>What do you mean by 'fiscally conservative'? You want the Government to lower taxes and lower benefits and such, is that right?

To me it means balancing the budget and actually working off debt. Right now, that means higher taxes. Being responsible with the treasury rather than borrowing with no intent to pay it back. Spending responsibly and ensuring the spending is not wasteful or kickbacks to political cronies, etc.

Why is paying off debt so important when long-term interest rates are so low? For example, the yield on 30-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities is currently 0.92%. If the government sold these bonds to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, wouldn't that boost the economy enough to outweigh the increase in debt?

https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bon...

Government debt is a burden on the next generation - in that light, some consider it immoral.

Cool, so let's pull out of all wars and use that money to repay the debt. Win/win, right?

I'm fine with that and not policing the world. Money wasted.

Is it necessarily a burden to have debt if it is coupled with infrastructure assets? Don't you need to quantify the debt relative to the assets in order to say whether it's a burden or benefit?

That's an interesting point I hadn't noticed before.

Everyone downvoting the comment should read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

It's because the US is slightly messed up in the sense that there's a group of people people who say that they care about "free market" and "less government spending and regulations". At the same time, these people also support protectionism, closed borders and government regulation on things they don't agree with.

On the other side, there's a group that is often called liberal, who support open borders and (often) free international trade, but don't tend to agree with capitalism because they think it increases inequality.

There don't seem to be any true liberals (if you look at the two groups that the US is always talking about) in the full sense of 'economic liberalism'.

You are in error.

There's a major political party which has been saying "free market", "less spending and regulations", and only turned protectionist as of the last election (Republicans) with the election of a populist president. This change hasn't pleased everyone associated with the party. You can read many editorials inveighing against Trump's economic policies in the Wall Street Journal, for instance - whilst also finding plenty of disdain for his erstwhile political opponent Hillary Clinton.

(Concerns about their desire to regulate other things are not addressed by this comment.)

There's also the Libertarians, certainly a minor party, but one which has been consistently against protectionism for longer than I've been alive, and is likely to remain that way until I'm dead.

I don't think so, these groups exist, you're just assuming I'm talking about the parties. But the weird thing in the US is that Democrat and Republican are becoming more and more an identity instead of a political representation of its followers. Trump, who was despised within the party in the primaries, won because the voters wanted a person like him. At the same time, many democrats despised Clinton, but the party wanted her as the candidate and worked against Sanders.

Much of this is caused by a two party system fuelled by hate for the other party. Now I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as an outsider, this is what it looks like.

Here in the Netherlands, one of the two biggest parties of the elections 4 years ago, practically disappeared because its voters disagreed with what they did during the last 4 years. So they all moved to parties that seemed to better represent their viewpoints. Something like this is just impossible in the US and moving between the two parties is often as difficult as dropping a religion, since many people are tied to their parties through friends and family. I've experienced all of this while living in the US and am still seeing this on Facebook.

> There's a major political party which has been saying "free market", "less spending and regulations", and only turned protectionist as of the last election (Republicans

I've noticed republicans and (so-called) libertarians being protectionist long before last election, so I think that's a bit of a non-point.

All parties are hypocritical in practise, so I'll take your point. For the Trump election, they really sold the protectionism in a way they hadn't before, though. Full-on "Down with NAFTA!" etc.

The simple fact is, people really aren't that principled, at least not in the binary Dem vs Rep "two party" system we have. People are interested in one thing. That is, them selves. And they really don't care (read: aren't willing to take action) unless the issue directly effect their back yard.

The idea that America and Americans are principled is a myth. Note: That's not a judgement. Simply an analysis of the historial facts.

Fiscally conservative means holding back on public spending and not seeing the government as the best user of societies money. So they favor lower taxes i.e. less state involvement.

Liberal means a lot of different things based on the context.

Liberal can mean a lot of different things depending on the context. The classical usage though is more individual freedom less state (from the enlightenment) the US version is more like Social Liberalism (vs. Social Conservatism).

> What do you mean by 'fiscally conservative'? You want the Government to lower taxes and lower benefits and such, is that right?

Not quite. I do want lower taxes and less government in people's lives, as long as that benefits the people. I have less of a problem with welfare than people might think, though I believe we'd benefit more overall from a universal basic income as long as it's funded wholly from dismantling existing welfare programs rather than as an addition to them. That eliminates tons of bureaucracy, overspending, and politicians mooching off loopholes in the existing system. I concede though, that at this stage it's nothing more than a pipe dream.