This “fiscal responsibility” rejoinder to the fiscally conservative position is goofy and has been coming up a lot lately. When I get some time I’ll start a GD thread.
You see? I’m not a knee-jerker, and I do pay attention to what you’re saying.
Maybe I don’t suck after all. Is that a possibility? 
ETA: Not clear on how the fiscal responsibility stuff is goofy, as I believe the debt increase as % of GDP, while not quite as great, were still much higher under Reagan than they had been, for example. How does that not reflect fiscal responsibility?
Reading comprehension, STAT!!
Er… “lip service” means “an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction.” And when you use the phrase “at least…” as you did, it’s clearly implied that the Republicans are not, in fact, paying any “service” to fiscal conservatism greater than “lip.” (Your use of the phrase is different than “at least equal to, and possibly greater than.” If that’s how you meant it, your usage was incorrect, or at best woefully ambiguous.)
Since the phrase “lip service” carries with it the implicit meaning that there’s no measure of convicion greater than the minimum, the phrase “…are at least paying lip service” is in fact effectively synonymous with the phrase “…only paying lip service.” Maybe you meant to say something different, but as far as reading comprehension goes, NurseCarmen was spot on.
You seem to at least have one functioning brain cell. You can take that as a statement of fact or, as you seem wont to do, an insult.
How’s this then: You’re either a moron who does not understand the basics of english grammar or economics, or you’re a fucking troll. Or both.
I was never any good at multiple choice, more of an essay man myself.
I choose option (c)–fuck off.
I realize this is the pit, and I’m supposed to become irrationally profane or something, but it was not my intent to make you angry – merely to point out that you were making a false accusation. In English, the phrase “At least [name] is paying lip service” is synonymous with “[name]” may only be paying lip service, but that’s more than what [other name] is doing." And that’s how NurseCarmen interpreted it. It carries a much different meaning than “You seem to have at least one functioning brain cell,” which typically implies you think I’m misunderstanding something even though I should be smart enough not to.
I suspect you understand all of this, and are just being pissy because this is the Pit and it’s unbecoming to apologize or admit error. If you don’t understand, then I suppose I’d echo Polemic’s opinion that some nuances of written English are eluding you, though I’d do so with fewer F-bombs.
OK so maybe I wasn’t entirely clear. I used “paying lip service” to acknowldege that not everything the Republicans do is completely in line with the fiscally conservative philosophy bat at least they are more likely to act in line with such philosophy than are the Democrats. I can see what you are saying and what the good nurse is saying, so sorry for the invective.
heh. Yep. You are a sucker. When, again, in the last decade or two have they acted in a fiscally responsible manner?
Almost three. Reagan began in 1980, and that’s when the deficit sky-rocketed. Fiscal responsibility isn’t keeping taxes down (although that’s what a lot of people think it is); it’s keeping spending within what you’re collecting in revenues. No Republican has done that in the past thirty years. Funny - I don’t think Democrats have raised taxes in thirty years (I could be wrong on that), and we certainly have a better record on spending than Republicans, yet they are the party of fiscal responsibility. :rolleyes:
I may not agree with you about Republican vs. Democratic fiscal responsibility, but I do appreciate the clarification. Thanks!
Look, this isn’t so hard. Which candidate will hugely increase entitlements, expand existing social programs and enact new ones, and turn many nontaxpayers into net tax receivers (which he’s calling a "tax cut"for some reason)? I’m for the other guy.
So let me get this straight, John McCain is really going to fuck Diogenes the Cynic’s dog?
I thought you said you were for McCain…
I knew someone would say that. You must be completely delusional if you are serious.
You’re the deluded one. What do you call the proposed bail out if not socializing losses while privatizing profits? How do you expect McCain to lower taxes on the majority of taxpayers after the mother of all wealth redistributions from taxpayers to corporations who got themselves into this mess?
Lots of points here but plane’s about to takeoff.
-
The bailout is not a handout to corps. In large part its a takeover of some corps and a purchase of stock from others. The bailout wont end up costing the full face amount because thr gov is buying assets it can sell later.
-
Im not a huge fan of the bailout, but there arent a lot of good options here. I cant say its not worse than doing nothing.
-
Using money to prevent economic problems is much better than giving it to poor people.
“Poor people” are an economic problem. And a problem of justice as well as a measure of our humanity and our decency.
I love the economic attitude of “we can do anything we want with the tax money as long as it doesn’t so much as whiff of doing something good or useful - which is to say helping poor people, doing research, maintaining infrastructure, etc.” Apparently these should all be done on a local level. Except that these same people never vote for increased taxes on a local level either.
Or these should be the province of the free market. The problem is, the free market is no longer driven by long term profits of the companies provisions of goods and services. It is driven by anticipation of stock price rises, and these are in the fairly immediate short term. So most businesses have no incentive to look into long term investments in things like research. And, as I believe I mentioned above (but it could have been in another thread), business America has a vested interest in maintaiing a large permanent under class as a source of cheap labor who will shut up rather than risk what little work and pay than can get.
As for infrastructure? No one wants to pay for that, until it actually dies, talking a lot of people and money with it. At which point everyone starts blaming the government for not having already done it.
Rand, there are times when you provide decent arguments, even though I rarely agree with them. In this case, though, I don’t think you’ve thought it through. Having poor people go to the emergency room for routine treatment is not an optimum treatment plan; it costs all of us considerably more money than it would if all of us were insured. And most of the poor aren’t poor because they are morally reprehensible. The majority of us who are educated and self-supporting would not have been had we been born into the same circumstances as those who are dirt poor. Of course, it’s much more comfortable believing that they deserve it; it allows you to keep your money in your own pocket and feel that you are simultaneously being righteous about it.