The True Republican™

[Loren Pechtel]

I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. I had written in a fb reply that he was a registered republican who had not voted for the Repub nominee in the last three elections, which I knew. But I asked him later, "who was the last Republican presidential candidate that you _did_ vote for?"

"I haven't," he says.
"You mean, not Dole? Or Bush the Wiser? Not Reagan?"
"Nope"
"Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
"Because I believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism. I just haven't yet seen a candidate who actually embraces them and intends to put them into action."
"In 36 years?"
"That's right."

Apparently the Dems are doing a better job of fiscal conservatism. Which is actually true, but, LOL for the diehard Republican (The "True Republican™"?) to observe that... it's telling.

Yeah--my parents were Republicans up through the earlier 60s. Their politics didn't change, the parties did--by the end they were voting solid Democrat.

I'm also registered Republican--but for a different reason. I consider the Republicans are the greater danger so I'm more interested in voting for a moderate Republican in the primaries than a moderate Democrat. These days, though, I can't find a moderate Republican.

Fiscal conservatism is a political construction designed to cut wages and social spending.

The deficit is not a problem.

The deficit becomes a big deal when the interest payments become too big. If interest rates go too high Japan is going to be in some deep trouble. If China's economy slows they'll be in a bad situation, also, given their very high debt/GDP ratio.

 

[Rhea]

I'm not sure that "fiscal conservatism" and "austerity" are the same thing.

In another time you would be right. But in this day and time, they are getting harder and harder to tell apart.

Maybe that's why he's having such trouble finding a decent one.

 

[Tigers!]

I'm not sure that "fiscal conservatism" and "austerity" are the same thing.

In another time you would be right. But in this day and time, they are getting harder and harder to tell apart.

That might also depend upon whom is doing the telling.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. I had written in a fb reply that he was a registered republican who had not voted for the Repub nominee in the last three elections, which I knew. But I asked him later, "who was the last Republican presidential candidate that you _did_ vote for?"

"I haven't," he says.
"You mean, not Dole? Or Bush the Wiser? Not Reagan?"
"Nope"
"Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
"Because I believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism. I just haven't yet seen a candidate who actually embraces them and intends to put them into action."
"In 36 years?"
"That's right."

Apparently the Dems are doing a better job of fiscal conservatism. Which is actually true, but, LOL for the diehard Republican (The "True Republican™"?) to observe that... it's telling.

While your at it, why not do a thread on the True Scotsman?

 

[Rhea]

While your at it, why not do a thread on the True Scotsman?

Because he's German.

 

[whichphilosophy]

While your at it, why not do a thread on the True Scotsman?

Because he's German.

So change it to the True German fallacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. I had written in a fb reply that he was a registered republican who had not voted for the Repub nominee in the last three elections, which I knew. But I asked him later, "who was the last Republican presidential candidate that you _did_ vote for?"

"I haven't," he says.
"You mean, not Dole? Or Bush the Wiser? Not Reagan?"
"Nope"
"Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
"Because I believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism. I just haven't yet seen a candidate who actually embraces them and intends to put them into action."
"In 36 years?"
"That's right."

Apparently the Dems are doing a better job of fiscal conservatism. Which is actually true, but, LOL for the diehard Republican (The "True Republican™"?) to observe that... it's telling.

But we are what we do. He has a false image of the Republican party. He may not like what the Democrats symbolize, but he is a Democrat. He just hasn't caught on.

 

[zorq]

I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. I had written in a fb reply that he was a registered republican who had not voted for the Repub nominee in the last three elections, which I knew. But I asked him later, "who was the last Republican presidential candidate that you _did_ vote for?"

"I haven't," he says.
"You mean, not Dole? Or Bush the Wiser? Not Reagan?"
"Nope"
"Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
"Because I believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism. I just haven't yet seen a candidate who actually embraces them and intends to put them into action."
"In 36 years?"
"That's right."

Apparently the Dems are doing a better job of fiscal conservatism. Which is actually true, but, LOL for the diehard Republican (The "True Republican™"?) to observe that... it's telling.

But we are what we do. He has a false image of the Republican party. He may not like what the Democrats symbolize, but he is a Democrat. He just hasn't caught on.

Yeah, It's a little like joining the Doc Murphy Snake Oil Elixer Fan Club because you support the notion of reversing male pattern baldness but you have never bought a bottle of Doc Murphy's elixir because it doesn't actually reverse baldness.

Republicans have good publicists and a bad track record. One of these is more important than the other.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But we are what we do. He has a false image of the Republican party. He may not like what the Democrats symbolize, but he is a Democrat. He just hasn't caught on.

Yeah, It's a little like joining the Doc Murphy Snake Oil Elixer Fan Club because you support the notion of reversing male pattern baldness but you have never bought a bottle of Doc Murphy's elixir because it doesn't actually reverse baldness.

Republicans have good publicists and a bad track record. One of these is more important than the other.

They seem to have managed to catch the crowd who are skeptical about authority. Which is quite the feat, considering it's all about picking an authority. So it's the retard vote.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No matter how you cut it, taxes are still only half the equation. Spending is the other half. In my lifetime every time tax revenues have gone up so has spending,

But when a Republican gets into office, they cut revenue substantially, but they increase the spending. So it is impossible to catch up.

 

[James Brown]

I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night. I had written in a fb reply that he was a registered republican who had not voted for the Repub nominee in the last three elections, which I knew. But I asked him later, "who was the last Republican presidential candidate that you _did_ vote for?"

"I haven't," he says.
"You mean, not Dole? Or Bush the Wiser? Not Reagan?"
"Nope"
"Then why don't you just register as a Democrat?" I ask.
"Because I believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism. I just haven't yet seen a candidate who actually embraces them and intends to put them into action."
"In 36 years?"
"That's right."

Apparently the Dems are doing a better job of fiscal conservatism. Which is actually true, but, LOL for the diehard Republican (The "True Republican™"?) to observe that... it's telling.

But we are what we do. He has a false image of the Republican party. He may not like what the Democrats symbolize, but he is a Democrat. He just hasn't caught on.

"Hey, I may not go to church, pray, or even believe in God, but don't you dare call me an atheist!"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No matter how you cut it, taxes are still only half the equation. Spending is the other half. In my lifetime every time tax revenues have gone up so has spending,

But when a Republican gets into office, they cut revenue substantially, but they increase the spending. So it is impossible to catch up.

Their stated strategy is to starve the beast. Funny how they don't see themselves sucking from a teet they're trying to starve. I guess they see too many people sucking on the same teet and think that isn't right, so you probably have to be a republican to understand whatever it is they're trying to do.

Maybe they just want the teet to themselves. Who knows.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No matter how you cut it, taxes are still only half the equation. Spending is the other half. In my lifetime every time tax revenues have gone up so has spending,

But when a Republican gets into office, they cut revenue substantially, but they increase the spending. So it is impossible to catch up.

Yes. And when a Democrat gets into office they increase revenue, and increase spending more than they increase revenue, so it is also impossible to catch up.

Until one of the two parties actually decides that spending is also an issue, the deficit will never be eliminated.

The closest we've gone within modern history was the tiny deficits (but not surplusses) of Bill Clinton. That was a combination of obstruction of a Republican Congress and Democrat President, and skimming off the top of a bubble economy created by Greenspan.

Now these figures are from Wikipedia for 2015.

Total Federal Income = 3,249 billion
Total Federal Spending = 3650.526 billion
Deficit = 401.526 billion

An absurd number, nearly half a trillion.

Anyway, this is how that spending is distributed. The big six items are Social Security, National Defense, Income Security, Medicare, Health, and Net Interest.

Big Six Spending Items = 3213.39
Everything Else = 437.136

When I say "everything else", I mean literally everything else in the entire federal budget. Veterans Benefits and Services, Education, Training, Employment and Social Services, Transportation, Administration of Justice, International Affairs, Natural Resources and Environment, Community and Regional Development, General Science, Space and Technology, Agriculture, General Government, Energy, Allowances.

In order to reduce the deficit, the big six items will need to be attacked. And they're all political third rails. Who has the balls to dare touch Social Security or National Defense?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But when a Republican gets into office, they cut revenue substantially, but they increase the spending. So it is impossible to catch up.

Yes. And when a Democrat gets into office they increase revenue, and increase spending more than they increase revenue, so it is also impossible to catch up.

Until one of the two parties actually decides that spending is also an issue, the deficit will never be eliminated.

The closest we've gone within modern history was the tiny deficits (but not surplusses) of Bill Clinton. That was a combination of obstruction of a Republican Congress and Democrat President, and skimming off the top of a bubble economy created by Greenspan.

Now these figures are from Wikipedia for 2015.

Total Federal Income = 3,249 billion
Total Federal Spending = 3650.526 billion
Deficit = 401.526 billion

An absurd number, nearly half a billion.

Anyway, this is how that spending is distributed. The big six items are Social Security, National Defense, Income Security, Medicare, Health, and Net Interest.

Big Six Spending Items = 3213.39
Everything Else = 437.136

When I say "everything else", I mean literally everything else in the entire federal budget. Veterans Benefits and Services, Education, Training, Employment and Social Services, Transportation, Administration of Justice, International Affairs, Natural Resources and Environment, Community and Regional Development, General Science, Space and Technology, Agriculture, General Government, Energy, Allowances.

In order to reduce the deficit, the big six items will need to be attacked. And they're all political third rails. Who has the balls to dare touch Social Security or National Defense?

Trump said to just print more money because it's only paper.

Maybe he's the true republican.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But when a Republican gets into office, they cut revenue substantially, but they increase the spending. So it is impossible to catch up.

Yes. And when a Democrat gets into office they increase revenue, and increase spending more than they increase revenue, so it is also impossible to catch up.

Deficit spending decreased in the last two Democrat Administrations (Obama and Clinton). It increased notably (excluding the recession) under W.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes. And when a Democrat gets into office they increase revenue, and increase spending more than they increase revenue, so it is also impossible to catch up.

Deficit spending decreased in the last two Democrat Administrations (Obama and Clinton). It increased notably (excluding the recession) under W.

Of course it decreased under Obama. At the end of W's second term, there was a gigantic spike in spending because of the crash. That spike continued through the beginning of Obama's first term before Obama's deficits were reduced to Bush Normal.

So yeah, of course it decreased under Obama.

Clinton is your only solid argument. He had an obstructionist Republican Congress, Greenspan, and a bubble to skim off of. And even with all that he only got tiny deficits. The last president to ever run a surplus was Eisenhower.

 

[bilby]

Governments SHOULD run a deficit. It should be approximately equal to the fraction of expenditure that is on items that will be used into the future - if they build a bridge that will be in use in 50 years, then the people who use the bridge 50 years from now should pay their share. They neither need nor deserve to be subsidised by us.

A surplus is immoral - at the point where the deficit falls below the long term infrastructure spending, taxation becomes unjustified. I have no problem with faxes to pay for government spending. But taking more than they spend is simply wrong.

Governments don't retire, or get sick, or get fired - their income is not at risk in the way that a householder's income is at risk. Saving for a rainy day is nonsensical for sovereign governments.

This insane idea that government finance is basically household finance writ large needs to die. Deficit spending should be routine and normal. Surplus should be rare - and a small surplus is as much an indicator of a problem as is a very large deficit.

You can tell when deficit is too large, because you get excessive inflation. Responding to inflation by raising taxes is the answer. If that puts you in surplus, then there's a bubble forming - and deflation asset bubbles is the one justifiable reason for running a surplus.

 

[LordKiran]

Okay while everyone is arguing over who did what in regards to the budget I'm just going to chime in and postulate that presidents get WAY too much credit for deficits and surpluses. I mean are we really going to attribute spending policy to the president when their sole contribution to the budget is either making suggestions or spending the money as mandated by congress.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No matter how you cut it, taxes are still only half the equation. Spending is the other half. In my lifetime every time tax revenues have gone up so has spending,

But when a Republican gets into office, they cut revenue substantially, but they increase the spending. So it is impossible to catch up.

Well the GOP holds as holy writ that govt is perpetually broken. So when they get their hands on any part of govt, they break it so they can say "Look! See I told you it was broken"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A surplus is immoral - at the point where the deficit falls below the long term infrastructure spending, taxation becomes unjustified. I have no problem with faxes to pay for government spending. But taking more than they spend is simply wrong.

A surplus is only immoral when it's in excess of what's needed to address the next recession. In an ideal world the government debt would be paid off halfway through the growth phase, the surplus would be wiped out halfway through the next recession. The long term average would be zero.

(On the other hand, a permanent debt might be worth it as a source of guaranteed safe savings.)

Governments don't retire, or get sick, or get fired - their income is not at risk in the way that a householder's income is at risk. Saving for a rainy day is nonsensical for sovereign governments.

Governments do get recessions, though.