so in response to me saying "you're not focusing on all relevant factors" you chose to just jump over to a relevant factor and abandon the rest.

its cute watching you abandon factors like deficit spending, where tax cuts come from, party in power vs out of power in the electoral office, etc. I know you're not that stupid, so its just odd to see you act that stupid.

using a 2 factor definition for "fiscally conservative" is beneath you. you're just doubling down on the double down now. tHeY sPeNt lEsS.

i guess the idiotic out of line messaging meant for 40 iq trailer trash works on 70 iq redpilled normies too.

in any case setting up mutually agreed upon definitions, with a starting point for reference from Webster or wherever, is a function of debate discussions. however using that definition as an objective bludgeon isn't, outside of scientific or legal debates. you dont get to hold onto a single definition as objective in the real world, even in science or law definitions are adjusted. the fact that you think spend less tax less is the eternal definition for fiscal conservative is 40 iq thinking, stubbornness, and embarrassing. you should feel bad.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 28 2021 08:00am

Clinton was the best R ever and he got impeached over a BJ
Reagan worst R ever

President Donald Trump
Total Actual plus Budgeted = $6.612 trillion, a 33% increase


President Barack Obama
Total = $6.781 trillion, a 58% increase


President George W. Bush
Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57% increase


President Bill Clinton
Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1% decrease


President George H.W. Bush
Total = $1.036 trillion, a 36% increase


President Ronald Reagan
Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142% increase


President Jimmy Carter
Total = $253 billion, a 36% increase

President Gerald Ford
Total = $181 billion, a 38% increase


President Richard Nixon
Total = $70 billion, a 20% increase


President Lyndon B. Johnson
Total = $36 billion, an 11% increase


President John F. Kennedy
Total = $18 billion, a 6% increase


President Dwight Eisenhower
Total = $15 billion, a 6% increase


President Harry Truman
Total = $5 billion, a 2% increase

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Apr 28 2021 08:14am

Void just has really bad hueristics, and is pretty stubborn when he's personally invested, so he'll never update.

Someone who would be a great spreadsheet junky, but not somebody I'd ever trust to develop something new. Which is great because he works in business. Really found his lane.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 28 2021 08:14am

Its a common behavior for 20-30s aged conservative men.

"we want to change something", yeah yeah yeah but here's a definition.

"we want to change the definition", omg not even my websters dictionary is safe.

police reform, prison reform, school reform, finance reform. over and over they use "how it is and always has been" as some sort of club to "win" debates. its small minded bias confirming thinking.

And here lies the heart of the disagreement.

Fiscally conservative =/= responsible. You're conflating the two and assuming that fiscal conservatism has to adhere to what is deemed responsible.

Fiscal conservatism, as you said wants less government intervention in the form of smaller taxes and less spending. Does that mean it's responsible? Not always, because if we lower one lever and keep the other one at a standstill there will obviously be an imbalance.

But that doesn't give you the right to change the mechanics or definition of what is at the heart of the ideology. It's not an ala carte idea that you can just mold while discarding central tenants. Low taxes while keeping spending the same may be irresponsible but it does not violate fiscal conservatism principles.

I mean look at the logical outcome here. Your version leads to contradictory logic. If the point is to have balanced budgets and we can't lower spending then we have to raise taxes.

So wait, the commonly accepted definition says lower taxes but in this scenario, it's fiscally conservative to raise taxes?

Which one is it? Is raising taxes part of any fiscal conservatism literature you can point me to?


lol at you. Go out for a smoke and cool off. You consistently need to insult people in discussions. Maybe try having your arguments do the talking instead of acting like a petulant child.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 28 2021 08:43am

fiscal conservativism ran on balanced budgets consistently in the past, but now dont. they were responsible, almost always, but no longer are.

fiscal progressivism ran on balanced budgets sometimes in the past, but mostly didnt, and now dont. they were responsible sometimes, but rarely, and no longer are.

raising taxes to pay for raised expenses is more responsible than raising spending and lowering taxes, sometimes. responsibility has to do with deficit totals, but its subject to perspective.

some might say trying to lower the deficit but not eliminate it is responsible, some might say simply lowering spending to lower the deficit is responsible. but responsibility here is a spectrum, and i think all agree that any deficit at all of a note worthy amount is on the irresponsible spectrum.

fiscal conservatives used to be responsible, aka no deficit, but no longer are. therefore the old meta of fiscal conservativism is dead, and has been replaced by a more simplistic reality of simply spending less, but also taxing less, leaving the door open for higher deficits, and an increased place on the irresponsibility spectrum.

im not sure why 3 or 4 factor equations give u so much trouble. did u have a 20 minute melt down in 8th grade algebra when the teacher introduced the concept of both an X and a Y?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 28 2021 08:49am

low taxes low spending are two fixed variables within the equation meaning, in fiscal conservatism, it doesn't all of the sudden become high taxes= fiscally conservative because of circumstances to balance out the y . It doesn't matter if it's irresponsible or not that's just the way it is.

This is not a very nuanced point but you continually are failing to grasp it.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 28 2021 09:05am

lol, that's exactly the point. You aren't using nuance. You're rigidly sticking to your definition of fiscal conservatism, where to be fiscally conservative can often result in straight up fiscal irresponsibility and massive debts.

Everybody else is saying that to separate fiscal conservatism from being fiscally responsible is too simplistic and is resulting in you coming to a nonsensical conclusion.

and you just keep assuming nobody sees your point. We all see your point, everybody does, we are questioning your logic and criticizing your weird need to stick to the definition of fiscal conservative that you found in 2 seconds on google.

Like, here's the wiki definition

"Fiscal conservatism is a political and economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government debt.[1] Deregulation, free trade, privatization and tax cuts are its defining qualities. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook of classical liberalism."

It specifically points out that fiscal responsibility and minimal government debt are key points, so to cut taxes when you know it will balloon the debt and you won't reduce spending is not fiscally conservative.

It's really that simple.

No one is saying higher taxes = fiscally conservative. that's a strawman you set up to vanquish.

higher taxes can be more responsible, they cant be conservative. unless someone's is specifically targeting deficit totals for their evaluation of "conservative". a lower deficit is a more conservative deficit.

you just cant keep up with any more terms than you're willing to use in your definition. SAD!




DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 28 2021 09:12am

Huh... weird thing to say right? Especially for a Republican

https://twitter.com/Oseguera2020/status/1387391839611801606