peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,940
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Oct 9, 2020 12:26:13 GMT
The smaller government aspect is important to my dh. I'm sure you're correct - I mean, Trump has been a big spender (but he doesn't care about anything - he has no real beliefs). So much of it probably doesn't end up being how much is spent but where the money is going, I suppose. I love that people are still fixated on "small government" = GOP while Trump's blown a $3T hole in the budget giving money back to the richest of the rich. Trust me, he hates Trump. Probably more than I do, which is saying something. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 12:43:45 GMT
I think people need to be careful of generalizations. I think government spending is out of control but I also support social programs. And I’m black. I’ve also benefited from social programs like first time homebuyer down payment assistance due to being an educator, public service loan forgiveness, and others. I’m sorry people don’t believe you can be against outrageous government spending and still believe in helping people, but I have many friends also in this category. This is why people get pushed away from the Democratic Party. It sucks to be told you don’t care about minorities when that can’t be further from the truth. I would hazard a guess that 99.9% of people would say they're against "outrageous" government spending. What's more outrageous though? Spending on corporate welfare? Or spending on getting the poor, the old, the disabled healthcare, education, food assistance, etc. Your "outrageous" might = someone else' needs. So let's be careful about generalizing both ways, okay? |
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,710 
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Oct 9, 2020 12:47:46 GMT
I think people need to be careful of generalizations. I think government spending is out of control but I also support social programs. And I’m black. I’ve also benefited from social programs like first time homebuyer down payment assistance due to being an educator, public service loan forgiveness, and others. I’m sorry people don’t believe you can be against outrageous government spending and still believe in helping people, but I have many friends also in this category. This is why people get pushed away from the Democratic Party. It sucks to be told you don’t care about minorities when that can’t be further from the truth. I would hazard a guess that 99.9% of people would say they're against "outrageous" government spending. What's more outrageous though? Spending on corporate welfare? Or spending on getting the poor, the old, the disabled healthcare, education, food assistance, etc. Your "outrageous" might = someone else' needs. So let's be careful about generalizing both ways, okay? Touché. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I can apologize for generalizing, but can you? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 12:53:30 GMT
I would hazard a guess that 99.9% of people would say they're against "outrageous" government spending. What's more outrageous though? Spending on corporate welfare? Or spending on getting the poor, the old, the disabled healthcare, education, food assistance, etc. Your "outrageous" might = someone else' needs. So let's be careful about generalizing both ways, okay? Touché. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I can apologize for generalizing, but can you? Sure. Point out my generalizations and I'll apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 9, 2020 12:54:49 GMT
I would hazard a guess that 99.9% of people would say they're against "outrageous" government spending. What's more outrageous though? Spending on corporate welfare? Or spending on getting the poor, the old, the disabled healthcare, education, food assistance, etc. Your "outrageous" might = someone else' needs. So let's be careful about generalizing both ways, okay? Touché. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I can apologize for generalizing, but can you? In my post, I stated that I was curious what "fiscally conservative" means these days. Based on what I see and hear from people, it seems to be code for "I don't want to pay into social programs." That is backed up by R's comments towards D's saying they want to give people everything for free, are socialist, etc. But then there is no outrage when their candidates increase the national debt by increasing military spending, tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy, etc. Makes me speculate that the real issue is who the money is going to. At one time I probably would have described myself the same way. But I don't think it means what I thought it did (or the term has changed). But if you have a better explanation, I am all for hearing it. |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,053
|
Post by Olan on Oct 9, 2020 12:57:01 GMT
|
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,710
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Oct 9, 2020 12:57:50 GMT
Touché. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I can apologize for generalizing, but can you? Sure. Point out my generalizations and I'll apologize. “ "Small government" = "don't spend money on the poors or the browns or the blacks." |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 13:00:42 GMT
Sure. Point out my generalizations and I'll apologize. “ "Small government" = "don't spend money on the poors or the browns or the blacks." Yes. I should have said "to FAR TOO MANY "small government" conservatives, "small government" = "don't spend money on the poors or the browns or the blacks, but spending BILLIONS on corporate welfare, meh" |
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,710
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Oct 9, 2020 13:13:22 GMT
Touché. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I can apologize for generalizing, but can you? In my post, I stated that I was curious what "fiscally conservative" means these days. Based on what I see and hear from people, it seems to be code for "I don't want to pay into social programs." That is backed up by R's comments towards D's saying they want to give people everything for free, are socialist, etc. But then there is no outrage when their candidates increase the national debt by increasing military spending, tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy, etc. Makes me speculate that the real issue is who the money is going to. At one time I probably would have described myself the same way. But I don't think it means what I thought it did (or the term has changed). But if you have a better explanation, I am all for hearing it. I don’t because I agree with you. I just read an article the other day that said most fiscally conservative voters voted for Trump in 2016. 🤢 What they didn’t report was the party of most of those voters. I think there’s a fundamental difference between registerd Democrat a being fiscally conservative and registered Republicans being fiscally conservative. But because none of my ideas are radical (like taking money from those who need it the most), they’re not newsworthy, so nobody ever reports on that. But I agree with the points in your post. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 13:27:58 GMT
In my post, I stated that I was curious what "fiscally conservative" means these days. Based on what I see and hear from people, it seems to be code for "I don't want to pay into social programs." That is backed up by R's comments towards D's saying they want to give people everything for free, are socialist, etc. But then there is no outrage when their candidates increase the national debt by increasing military spending, tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy, etc. Makes me speculate that the real issue is who the money is going to. At one time I probably would have described myself the same way. But I don't think it means what I thought it did (or the term has changed). But if you have a better explanation, I am all for hearing it. I don’t because I agree with you. I just read an article the other day that said most fiscally conservative voters voted for Trump in 2016. 🤢 What they didn’t report was the party of most of those voters. I think there’s a fundamental difference between registerd Democrat a being fiscally conservative and registered Republicans being fiscally conservative. But because none of my ideas are radical (like taking money from those who need it the most), they’re not newsworthy, so nobody ever reports on that. But I agree with the points in your post. I would hazard another guess that Dems mostly consider themselves "fiscally conservative". Because, seriously, what's the alternative?!?!? "fiscally profligate?!!?!?" Few would consider themselves that. And I guess YOU don't see that it's a back-handed insult when you say "Oh, I'M fiscally conservative". Yeah? ME TOO!!! It's just that I consider it a good FISCAL decision to not make people be ULTRA RICH or ANXIOUS POOR because it leads to a society in decline and violence. I consider it "fiscally conservative" to have a society where the rich can be rich, but they can't be SUPER RICH (to be defined communally and democratically) while we have homeless vets, people who can't get a job because the jobs have moved overseas OR they're primarily for those w/higher intelligence than some people have.... Etc. So, while you may have found my generalization to be an insult to you, I find your "oh, I'm fiscally conservative" to be one to me. |
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,710
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Oct 9, 2020 13:40:56 GMT
I don’t because I agree with you. I just read an article the other day that said most fiscally conservative voters voted for Trump in 2016. 🤢 What they didn’t report was the party of most of those voters. I think there’s a fundamental difference between registerd Democrat a being fiscally conservative and registered Republicans being fiscally conservative. But because none of my ideas are radical (like taking money from those who need it the most), they’re not newsworthy, so nobody ever reports on that. But I agree with the points in your post. I would hazard another guess that Dems mostly consider themselves "fiscally conservative". Because, seriously, what's the alternative?!?!? "fiscally profligate?!!?!?" Few would consider themselves that. And I guess YOU don't see that it's a back-handed insult when you say "Oh, I'M fiscally conservative". Yeah? ME TOO!!! It's just that I consider it a good FISCAL decision to not make people be ULTRA RICH or ANXIOUS POOR because it leads to a society in decline and violence. I consider it "fiscally conservative" to have a society where the rich can be rich, but they can't be SUPER RICH (to be defined communally and democratically) while we have homeless vets, people who can't get a job because the jobs have moved overseas OR they're primarily for those w/higher intelligence than some people have.... Etc. So, while you may have found my generalization to be an insult to you, I find your "oh, I'm fiscally conservative" to be one to me. And that’s fine. I respect your opinion. I just don’t want to be lumped into the idea that beinf fiscally conservative means I oppose social programs for those who need them. That’s the only issue I took issue with. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 13:43:15 GMT
I would hazard another guess that Dems mostly consider themselves "fiscally conservative". Because, seriously, what's the alternative?!?!? "fiscally profligate?!!?!?" Few would consider themselves that. And I guess YOU don't see that it's a back-handed insult when you say "Oh, I'M fiscally conservative". Yeah? ME TOO!!! It's just that I consider it a good FISCAL decision to not make people be ULTRA RICH or ANXIOUS POOR because it leads to a society in decline and violence. I consider it "fiscally conservative" to have a society where the rich can be rich, but they can't be SUPER RICH (to be defined communally and democratically) while we have homeless vets, people who can't get a job because the jobs have moved overseas OR they're primarily for those w/higher intelligence than some people have.... Etc. So, while you may have found my generalization to be an insult to you, I find your "oh, I'm fiscally conservative" to be one to me. And that’s fine. I respect your opinion. I just don’t want to be lumped into the idea that beinf fiscally conservative means I oppose social programs for those who need them. That’s the only issue I took issue with. Thanks. And I don't need to be lumped into the idea that being FOR helping people is somehow not being "fiscally conservative". |
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,710
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Oct 9, 2020 13:44:47 GMT
And that’s fine. I respect your opinion. I just don’t want to be lumped into the idea that beinf fiscally conservative means I oppose social programs for those who need them. That’s the only issue I took issue with. Thanks. And I don't need to be lumped into the idea that being FOR helping people is somehow not being "fiscally conservative". Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 9, 2020 13:54:59 GMT
And that’s fine. I respect your opinion. I just don’t want to be lumped into the idea that beinf fiscally conservative means I oppose social programs for those who need them. That’s the only issue I took issue with. Thanks. And I don't need to be lumped into the idea that being FOR helping people is somehow not being "fiscally conservative". Yes. I’ve had enough insults about “the party of free stuff” to last a lifetime. Both parties spend. No one wants waste. We just prioritize differently. I feel like if more people could see that, we wouldn’t have so many social moderates shaking their heads and voting R because they think the GOP is more fiscally responsible. |
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,710
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Oct 9, 2020 14:00:40 GMT
I don’t understand how I can apologize for generalizing, but other people just want to continue to prove their point and fail to apologize for doing the exact same thing?
I do appreciate learning about what others feel and think and understanding how things I think can also be perceived as inflammatory to others but why can’t we all get the same courtesy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 9, 2020 14:04:05 GMT
Oh, and I don’t think we should be cheering when the president and congress are deadlocked so less appears to be spent. That also means necessary items are not being funded.
It’s like forgoing maintenance on your car to save money. It’s going to cost you more in the long run. The price we pay in this country for allowing people to go without necessary health care is already enormous. We don’t yet know what the ultimate cost of defunding K-12 public education will be, or our failure to provide adequate affordable post-secondary education to sustain our workforce. We don’t yet know the price of failing to preserve our environment. These are not pie in the sky crazy liberal schemes. They are necessary investments in the long term financial health of our country.
But let’s spend trillions more on unnecessary wars and make sure Jeff Bezos doesn’t pay taxes. That’s a great idea. Very fiscally responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 9, 2020 14:04:59 GMT
I don’t understand how I can apologize for generalizing, but other people just want to continue to prove their point and fail to apologize for doing the exact same thing? I do appreciate learning about what others feel and think and understanding how things I think can also be perceived as inflammatory to others but why can’t we all get the same courtesy? I said many, not all. If you feel like that’s generalizing, I apologize. |
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,053
|
Post by Olan on Oct 9, 2020 14:08:56 GMT
Other things to consider:
The type of critical thinking American educational systems are pumping out.
Why any “great mind” from another country would make America “home”...if you are older think of all the specialty Drs you see. Any of them American?
The number of good folks who are exiting this country because they don’t feel safe. You don’t have to count me among them but there is a community of like 250 black women here already. I even know a woman applying for asylum 😳
I think the future of two political parties is the least of America’s concerns. Least it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 9, 2020 14:40:46 GMT
I don't think this discussion will be fruitful, but will say that anyone who truly wants to understand fiscal conservatism cannot look at the current Republican party. We have a $3 TRILLION DEFICIT. There is nothing conservative about that - as a % of GDP - you'd have to go all the way back to WWII to find similar deficit spending. And while it makes complete sense during a pandemic to spend money, the fact that we did absolutely nothing to reign in deficits when the economy was strong - let alone thinking about the debt which is astronomical $27 TRILLION is insanity. Take a look at the last 40 years - Reagan started it with the arms race, but people gave it at least a passing notice until around 2000 where it doubled in 8 years and has only increased dramatically since then - it's just insanity and give less flexibility and options when there is need to increase spending. The debate seems to be on where to spend our printed money - not on how to actually pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 9, 2020 15:19:25 GMT
I don't think this discussion will be fruitful, but will say that anyone who truly wants to understand fiscal conservatism cannot look at the current Republican party. We have a $3 TRILLION DEFICIT. There is nothing conservative about that - as a % of GDP - you'd have to go all the way back to WWII to find similar deficit spending. And while it makes complete sense during a pandemic to spend money, the fact that we did absolutely nothing to reign in deficits when the economy was strong - let alone thinking about the debt which is astronomical $27 TRILLION is insanity. Take a look at the last 40 years - Reagan started it with the arms race, but people gave it at least a passing notice until around 2000 where it doubled in 8 years and has only increased dramatically since then - it's just insanity and give less flexibility and options when there is need to increase spending. The debate seems to be on where to spend our printed money - not on how to actually pay for it. Curious what you would do to pay for it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2020 15:31:24 GMT
I don't think this discussion will be fruitful, but will say that anyone who truly wants to understand fiscal conservatism cannot look at the current Republican party. We have a $3 TRILLION DEFICIT. There is nothing conservative about that - as a % of GDP - you'd have to go all the way back to WWII to find similar deficit spending. And while it makes complete sense during a pandemic to spend money, the fact that we did absolutely nothing to reign in deficits when the economy was strong - let alone thinking about the debt which is astronomical $27 TRILLION is insanity. Take a look at the last 40 years - Reagan started it with the arms race, but people gave it at least a passing notice until around 2000 where it doubled in 8 years and has only increased dramatically since then - it's just insanity and give less flexibility and options when there is need to increase spending. The debate seems to be on where to spend our printed money - not on how to actually pay for it. Curious what you would do to pay for it. The point of "printing money" is growth. You believe by making money out of thin air (e.g. by the fractional reserve system) that you will get MORE economic benefit out of the "printed" money than the value of the "printed" money. That's the basis of our banking/financial system. So, where you do think you'll get more good? Printing money for a state block grant to hire a person paid by the state to care for an elderly parent so a middle-aged person can go to work vs. the middle-aged person staying home to care for them? Printing money to pay for education so that the young can function and contribute to OUR economy as they grow? Or printing money to service the debt because the rich get to keep more of their m/billions and can then spend that more ANYWHERE they like - like out of our economy buying planes and penthouses? It's all about the NET BENEFIT to OUR economy out of the "printed" money. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 4:13:56 GMT
You should read this..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 5:26:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 5:11:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 12, 2020 5:58:19 GMT
I don't think this discussion will be fruitful, but will say that anyone who truly wants to understand fiscal conservatism cannot look at the current Republican party. We have a $3 TRILLION DEFICIT. There is nothing conservative about that - as a % of GDP - you'd have to go all the way back to WWII to find similar deficit spending. And while it makes complete sense during a pandemic to spend money, the fact that we did absolutely nothing to reign in deficits when the economy was strong - let alone thinking about the debt which is astronomical $27 TRILLION is insanity. Take a look at the last 40 years - Reagan started it with the arms race, but people gave it at least a passing notice until around 2000 where it doubled in 8 years and has only increased dramatically since then - it's just insanity and give less flexibility and options when there is need to increase spending. The debate seems to be on where to spend our printed money - not on how to actually pay for it. Obama inherited a ruined economy from Bush and handed a much healthier one to Trump. In between, he worked on reducing the deficit. Trump took his growing economy and blew up the deficit. Stop acting like they’re all the same. They aren’t. www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/01/trumps-deficits-are-racing-past-obamas/#4790acdd4819 |
|
michellegb
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
Location: New England and loving it!
Jun 26, 2014 0:04:59 GMT
|
Post by michellegb on Oct 12, 2020 9:44:55 GMT
This was why he was my first choice. He has been outstanding this week. I hope to be able to vote for him for POTUS someday. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 12, 2020 14:03:57 GMT
I don't think this discussion will be fruitful, but will say that anyone who truly wants to understand fiscal conservatism cannot look at the current Republican party. We have a $3 TRILLION DEFICIT. There is nothing conservative about that - as a % of GDP - you'd have to go all the way back to WWII to find similar deficit spending. And while it makes complete sense during a pandemic to spend money, the fact that we did absolutely nothing to reign in deficits when the economy was strong - let alone thinking about the debt which is astronomical $27 TRILLION is insanity. Take a look at the last 40 years - Reagan started it with the arms race, but people gave it at least a passing notice until around 2000 where it doubled in 8 years and has only increased dramatically since then - it's just insanity and give less flexibility and options when there is need to increase spending. The debate seems to be on where to spend our printed money - not on how to actually pay for it. Obama inherited a ruined economy from Bush and handed a much healthier one to Trump. In between, he worked on reducing the deficit. Trump took his growing economy and blew up the deficit. Stop acting like they’re all the same. They aren’t. www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/01/trumps-deficits-are-racing-past-obamas/#4790acdd4819Did you completely miss the first part of my response: "anyone who truly wants to understand fiscal conservatism cannot look at the current Republican party. We have a $3 TRILLION DEFICIT. There is nothing conservative about that - as a % of GDP - you'd have to go all the way back to WWII to find similar deficit spending." Why are you linking to crazy Trump deficits - that's what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Oct 12, 2020 14:06:50 GMT
This was why he was my first choice. He has been outstanding this week. I hope to be able to vote for him for POTUS someday. He has been ON FIRE this week! He was on my short list too. |
|
