Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Rescuing the automobile industry, getting Osama Bin Laden, finally taking a step in the right direction for health care, all while getting ZERO help from the republicans isn't exactly crap.
If you're talking about the Bush administration then yes. Those 8 years were probably the crappiest in our history.
Obama is a **** up. But so will be any other douche we elect for the next term.
Since I work for a hospital that primarily servers homeless people (through government grants) and Medicaid patients, and we lease out my department to a groups of health clinces serving the same clientele, I'm very curious how you think we could improve our efficiency. This is especially true since we serve patients for less than pretthy much any other area hospital on a per captia basis.
Any large organization has wasteful spending, and all large organizations seek to reduce. This is true of the US governmdent (the biggest of all, so the most oppotunity for waste), but it's also true of GM, Anthem/Wellpoint, McDonalds, etc.
Food stamps are based on the cost for a healthy diet based on the number of individuals. I have no idea what you mean by "feed them very well". Have you gone over the contents of the "market basket" this is based on, and compared their price to various local retail outlets?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I think we all know the answer to this question...
But why bother actually looking things up when your #1 goal is to promote an ideology?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Your moderation is the stuff of infamy.
I don't know what "certain ideological changes" means in this context. Politicians of all stripes, including Democrats, engage in the other activities in your list. No argument there.
From your point of view, do you see both parties as equally unwilling to compromise?
For example, in that last debt ceiling negotiation, a plan was refused by the Republicans that would have cut six dollars in spending for every additional tax dollar. Do you think the Democrats were offering a compromise with that ratio, or that it would be the ideal ratio for them? Do you have examples of similar refusals to compromise by the Democrats in the last four years? I am genuinely interested in your perspective on this, by the way.
Sometimes, two sides don't get along because both parties are stubborn. Sometimes, it's just one side. Why do you think it is both sides in this particular case?
Take your off-topic, thread derailing diatribes over to the Mitt Romney thread. It's uninspired, dry garbage & not entertaining.
I will try to make this clear for you.
Your posts are moronic. PKM and franklin write intelligent posts, and have a history of showing they are capable of having an intelligent exchange of ideas. I have never seen a post of yours that indicates you have this ability. You bring dishonor and ridicule to the positions you support because of the the way you support them. Mind you, most people on this board would put us close to each other politically.
Was that clear enough?
Last edited:
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.