i do agree with him though, he just puts his faith in the wrong people for the same politics.

Relatively speaking they are. That's simple fact.

Still better than killing grand-pa

not so much the current group of republicans in congress, save a few maybe. but now they are only defining themselves by one thing, and that is loyalty to trump lol.

how can you be a fiscal conservative and support trump?

I see fiscal responsibility as fundamentally linked to conservatism, and therefore the lowering of taxes without controlling and often expanding spending as irresponsible, so even if you do construct a definition of fiscal conservatism that makes them "more fiscally conservative than Democrats" it's a pointless label.

Look at the last few years of spending brought by both republicans versus democrats. For example, something that's in the news now. Republicans want something like 900b for infrastructure democrats 1.7 trillion.

If you are a fiscal conservative which is the better choice, or the choice that more closely accomplishes your ideology?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 27 2021 01:07pm

they had no problem when trump proposed 1.9 trillion though.

They sure love their 6, 9, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26, 33, 36 , 46, 66, 99...

Oh look 1.9 for 19! Why not 1.7?

It's like Biden plan for SIX trillion. Not 5, not 7 but SIX trillion.

OR we could talk bout GOP counters Biden's infrastructure plan with $928 billion offer as President's adviser slams opposition

9+8+2 = ? Yes you got it son! 19! Coincidence? I think not!

Guess how many people recovered from COVID!

Recovered
1.3M

1.3 = 13 Coincidence? Mmmm!

Covid deaths?

Deaths
25,397

2+5+3+9+7 = 26. Oh look, 26!

OR we could look at all the athletes with the #6, 9 , 13 , 23 , 33 .

What do they have in common? Success!

Once again beautiful symbolism!

This post was edited by SunnyvaleTrailerPark on May 27 2021 01:24pm

Do you mind sharing some sources that says McConnell or other senior Republicans says they are 'for' the 1.9 T infrastructure bill? Genuine question because it's not something I've seen.

His plan wasn't viable because fundamentally there was disagreement with how it should be funded. Republicans would probably agree to a higher infrastructure bill if:

1. It didn't mean higher taxes
2. It was funded by cannibalizing other spending
3. It didn't have various type of pork that has little do with bridges and building but rather green new deal-lite packages.

One can "get shit done" without impoverishing the country and saddling future generations with insurmountable debt. The Iraq War cost the country ~$2 trillion. That's reckless spending, but it's a drop in the bucket compared with what's being proposed right now.

There has never been infinite money, costs incurred today must be paid for, either now or down the road. A hike in interest rates would destroy the Federal budget at this point.