What is your fixation with tying POTUS into the conversation of spending? Are you really this new to politics where I need to explain to you why Trump wouldn't veto a covid package a few months before a general election or are you purposefully sticking to a 9th grader understanding here?

Again let's look at current events. Republicans supported Covid relief but the numbers they wanted were much lower versus democrats. An obvious example is the unemployment benefits. Republicans during the summer were adamant about ending the 600/month and reducing it to levels that would make employees want to go back to work, Democrats wanted to keep it at 600.

You're also confused on what are the central tenants of fiscal conservatism.

Here's a definition:



Basically low spending, low taxes. If republicans accomplished to cut taxes but failed to lower spending that doesn't mean they weren't true to the ideology regardless of deficit size.

I don't think its fiscally conservative to cut taxes when you didn't reduce spending since that conflicts with the more central value of low spending and debt

Sure... I'm the one being naive when I imply the President has massive influence over government spending. Acting as if the president is a bystander in the world of politics is so ridiculous I don't even know what to say. Trump signs the bills... his party controlled the Senate through his presidency.

Also, Trump is the guy who, after his people negotiated another relief package which included $600 checks, said they should've been $2,000. But sure, he's being held captive by Nancy Pelosi.

You're trying to argue a point that most people know is absolute nonsense(Republicans are the fiscally conservative party), and you aren't doing well.

That's nice but that's not the definition of fiscal conservatism.

Low taxes is a central goal, low spending is another central goal. If only 1/2 goals can be accomplished, then that's more desirable than not accomplishing either.



Dude Trump was at odds with Congress republicans because he understood they were fucking him with not basically throwing money at voters before an election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/10/20/trump-economic-stimulus-pelosi/

your capacity for revisionism and looking at the world through only one lens is pretty astounding

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 27 2021 12:12pm

Seems obvious to me but apparently for void, it's the thought that counts.

I disagree that you can reasonably call it "fiscally conservative" to cut taxes when doing so massively racks up debt.

Ultimately it's a definitions thing, so we won't come to an agreement, but I think my position is more the common sense one, that it's not fiscally conservative to rack up debt when you otherwise wouldn't.

How does a Republican president wanting more spending when Democrats control the House conflict with my narrative? There's no "politics" exception. Spending is spending. The deficit expands irregardless.

It's tiring talking to you when your purposefully this dense.

Congress creates spending packages, therefore congress democrats versus republicans should be judged on fiscal conservatism. We know this to be fact and you post after post, are trying to focus on POTUS as being a key driver of spending.

Trump wanting to spend more money when it will literally impact his chances of reelection is not a hard concept to understand.

I think it's silly to ignore the president as a driver of spending. He sets the party agenda, and pressures his party in congress on his policy goals, and can veto legislation if it doesn't meet those goals.

You don't get to ignore the leader of the party who has a veto power just because the bill has to technically originate in the house.

Alright, today we've racked up 2 bodies who can't respond to the substantive points I'm making.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 27 2021 12:24pm