Helping people back on their feet, if anything, should result in a stronger fiscal future, not a weaker one. Just letting people languish in unemployment tends to result in people acquiring physical health problems, mental health problems, even drug dependency. And then those people get stuck on the disability rolls, draining taxes rather than contributing them.
Just look at all the stories around opioid abuse throughout rural white areas/the rust belt; you think those places are setting us up for a stronger fiscal situation in the future?
I would have to say I haven't seen anything from either party that would address any of that, directly or indirectly. The problems you describe have been ignored for years.
Except they didn't vote for a fiscal conservative, they voted for a guy whose primary policy proposals are tax cuts and public works programs. So they're stealing from the future either way.
If Cruz or Rubio or Ryan had been the GOP nominee, I would take your comment more seriously.
From my point of view, no candidate running for President had any fiscal conservative views. Some of the them could talk-the-talk and spit out a few keywords to the media, but none of them really had it if one would look at them hard enough. The Republican party hasn't supported the notion of a fiscal conservative in decades. So the voters went with the candidate that spoke out against the establishment.
Also, there are types of Presidents that can work on a decent future without being a fiscal conservative, it's not a requirement. We'll have to see how it plays out with Trump.
Just look at all the stories around opioid abuse throughout rural white areas/the rust belt; you think those places are setting us up for a stronger fiscal situation in the future?