are you high?
Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
are you high?
I was the only person that gave any direct substantive answer to the topic question.
Everything else was off topic.
There were a few people who were on the side of eliminating debt based gov spending, but Franklin and PKM derailed the discussions before they could get anywhere.
The short story is that PKM and Scat quickly abandoned their previous positions rather than attempt to support them. If PKM used just a fraction of the effort he used not answering the question to answer the question, he might have been able to answer the question. Scat still believes that debt based gov spending should be phased out, but he abandoned the discussion. Other people appear to support that side, but they got shot down fast and never transitioned to addressing the question, clearly stated in the OP.
Everything else was off topic.
There were a few people who were on the side of eliminating debt based gov spending, but Franklin and PKM derailed the discussions before they could get anywhere.
The short story is that PKM and Scat quickly abandoned their previous positions rather than attempt to support them. If PKM used just a fraction of the effort he used not answering the question to answer the question, he might have been able to answer the question. Scat still believes that debt based gov spending should be phased out, but he abandoned the discussion. Other people appear to support that side, but they got shot down fast and never transitioned to addressing the question, clearly stated in the OP.
Last edited:
Not a critique North but everythread flows. No thread stays on the exact initial point forever. It may have started at point A but it can end up at point B-Z at any time.
No, that's how I type stone-cold sober.
To the contrary, I believe everyone answered the question. To SIMPLY stop spending what w don't have would be disastrous. I don't recall seeing anyone suggest otherwise. It's just that no smart person would want to answer an isolated question that is far more complicated if answered responsibly.
I may revisit this thread, but I don't see wasting much more time stating things that I feel should be fairly obvious only to have it fall on deaf ears.
I may revisit this thread, but I don't see wasting much more time stating things that I feel should be fairly obvious only to have it fall on deaf ears.
Not all the Republicans agree with you. If you and F didn't make 50 diversionary posts, maybe we could have got some substance from some of them.
You or others could certainly have chosen to argue that the changes be phased in, and answer the question on that basis,
or address the question on the basis of the hypothetical, as in : what would the world be like if there were no debt financed gov spending in the past?
You or others could certainly have chosen to argue that the changes be phased in, and answer the question on that basis,
or address the question on the basis of the hypothetical, as in : what would the world be like if there were no debt financed gov spending in the past?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Republicans are better at organizing around parsimonious one-liners. These are the "virtues" about which they will not compromise ("if the government would just stop spending money it didn't have;" "seems pretty simple, actually"). These are very effective hubs around which support is rallied -- and these supporters don't necessarily have to understand the full-scale repercussions of their positions because any supposed ill caused in the HERE and NOW is explained away as a painful change for a better tomorrow (for more on this see Povinelli's new book Economies of Abandonment). In this way, these "political virtues" tap into moral ideologies that look a lot like religion or are explicitly religious (see Jazzspazz). Separation between church and State, eh? Protestant work ethic is still the political motto of our era.
Democrats have different affect-laden organizing criteria.
Democrats have different affect-laden organizing criteria.
I looked into your Son of Boss stuff yesterday. It was pretty damn funny the logic being used by the selling brokers. I got a good chuckle at the extreme lengths they took to avoid taxes. Justia has a follow up to the original case and has a long bullet point list summarizing the mechanism. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/09-5007/09-5007-2011-03-27.html I don't see how Romney explains this one away.
It's a good thing Ronald Reagan implemented legislation that was able to stop these kinds of loopholes (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982).
It's a good thing Ronald Reagan implemented legislation that was able to stop these kinds of loopholes (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982).
You mean Democrats like to talk in circles chasing their own tails, while not understanding anything about the big picture. (see naos) See, I can call names too. I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks onto you... bam!!! ha ha, I win, no take backs.... infiniti. Yo mama.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
nice. Thanks for the link.
Thanks for chiming in with "nothing of substance". You are welcome naos for posting this in your behalf.
Again Thriller, you chime in with your own agenda and know nothing of which you speak.