|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 09 2018 10:12 Plansix wrote:
This sums up Rand Paul right now. And a lot of Republicans worried about the debt.
spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here.
He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all.
|
Always good to see Trump staffers taking each other down.
|
On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all.
He voted for a tax cut that increased the debt but isn't a hypocrite for being worried about the debt?
|
On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all.
That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget.
|
For something like 40 years Republicans have had an intentional strategy of raising the deficit when they are in office and then using it to demand cuts when they aren't. The more you grow the deficit (for your own interests) the more cuts you get to demand, to match.
Like many aspects of our government, Trump's presence has made things a bit more obvious.
|
On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget.
I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason.
|
On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason.
They couldn’t keep their schools open 5 days a week. They put mileage caps on state police. Rural nursing homes closed. The problem is that when you’re talking about cutting services people rely on, which is why it’s unpopular. “Spending” isn’t some abstract thing in these cases. It impacts real people who don’t have other options.
I say this so much about conservatives, but you all want to do these things and want none of the responsibility for the outcome. From immigration to taxes.
|
On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason.
I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when?
Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking?
This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting.
|
On February 09 2018 10:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. They couldn’t keep their schools open 5 days a week. They put mileage caps on state police. Rural nursing homes closed. The problem is that when you’re talking about cutting services people rely on, which is why it’s unpopular. I say this so much about conservatives, but you all want to do these things and want none of the responsibility for the outcome. From immigration to taxes.
Meanwhile you manage to turn everything that happens into the GOP's fault. Nah, conservatives acknowledge cutting spending means government does less. In fact that's one of the upsides. Where on earth that last line comes from I have no idea.
People rely on the government too much, that's kind of one of the issues conservatives have had with this country for decades. "None of the responsibility" rofl. You go ahead and continue to conflate the different elements of the right and blame whichever one suits in the moment, I'll just watch.
|
On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting.
The same objection could be made to the left, but with more force. You can only go so far in the "less government" direction. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least.
+ Show Spoiler +I could outline what a government I like would look like, but these specifics are unhelpful. Needless to say I won't do so here.
|
On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason.
it's pretty obviously hypocrisy:
he claims to care about the debt.
then he votes for a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts to pay for it.
thus he voted to increase the debt.
if he had supported a tax and spending cut that was revenue neutral, it'd be fine; but that's not what he did, hence the justifiable charge of hypocrisy.
|
On February 09 2018 10:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:44 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. They couldn’t keep their schools open 5 days a week. They put mileage caps on state police. Rural nursing homes closed. The problem is that when you’re talking about cutting services people rely on, which is why it’s unpopular. I say this so much about conservatives, but you all want to do these things and want none of the responsibility for the outcome. From immigration to taxes. Meanwhile you manage to turn everything that happens into the GOP's fault. Nah, conservatives acknowledge cutting spending means government does less. In fact that's one of the upsides. Where on earth that last line comes from I have no idea. People rely on the government too much, that's kind of one of the issues conservatives have had with this country for decades. "None of the responsibility" rofl. You go ahead and continue to conflate the different elements of the right and blame whichever one suits in the moment, I'll just watch.
The GOO overwhelming controls those legislators and could write any budget they wanted. They couldn’t make it work because the “boom” from the tax cuts never came. They were forced to cut essential services. That is the reality of these tax cuts. The economy isn’t going to leap up to 5% GDP.
|
On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least.
Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people
So it's not really the same at all.
You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money.
|
On February 09 2018 10:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:48 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:44 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. They couldn’t keep their schools open 5 days a week. They put mileage caps on state police. Rural nursing homes closed. The problem is that when you’re talking about cutting services people rely on, which is why it’s unpopular. I say this so much about conservatives, but you all want to do these things and want none of the responsibility for the outcome. From immigration to taxes. Meanwhile you manage to turn everything that happens into the GOP's fault. Nah, conservatives acknowledge cutting spending means government does less. In fact that's one of the upsides. Where on earth that last line comes from I have no idea. People rely on the government too much, that's kind of one of the issues conservatives have had with this country for decades. "None of the responsibility" rofl. You go ahead and continue to conflate the different elements of the right and blame whichever one suits in the moment, I'll just watch. The GOO overwhelming controls those legislators and could write any budget they wanted. They couldn’t make it work because the “boom” from the tax cuts never came. They were forced to cut essential services. That is the reality of these tax cuts. The economy isn’t going to leap up to 5% GDP.
I'm not sure you are reading what I'm writing. You are just responding to the person in your head.
|
On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money.
It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets.
|
On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets.
I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close.
What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want.
|
On February 09 2018 10:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 10:56 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:48 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:44 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. They couldn’t keep their schools open 5 days a week. They put mileage caps on state police. Rural nursing homes closed. The problem is that when you’re talking about cutting services people rely on, which is why it’s unpopular. I say this so much about conservatives, but you all want to do these things and want none of the responsibility for the outcome. From immigration to taxes. Meanwhile you manage to turn everything that happens into the GOP's fault. Nah, conservatives acknowledge cutting spending means government does less. In fact that's one of the upsides. Where on earth that last line comes from I have no idea. People rely on the government too much, that's kind of one of the issues conservatives have had with this country for decades. "None of the responsibility" rofl. You go ahead and continue to conflate the different elements of the right and blame whichever one suits in the moment, I'll just watch. The GOO overwhelming controls those legislators and could write any budget they wanted. They couldn’t make it work because the “boom” from the tax cuts never came. They were forced to cut essential services. That is the reality of these tax cuts. The economy isn’t going to leap up to 5% GDP. I'm not sure you are reading what I'm writing. You are just responding to the person in your head.
They cut spending and people are now voting to raise taxes in those states. They sold people on an half backed idea we disproved in the 80s. Trickle down economics doesn’t work.
|
On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want.
Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative nor a liberal (nor progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything.
|
On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote: spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here. He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything.
Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view?
I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused.
|
I think GH is asking what does the conservative American look like. What is the end goal? What does reducing immigration and cutting government spending/services get us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
24034
2992
114
245
EPT
