Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 11:09am)

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.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 10:17am)

It's not fiscally respnsible

By the definition you posted very clearly says that lower taxes and reduced spending are means to accomplishing its goals.

It goes something like this:

low taxes + low spending = fiscally responsible this is what fiscal conservatism is

What you're trying to say:

high spending+ high taxes = fiscally responsible but this is not fiscal conservatism when we know that both of the inputs of the equation are explicitly 'low'

Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 11:18am)

And when taxes are high and spending is high you are not being responsible or conservative by lowering only taxes.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 10:13am)

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.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 10:19am)

derp

words have meaning. I thought we established that being responsible and being fiscally conservative isn't synonymous.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 28 2021 11:37am)

Oh, words have meaning? Good thing I linked a definition that includes fiscal responsibility as the goal of fiscal conservatism.

The first definition you read isn't the arbiter of how words are used or defined.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 10:40am)

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?

Quote (IceMage @ Apr 28 2021 11:51am)

It's not that complicated. Fiscal conservatism is about cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reducing the deficit/debt. TheGOP in practice violates two of these core principles, because while they cut taxes, they maintain significant spending, which ends up running larger deficits. Therefore, they are not being fiscally conservative. Sure, we could raise taxes, maintain significant spending, and lower the deficit. That's violating two of the core principles as well, so we can't call it fiscal conservatism, even though it's fiscally responsible in the sense of reducing the deficit.

That's right, you can't discard central tenants of fiscal conservatism and be fiscally conservative. If two of the three core principles are violated, it makes no sense to call it fiscal conservativism.

Quote (theCrossbones @ Apr 28 2021 12:23pm)

who was the R's best example of a fiscally conservative president?

Quote (ofthevoid @ Apr 28 2021 09:21am)

They cut taxes.
They consistently try to spend less than democrats. Infrastructure & Covid unemployment benefits being two examples, but there are others.

Key emphasis on 'try'. Are you proposing because they can't win over and over in having lower budgets they should just abandon their position on lower taxes?