8/9/2010 8:01:07 PM I think the social/fiscal conservative description is a flash in the pan. There are Liberals who could fall under the social-conservative moniker as well as conservatives who are Liberal in their social moors. Consider the classic example of the issue of Abortion. There are quite a few Liberals who voted to create legislation regarding it. Or for another oft-used example gun control. Heck there were even NDP people who voted to withdraw the long gun registry. These at least are the purview of what some call social conservationism. No the matter of profligacy is first of all anti-social-conservative. Especially if one of the definers of that "ism" is the old Protestant work ethic. Profligacy and excess is far from that proverbial tree. The issue of the Conservatives being socially vs fiscally conservative is a false one from the get-go. The matter is further magnified by some of the points you made visa vis prudent fiscal management. Conservatives by tradition should be fiscally prudent. But of course we haven't seen that since Joe Clark, or Ross Stanfield, or Dief himself. While it is true Conservatism should be marked by fiscal prudence, it is even more defined by reducing taxes and size of government. The "surplus" issue is bunk. That money was Canadian taxpayers hard earned dollars. Conservatives believe a dollar is best in the pockets of citizens instead of coalescing by the billions in government coffers--begging to be spent on some new larger government project. No more irksome a tax was and is the Gst/Hst. The 2% cut most say is roughly equal that surplus. The problem with that tax is that it taxes disproportionally the poor(albeit offset somewhat for the poorest among us). The poor spend 100% of their money on life's essentials--no pension plans, no bank accounts with much but zeroes. The middle and upper classes, spend proportionally less on consumption--never worrying about their next meal, but banking that cash in investments etc. 1 0 Report Abuse
Alethia		8/9/2010 8:13:30 PM Even so, I thought when the GST was first conceived that it was good because it was a tax the rich could not avoid. So let them buy that Mercedes, so long as that tax brought in extra funds for good government. Anyway, I digress from the central issue that is again deceptive in its spin. That "surplus" was money taken from Canadian tax payers that shouldn't have been. Government should not make money on the backs of the taxpayers. It should ideally break even. When I look at the G20 nations, many of whom have debt equal to or greater than their GDP, I shudder. To be honest, and I hate to say it, the "recovery" may stutter, or fall in to what in retrospect we will say a depression. Printing presses from national banks/central reserves are going into over drive. How the heck with the US be able to pay back 50k per person PLUS interest? Unless everyone gets to cancel their debt by at least 50% of their Gdp, we are in for frightening taxation and inflation. These are the worries of conservatives, who want to conserve something for the future.