Just means how the government should handle peoples money really.

It all comes down to wether you think wealth should be shared or earned..

Someone whos fiscally liberal would believe that the rich should be taxed more than the poor because they have more money. This money should be used to make the lives of the poor easier. They also believe in nationalising industry like power, hospitals, schools and so on because they think thhey can do a better job(even if it costs more). It ultimatly leads to socialism were all wealth is shared evenly between every person in a state (exept its leaders).

To be fiscally conservative would be to believe in a system were all income brackets would pay a much smaller more even portion of there salary. Its the idea that money has to be earned and once you make it the goverment has no right taking it away and giving it to people who are poorer or 'don't try as hard'. Every buisness and industry should be privatised the government has no right wasting money trying to control public services.To be fiscally conservative is to hate ideas like welfare and universal healthcare and to only share there wealth if they want to like to charitys.

So more sharing? or more earning? or somewere in between..

__________________
Left sucks! so visit our new group! Obama is a Joke!

This position seeks to devalue human life, undermines the rights inherent in that life and promotes the interests of those that have intentionally stripped others of their inalienable rights.

So yeah, I'd have to say that this position belongs behind the label of Socialist.

Hay we haven't found out about her economic views yet.. she could be a full blown freedom fighter for all we know.

__________________
Left sucks! so visit our new group! Obama is a Joke!

There are no socialist freedom fighters. Socialists are oppressors.

Of coarse but she wouldn't be a socialist is she believed in free trade, the right to property and so on..

__________________
Left sucks! so visit our new group! Obama is a Joke!

That's true, which is how we know she is not for either. There is a myth that a person can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

There is no truth to that myth. The principles which are set aside to be a social liberal are inescapably necessary to be a fiscal conservative.

One is either conservative or one is not.

For instance, if a human being is not in possession of an inalienable right to life, then on what grounds would they be in possession of an inalienable right to their private property or to freely exchange in goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties, and to the inalienable righ to the exclusive use of the product of those exchanges towards the fulfillment of your life?

I beg to differ! Both conservative and liberal sides seek authorative power but have different ideas of how it should be imposed. Ones imposing on social rights and the other economic. But there is not reason one cannot be a libertarian and simple believe that no form of restriction on any right is acceptable.

I see what you mean. The right to abortion could make other fiscal rights to property and prosperity invalid. But if that was the case it would also impede on the social rights liberals wish to protect. But by many abortion is not seen as restricting the rights to life (which im not going to debate) because they do not value a fetus as a life. So if it impedes on other rights (both social and fiscal) is really a matter of your own personal beliefs. Its a choice to stay in the old left to right spectrum.

__________________
Left sucks! so visit our new group! Obama is a Joke!