Fiscally liberal, socially conservative

Why isn't there a party like this? What politician matches this description in the USA?

Keynesians?

Populist I think.
Pretty sure theres not a party for it but I dont give a fuck about politics.

fiscal liberal policies under a globalist corporatocracy? In a supra-elite democracy? not gonna happen

That sounds awful

>why has the most impossibly retarded ideological posion on the planet been removed from the gene pool

DUNNO BRO
MUST BE COINCIDENCE

>Fiscally liberal, socially conservative

literally hitler

populists aren't liberal
that sounds more like neocons to me

Wasn't this pretty much Hillary right before she had to change her stances to fit CURRENT YEAR standards?

Kys statist scum

Fiscal liberal = investment into economy
socially conservative = maintaining western culture

What part of that is wrong?

neocons are socially liberal. well, they're basically Israel-firsters, they dont care much about domestic polocy.

Becoming fiscally liberal is a privilege that can only be conquered once the people in the society become concerned with the well being of the whole in a moral level, so that instead of using capitalism as a mean to selfishly enrich oneself at the expense of others, the act of enterprising is directed with the intention of providing services that are useful and of high quality, so one can easily argue this goes hand in hand with social conservatism.
That said, the jews have a complete hold on the concept of "making money" and have corrupted it to its very core, attaching it to a culture of excess and degeneracy which glorifies cash as the single measure of success, making it very difficult to make one both rich, successful, and morally righteous.

>but I dont give a fuck about politics.

why the hell are you here and commenting even?

You mean natsocs?

Im disappointed in you Italy. I thought you moved passed the Axis powers.

tisk tisk

If america actually had a 3rd party offering nationalist platforms, maybe they wouldn't be in the clusterfuck they are now

>Fiscal liberal = investment into economy

governments do not make money they steal money

Fiscal liberal = run out of money then steal more money from the productive until they stop being productive

think its time to close the tab on poes law
nothing personal kid

Wouldn't fiscally liberal just mean bigger government? That's the polar opposite of investment in the economy. Gov't does nothing but eat up money and give extremely little return.

nope, many western societies have helped develop industry and manufacturing creating jobs and investment

Isn't that what National Socialism is ?

>Wouldn't fiscally liberal just mean bigger government?

No, it wouldn't.

literally just described national socialism
kek, underageb&

Prudent government investment into the economy can coexist with private enterprise.

That's essentially exactly what Trump was. There's only so far nationalist you can go before people saying LITERALLY HITLER begin being correct.

You just blew my mind.
I see the path now, the path to recovering my life.
Thanks user, ((You)) really made me think.

well, liberal and conservative for economics has been swapped and changed too many times so im confused as to what it really means.

I'm economically free market capitalist and socially conservative.

Time for school little one

Best political ideology is called 'National Conservatism'

Basically centrist economics (reasonable yet small welfare, instead of gibmedats for single moms), with a conservative/nationalist society.

we're the only axis power left

Isn't that exactly what Trump supporters are?

I think one of the reasons he got elected was that he promised his rural and suburban retard supporters that he'd keep the gibsmedats train rolling but he'd also crack down on faggots and niggers and now they're all pissed off because they're going to die without health insurance.

This is exactly what European states thought they were heading towards in the 80s and 90s before the magic of diversity and tolerance mandated by the EU destroyed it.

This combination works for a relatively small, culturally and racially homogenous society who stress personal reliance as a mandate at all levels of society so the generous welfare state isn't abused. With a reliably efficient population, the government knows it's R&D dollars wont be wasted. There also needs to be some kind of ethno/civic nationalist streak to resist what happened to Europe.

Most people are financially illiterate, also define "fiscally conservative" as this term is base and meaningless. You never make money by saving. Never once have I heard of a person becoming a millionaire via savings. While it is true that one must physically conserve their cash flow, to establish wealth flow often requires debt.

That would be the Nazi party.
Literally.
National, Socialist.

Excellent explanation.

The government has no money. You're just saying "the taxpayers will fund the governments investment ventures". Why not just let people keep more of their money and invest it as they please?

>The government has no money. You're just saying "the taxpayers will fund the governments investment ventures". Why not just let people keep more of their money and invest it as they please?

Concentration of wealth leads to misallocation of capital.

Mr Shekelgruber might not want to make the critical investments a nation needs (research/infrastructure). Why not tax him and make those investments?

Because social conservatism helps the strongest in society and liberal fiscal policy helps the weakest in society. They don't mesh.

>I don't give a fuck about politics
>is on Sup Forums

depends on how fiscally liberal we're talking

do you want a socialist model? corporatist? capitalist with high taxes? it depends famalam

i'm actually curious of pol's thoughts on corporatism

I wouldn't mind a Katter's Australia type party in America.

Equal opportunity helps the best; no matter income, compete with others. It actually enhances inequality because it sees man as a qualitative being instead of a quantitative one.

Not if your production output is larger than your credit expansion.

>I don't know what opportunity cost is
>I cannot into bastiat

The belief that man is inequal repudiates capitalism.

Obama.

He's actually pretty socially-conservative if you think about it.

lel

It's called Nazis.

Catholics

I don't believe in private property and devoutly against capitalism. But believe equal opportunity but not equal results is the best mindset. If people are inherently inequal qualitatively then equal opportunity and a guild system works best.

yes

>Concentration of wealth leads to misallocation of capital

Yes because that's definitely not what you're doing when you give governments trillions of taxpayers money to apparently marginally lower the wealth of the richest few so that the marginal money you skimmed off of them doesn't get "misallocated" by whatever undefined, hazy standards you're operating under.

>Mr Shekelgruber might not want to make the critical investments a nation needs (research/infrastructure).

Maybe Mr Shekelgruber has a better idea what to do with his own money than a dog whistling Wop who has no concept of opportunity cost and thinks the black nigger catladies that staff the enormous, bloated bureaucracies to throw at special interest groups and the dregs of society so that they can bolster Democrat turnout actually do know what to do with other people's money.

>Fiscally liberal, socially conservative

>"Women need to get back to the kitchen and stay chaste and obedient, but I don't want to work and I still want my NEET-bux so I can live a comfy life with other people's money."

Sounds like a retarded system.