graciously allowing your parish church to consider itself Catholic. But, not much else would qualify.

So as SBP said, a Catholic school that hires priests and nuns (or other Catholics) to teach and only admits Catholic students would qualify for the exemption.

Chic-Fil-A does not hire only Christians and sells chicken to everyone who wants some. The purpose of CFA is not to promote Christianity; it's to sell chicken.

Except I don't think you can discriminate based on religion in employment (can you?). So a Catholic school can prefer a Catholic candidate, but they can't NOT hire someone who is qualified just because that person isn't Catholic.

So, basically, they're SOL. The government says that unless religion is integral to the position (like hiring a priest), you can't discriminate. But then if you hire people who are of a different faith, you no longer qualify for the exemption under ACA.

And while Catholic Charities and Catholic Universities hire and serve lots of people who aren't Catholic, both charity and education are integral to the Catholic faith - as is not discriminating against those is need. So again, SOL.

[y4m]

Aug 15, 2012 14:21:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

The socially conservative view point (note: NOT merely the fiscally conservative view point) is that people rise and fall on their own merit so education is not a priority. Attempts to make it more affordable are pointless because those who deserve to go, will find a way to go. Attempts to even out funding between primary, secondary school is "unfair" because people who have made a lot of money deserve to have their money funneled to school their kids. Etc...

Not merely the fiscally conservative viewpoint? Try not the fiscally conservative viewpoint at all.

[msmerymac]

Aug 15, 2012 14:03:55 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 15, 2012 12:51:04 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Women's rights
Health care
Education
Affirmative action
Environmental policy
Prisoner rights/court reform
Immigration policy
Welfare/social safety net

Can we rewind for a second away from the ACA thing? I want to ask about this list of issues. So if these are the designated social issues - what is the expected conservative vs. liberal view on each?

some of them are easy - bootstraps vs. more skittles! type stuff. But prison reform? education? I'm not sure I understand what the liberal vs. conservative views on those are. It seems like there's a lot of overlap and back and forth between the main parties.

IMO, prison = rehabilitation vs. punishment
education = public good vs. individual responsibility, also a semi-privitized program, like vouchers, would be a conservative view, as it wouldn't be as communal - you'd get to keep (get back) more of your tax dollars, lessening your tax burden, and use them to educate your child as you see fit, rather than the liberal view, which is that everyone should pay property taxes to their local school system, because good public schools across the board behoove us all - we end up with an education, functional population, who in turn enter the work force and are productive and then produce productive children of their own.

[wawa]

Aug 15, 2012 14:46:01 GMT -5 y4m said:

I associate Ayn Rand with fiscal conservatism definitely not social conservatism. In fact I think the Ayn Rand institute is pretty staunchly pro-choice.

I dunno, I think atlas shrugged (my only rand reference) comes off pretty staunchly anti stuff like welfare and affirmative action. Even things like Pell grants. subsidized job training and placement. subsidized child care. I could see Dagny Taggert turning her nose up at all of that.

But the Ayn Rand institute being pro-choice is kinda why i asked the question in the first place. I feel like we talk about being a social con or a social lib, and really we're only talking about abortion and gay rights. But obviously those aren't the only social issues, and I feel like the lines aren't nearly as easy to draw on the other issues that might fall under the social umbrella. I was curious where people see the divides on the less-discussed issues.

[MrsDL]

Aug 15, 2012 14:21:14 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

The socially conservative view point (note: NOT merely the fiscally conservative view point) is that people rise and fall on their own merit so education is not a priority. Attempts to make it more affordable are pointless because those who deserve to go, will find a way to go. Attempts to even out funding between primary, secondary school is "unfair" because people who have made a lot of money deserve to have their money funneled to school their kids. Etc...

I disagree with this - on the "front-end," conservatives most certainly believe equal quality education for students is necessary. It is on the back-end (after we receive the education we are entitled to), that conservatives believe outcomes are partly based on people rising and falling on their own merit.

The difference is in how to make it more competitive and more affordable. There are those that argue that subsidized student loans, for example, assist in making higher education LESS affordable for everyone. In the last decade or two subsidized student loan funding is the highest it has ever been, yet college tuition has continued to rise faster than the pace of costs. I'm not sure why it is necessary for a student loan to be subsidized. This can also encourage bad behavior - people going to school and dropping out, yet still oweing loans. People not being as thoughtful as perhaps they should be in terms of a major, etc.

The disagreements is based on how each side feels the disparity should be addressed, not as to whether these disparities exist or whether they should be addressed at all. I'd argue that liberals, of late, have done nothing to reform education and give everyone the same quality. What is the liberal solution? I won't get into how the unions may adversely impact all of this - but there are bad teachers that are impossible to get rid of, and it's not the conservative philosophy to protect them because "bootstraps" - if your kid is smart and has some drive he/she will do just fine, even if he/she has craptastic teachers.

[msmerymac]

Aug 15, 2012 14:54:09 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:46:01 GMT -5 y4m said:

I associate Ayn Rand with fiscal conservatism definitely not social conservatism. In fact I think the Ayn Rand institute is pretty staunchly pro-choice.

I dunno, I think atlas shrugged (my only rand reference) comes off pretty staunchly anti stuff like welfare and affirmative action. Even things like Pell grants. subsidized job training and placement. subsidized child care. I could see Dagny Taggert turning her nose up at all of that.

But the Ayn Rand institute being pro-choice is kinda why i asked the question in the first place. I feel like we talk about being a social con or a social lib, and really we're only talking about abortion and gay rights. But obviously those aren't the only social issues, and I feel like the lines aren't nearly as easy to draw on the other issues that might fall under the social umbrella. I was curious where people see the divides on the less-discussed issues.

But all that stuff also bleeds into fiscal issues. And they're not saying that people shouldn't get help - just that individuals shouldn't be forced by the government to provide funds that are then used to provide things like social welfare or education that the individual might not agree with. The individual should be left to decide for him or herself if he or she wants to donate 30% of their income to helping poor single parents afford food, or if they want to use their money to provide housing for homeless children, or if they want to provide job training for people on parole. Not that none of these causes are worthy in and of themselves.

[y4m]

Aug 15, 2012 14:54:09 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:46:01 GMT -5 y4m said:

I associate Ayn Rand with fiscal conservatism definitely not social conservatism. In fact I think the Ayn Rand institute is pretty staunchly pro-choice.

I dunno, I think atlas shrugged (my only rand reference) comes off pretty staunchly anti stuff like welfare and affirmative action. Even things like Pell grants. subsidized job training and placement. subsidized child care. I could see Dagny Taggert turning her nose up at all of that.

But the Ayn Rand institute being pro-choice is kinda why i asked the question in the first place. I feel like we talk about being a social con or a social lib, and really we're only talking about abortion and gay rights. But obviously those aren't the only social issues, and I feel like the lines aren't nearly as easy to draw on the other issues that might fall under the social umbrella. I was curious where people see the divides on the less-discussed issues.

I see social conservativism as the church stuff--abortion, gays, moral stuff that doesn't really cost money. Fiscal is what should we spend money on, so the programs you're taking about above I see as fiscal issues.

That said, I'd call myself a fiscal conservative to the core, and I still support significant spending on education and programs like subsidized child care to help make education possible. Not at the federal level, because it's just not ever going to be provided efficiently from there. But at the state/local levels, absolutely.

[wawa]

Aug 15, 2012 14:58:17 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:54:09 GMT -5 wawa said:

I dunno, I think atlas shrugged (my only rand reference) comes off pretty staunchly anti stuff like welfare and affirmative action. Even things like Pell grants. subsidized job training and placement. subsidized child care. I could see Dagny Taggert turning her nose up at all of that.

But the Ayn Rand institute being pro-choice is kinda why i asked the question in the first place. I feel like we talk about being a social con or a social lib, and really we're only talking about abortion and gay rights. But obviously those aren't the only social issues, and I feel like the lines aren't nearly as easy to draw on the other issues that might fall under the social umbrella. I was curious where people see the divides on the less-discussed issues.

But all that stuff also bleeds into fiscal issues. And they're not saying that people shouldn't get help - just that individuals shouldn't be forced by the government to provide funds that are then used to provide things like social welfare or education that the individual might not agree with. The individual should be left to decide for him or herself if he or she wants to donate 30% of their income to helping poor single parents afford food, or if they want to use their money to provide housing for homeless children, or if they want to provide job training for people on parole. Not that none of these causes are worthy in and of themselves.

No...the characters in Atlas shrugged were pretty opposed to personal charity just as much as gov't welfare.

I mean, maybe I totally misunderstood the book, but the idea I got was that that anybody worth helping will make it worth your while to help them, and that pure selfless charity is actually a bad thing.

I have no idea what the rand istitute is in favor of now though, I just know what I got from that book. So maybe I'm totally off. I do actually agree with you that what you're describing is what I think of as a social conservative viewpoint - I was trying to undertand better what SBP was describing with my Ayn Rand comment, not saying that I think social cons = rand.

[IIOY]

Aug 15, 2012 14:59:54 GMT -5 y4m said:

That said, I'd call myself a fiscal conservative to the core, and I still support significant spending on education and programs like subsidized child care to help make education possible. Not at the federal level, because it's just not ever going to be provided efficiently from there. But at the state/local levels, absolutely.

I absolutely support spending on education and associated child care. From my perspective this is the logical position for a fiscal conservative because a well-educated society is more likely to build a successful economy and less likely to be a net drain on the state.

[msmerymac]

Ah, okay, I haven't read Ayn Rand's actual work, to be fair.

[wawa]

Aug 15, 2012 14:59:54 GMT -5 y4m said:

Aug 15, 2012 14:54:09 GMT -5 wawa said:

I dunno, I think atlas shrugged (my only rand reference) comes off pretty staunchly anti stuff like welfare and affirmative action. Even things like Pell grants. subsidized job training and placement. subsidized child care. I could see Dagny Taggert turning her nose up at all of that.

But the Ayn Rand institute being pro-choice is kinda why i asked the question in the first place. I feel like we talk about being a social con or a social lib, and really we're only talking about abortion and gay rights. But obviously those aren't the only social issues, and I feel like the lines aren't nearly as easy to draw on the other issues that might fall under the social umbrella. I was curious where people see the divides on the less-discussed issues.

I see social conservativism as the church stuff--abortion, gays, moral stuff that doesn't really cost money. Fiscal is what should we spend money on, so the programs you're taking about above I see as fiscal issues.

That said, I'd call myself a fiscal conservative to the core, and I still support significant spending on education and programs like subsidized child care to help make education possible. Not at the federal level, because it's just not ever going to be provided efficiently from there. But at the state/local levels, absolutely.

got it. Makes sense.

[IIOY]

Aug 15, 2012 15:05:15 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Ah, okay, I haven't read Ayn Rand's actual work, to be fair.

FWIW, I've never managed to get through an Ayn Rand book. My hat is off to anyone who can tolerate the atrocious writing.

[ttt]

Aug 15, 2012 15:07:28 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 15, 2012 15:05:15 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Ah, okay, I haven't read Ayn Rand's actual work, to be fair.

FWIW, I've never managed to get through an Ayn Rand book. My hat is off to anyone who can tolerate the atrocious writing.

My liberal confession is that I thought she was brilliant when I was an angsty misunderstood 15 year old.

[Deleted]

Just chiming in to say that I'm waiting for school vouchers to fix Milwaukee Public Schools. Still waiting. Stiiiiilllllll waiting.