TrumPutinGate

#8,251
#8,251
Grand Vol said:
I'm over the age of 30. I'm not sure I'm allowed to follow Twitter.
Click to expand...

I think that's Snapchat. I have a lot of friends on that platform and I just don't get it. I'll be 40 later this year and I really like Twitter. It's great for up to the minute updates of any kind; news, weather, sports, etc. There's also a ton of really, really funny people. It's definitely my favorite social media platform. That said, I really miss the simpler times without any of them.
 
#8,252
#8,252
McDad said:
Are you saying that fiscal responsibility is defined by who gets the borrowed money? In other words, debt is bad if it goes to programs you oppose and good if it goes to programs you support?
Click to expand...

Not completely. Are you saying debt is never warranted? WWII? Debt for some causes is far more palatable than debt for others. Debt incurred to treat wounded vets or during a national disaster would be different than debt used to subsidize private schools for wealthy individuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,255
#8,255
luthervol said:
Not completely. Are you saying debt is never warranted? WWII? Debt for some causes is far more palatable than debt for others. Debt incurred to treat wounded vets or during a national disaster would be different than debt used to subsidize private schools for wealthy individuals.
Click to expand...

This post makes it hard to follow your thinking. First you say fiscal responsibility is not completely defined by the programs supported by borrowing. You then proceed to outline how that is precisely how you're defining fiscal responsibility. Help me out, here; what did I miss?
 
#8,256
#8,256
McDad said:
This post makes it hard to follow your thinking. First you say fiscal responsibility is not completely defined by the programs supported by borrowing. You then proceed to outline how that is precisely how you're defining fiscal responsibility. Help me out, here; what did I miss?
Click to expand...

It's not that complicated. No deficit spending would be best. There may be instances when this becomes impossible or at least unwise, such as times of war, national disaster, etc. Some programs and causes are more deserving of funding than others. Care for vets is more deserving than private school funding for the rich.

If I am told that there will be $20 billion in deficit spending and it will either go to treating wounded vets or to subsidies for private school for rich kids, I would respond this way, "we should try to find a way to do the former without deficit spending but if it has to be one of the two choices than I'm going to pick the first choice all day every day."

That's the way I see the dems. and repubs. with no good third choice.
 
#8,257
#8,257
luthervol said:
It's not that complicated. No deficit spending would be best. There may be instances when this becomes impossible or at least unwise, such as times of war, national disaster, etc. Some programs and causes are more deserving of funding than others. Care for vets is more deserving than private school funding for the rich.

If I am told that there will be $20 billion in deficit spending and it will either go to treating wounded vets or to subsidies for private school for rich kids, I would respond this way, "we should try to find a way to do the former without deficit spending but if it has to be one of the two choices than I'm going to pick the first choice all day every day."

That's the way I see the dems. and repubs. with no good third choice.
Click to expand...

That helps me understand you better. Thanks.

I am assuming your examples are hypothetical and used for illustrating your points. If so, we are closer in agreement than we might have guessed. What if I tweaked your criteria (deserving/more deserving) for fiscal responsibility when spending or borrowing to a Constitutional/non-Constitutional criteria. Would you take issue?
 
#8,258
#8,258
McDad said:
That helps me understand you better. Thanks.

I am assuming your examples are hypothetical and used for illustrating your points. If so, we are closer in agreement than we might have guessed. What if I tweaked your criteria (deserving/more deserving) for fiscal responsibility when spending or borrowing to a Constitutional/non-Constitutional criteria. Would you take issue?
Click to expand...

I'm sure I would be walking into a trap if I said I took no issue. We may have different views on constitutional spending. I'm still a liberal....I believe in the safety net, I believe in a federal role in protecting the environment, I would like to eventually see a form of universal health care, I believe in a graduated income tax (unless a better system is viable) I still have more faith in the government and politicians than you, and less faith in corporate/personal greed and the free market. We have some similarities, but we still have a world of differences.
 
#8,259
#8,259
luthervol said:
I'm sure I would be walking into a trap if I said I took no issue. We may have different views on constitutional spending. I'm still a liberal....I believe in the safety net, I believe in a federal role in protecting the environment, I would like to eventually see a form of universal health care, I believe in a graduated income tax (unless a better system is viable) I still have more faith in the government and politicians than you, and less faith in corporate/personal greed and the free market. We have some similarities, but we still have a world of differences.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your defensiveness. Thee is a lot of "gotcha" type debate. Im not doing that. Not laying a trap or hoping to prove you wrong. Im just trying to understand you and see where we agree. If you wanna focus on the disagreements, thats on you.

Constitutionality aside, when using a criteria based on "deserving", how do you decide which programs are the most deserving when money is finite? Deciding between veterans versus rich private schools is easy. What about between the water supply of Detroit and a crumbling bridge ina heavily populated area?
 
#8,260
#8,260
McDad said:
I appreciate your defensiveness. Thee is a lot of "gotcha" type debate. Im not doing that. Not laying a trap or hoping to prove you wrong. Im just trying to understand you and see where we agree. If you wanna focus on the disagreements, thats on you.

Constitutionality aside, when using a criteria based on "deserving", how do you decide which programs are the most deserving when money is finite? Deciding between veterans versus rich private schools is easy. What about between the water supply of Detroit and a crumbling bridge ina heavily populated area?
Click to expand...

Some distinctions are obviously easier than others. I would have to fund both the bridge repair and the water supply because they both have immediate health and safety issues attached.

We have to rely on our elected representatives having the wisdom and appropriate priorities to make those difficult decisions. They've not always done a very good job (you may find that to be the understatement of the year). But on the other hand, we are still one of the greatest countries in history, and that is not despite our government but more because of our government.

When a coach has tryouts for the basketball team and 40 kids try out for a 12 man roster, cuts are never easy. You will have 6 that are easy picks, 10 that are easy cuts, 4 that are fairly easy picks, and 10 that are fairly easy cuts. The coach is now left with 10 kids fighting for the last 2 positions. Here the coach just has to make his best decision based on a number of criteria and know that he may be wrong (only having limited time to evaluate). There will be kids and parents that disagree and complain but that's unavoidable. The line between the 12th and 13th player is so small and open to interpretation that there will never be universal agreement. The coach is hired and paid to make that decision and live with the fall out.


Politics and the budget process are the same. I always agree more with the picks of the democratic coaches. The problem in politics is that they don't want to cut the roster at 12, they want to keep 25. And then there's just not enough playing time to go around and dissension quickly sets in.
 
#8,261
#8,261
luthervol said:
Some distinctions are obviously easier than others. I would have to fund both the bridge repair and the water supply because they both have immediate health and safety issues attached.

We have to rely on our elected representatives having the wisdom and appropriate priorities to make those difficult decisions. They've not always done a very good job (you may find that to be the understatement of the year). But on the other hand, we are still one of the greatest countries in history, and that is not despite our government but more because of our government.

When a coach has tryouts for the basketball team and 40 kids try out for a 12 man roster, cuts are never easy. You will have 6 that are easy picks, 10 that are easy cuts, 4 that are fairly easy picks, and 10 that are fairly easy cuts. The coach is now left with 10 kids fighting for the last 2 positions. Here the coach just has to make his best decision based on a number of criteria and know that he may be wrong (only having limited time to evaluate). There will be kids and parents that disagree and complain but that's unavoidable. The line between the 12th and 13th player is so small and open to interpretation that there will never be universal agreement. The coach is hired and paid to make that decision and live with the fall out.


Politics and the budget process are the same. I always agree more with the picks of the democratic coaches. The problem in politics is that they don't want to cut the roster at 12, they want to keep 25. And then there's just not enough playing time to go around and dissension quickly sets in.
Click to expand...

Good convo. Thanks.

What if you couldnt do both because money wasnt available and you couldnt borrow?

Do you think we (generally) elect reps with wisdom and appropriate priorities on either side?

What safety net programs, if any, are you willing to cut or eliminate?
 
#8,262
#8,262
McDad said:
Good convo. Thanks.

What if you couldnt do both because money wasnt available and you couldnt borrow?

Do you think we (generally) elect reps with wisdom and appropriate priorities on either side?

What safety net programs, if any, are you willing to cut or eliminate?
Click to expand...

also this doesn't consider what items filled up the budget. there is always going to be some emergency to justify spending on. But there is still the pork there; we can't just look at choosing between emergencies but actually cutting spending.

I am willing to bet dollars for pennies we could cut a significant piece of the budget without having any effect on the nation. How much spending happens just so a department doesn't lose their budget? that's practically criminal. they are spending money because they have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,263
#8,263
LouderVol said:
also this doesn't consider what items filled up the budget. there is always going to be some emergency to justify spending on. But there is still the pork there; we can't just look at choosing between emergencies but actually cutting spending.

I am willing to bet dollars for pennies we could cut a significant piece of the budget without having any effect on the nation. How much spending happens just so a department doesn't lose their budget? that's practically criminal. they are spending money because they have it.
Click to expand...

No disagreement from me.
 
#8,264
#8,264
McDad said:
Good convo. Thanks.

What if you couldnt do both because money wasnt available and you couldnt borrow?

Do you think we (generally) elect reps with wisdom and appropriate priorities on either side?

What safety net programs, if any, are you willing to cut or eliminate?
Click to expand...

I would either close the bridge (if there was an alternate route) until money was available, or I would take the money from other programs if there was not a viable alternative route.

We often elect reps with wisdom and appropriate priorities. (but not equally on both sides) If we do not, then that is on us as a nation. Maybe some of the people who complain should get actively involved.

I would be willing to match $ to $ reductions with safety net programs and defense.
 
#8,265
#8,265
luthervol said:
I would either close the bridge (if there was an alternate route) until money was available, or I would take the money from other programs if there was not a viable alternative route.

We often elect reps with wisdom and appropriate priorities. (but not equally on both sides) If we do not, then that is on us as a nation. Maybe some of the people who complain should get actively involved.

I would be willing to match $ to $ reductions with safety net programs and defense.
Click to expand...

Question to both you: When does it become a federal matter.
 
#8,267
#8,267
luthervol said:
I would either close the bridge (if there was an alternate route) until money was available, or I would take the money from other programs if there was not a viable alternative route.

We often elect reps with wisdom and appropriate priorities. (but not equally on both sides) If we do not, then that is on us as a nation. Maybe some of the people who complain should get actively involved.

I would be willing to match $ to $ reductions with safety net programs and defense.
Click to expand...

Heck yes! That's what im talking about. I'd take that match everyday and twice on Sunday. In fact, I think that is the only viable solution to reign in our spending and debt. I don't know of any elected leader who ptoposes such a measure though. Do you?

Your decision about priority is challenging. Thats why i posed the Q the way i did. To me, there will always be those in need and derserve help and it is hard to make those calls. Plus, who is to say the person elected after you doesnt*have*a 180 degree different view? She pours all the $ toward the bridge and leaves the Detroit issue unresolved...and those resources are wasted. That's why my criteria is Constitutional. It isnt perfect, but it helps me have a framework by which to decide.

Still, i wouldnt borrow.
 
#8,269
#8,269
McDad said:
Heck yes! That's what im talking about. I'd take that match everyday and twice on Sunday. In fact, I think that is the only viable solution to reign in our spending and debt. I don't know of any elected leader who ptoposes such a measure though. Do you?

Your decision about priority is challenging. Thats why i posed the Q the way i did. To me, there will always be those in need and derserve help and it is hard to make those calls. Plus, who is to say the person elected after you doesnt*have*a 180 degree different view? She pours all the $ toward the bridge and leaves the Detroit issue unresolved...and those resources are wasted. That's why my criteria is Constitutional. It isnt perfect, but it helps me have a framework by which to decide.

Still, i wouldnt borrow.
Click to expand...

The bolded portion will always be unavoidably true. That's why I like the coaching analogy. That 13th player that didn't make the team would have made the team at another school. He probably would have been a starter at some schools. For him, it's largely a function of where he lives. Life is not fair. That's why I always follow that cliche with this..."which is all the more reason people should be."

There obviously is no perfectly fair system and never will be. That's where people step in and pick up the slack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,275
#8,275
luthervol said:
The bolded portion will always be unavoidably true. That's why I like the coaching analogy. That 13th player that didn't make the team would have made the team at another school. He probably would have been a starter at some schools. For him, it's largely a function of where he lives. Life is not fair. That's why I always follow that cliche with this..."which is all the more reason people should be."

There obviously is no perfectly fair system and never will be. That's where people step in and pick up the slack.
Click to expand...

That sound awfully close to a small government ideal. Government does what it is mandated to do and the people (charitable works) pick up the slack.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top