Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Kitchen Sink- ENTER WITH CAUTION

So did "Sleepy" make Kevin McCarthy bark like a dog?

Nines
Nines
May 30, 2023
5:50pm
Block User
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Charles, do you know what a reductio ad absurdum argument is, and how dishonest it is?

Not as defined by you..and nothing I said was dishonest as I see it. Think / act / respond as you choose to. Whether you'll admit it or not, this specific disagreement is again representative of the general disparities in approach ( the ideologies, if you will) between conservatives and liberals. All the detailed argumentative entries emanate from the inherent approach differences..be honest about it. These factions have divided this country since its founding ( and prior to that if you want to include the British Empire rule)..and, admittedly as the arguments persist, both sides charge the other with what they term 'acts of immorality'..or some such insultively personal charge.  It's apparent regarding many economic, cultural, societal, and political issues..and the base differences have always been present and will continue to be. I don't personally have a problem with that..because it is fact today and in past history. So we can either debate the issues honestly and then  likely and eventually end up at a perpetual disagreement on core issues ( and then go vote)..or we can call the other side lying, gnarly and ignorant dipshits. The latter is pretty absurd, actually..and transcends the actual debate on the issues and becomes a nonfruitful screamfest. You people apparently enjoy the latter option.  So, you can all hug my dangling Pythagorean participles ( from a philosophical standpoint).

 

Cheers...out

Kevin Lewis
Kevin Lewis
May 30, 2023
6:01pm
Block User
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

Not as defined by you..and nothing I said was dishonest as I see it. Think / act / respond as you choose to. Whether you'll admit it or not, this specific disagreement is again representative of the general disparities in approach ( the ideologies, if you will) between conservatives and liberals. All the detailed argumentative entries emanate from the inherent approach differences..be honest about it. These factions have divided this country since its founding ( and prior to that if you want to include the British Empire rule)..and, admittedly as the arguments persist, both sides charge the other with what they term 'acts of immorality'..or some such insultively personal charge.  It's apparent regarding many economic, cultural, societal, and political issues..and the base differences have always been present and will continue to be. I don't personally have a problem with that..because it is fact today and in past history. So we can either debate the issues honestly and then  likely and eventually end up at a perpetual disagreement on core issues ( and then go vote)..or we can call the other side lying, gnarly and ignorant dipshits. The latter is pretty absurd, actually..and transcends the actual debate on the issues and becomes a nonfruitful screamfest. You people apparently enjoy the latter option.  So, you can all hug my dangling Pythagorean participles ( from a philosophical standpoint).

 

Cheers...out

"Do you liberals think there should be any spending restraints at all from Congress?" The Book of Charles 147:1.

 

That's what I meant. We favor PAYING THE BILLS, and you depict it as our being in favor of unrestrained (as in, unlimited) spending. Dishonest depiction of our position. Plus, as I apparently keep having to say, the current debate isn't about spending.

 

I don't disagree with your portrayal of two competing ideologies, but since when is, or should be, PAYING THE BILLS be an ideological issue? The primary reason the credit of the United States is the anchor for the world's financial system is that we will pay our bills no matter what. And which party keeps threatening not to do that? Get back to us on that one, Charles.

Nines
Nines
May 30, 2023
6:52pm
Block User
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

"Do you liberals think there should be any spending restraints at all from Congress?" The Book of Charles 147:1.

 

That's what I meant. We favor PAYING THE BILLS, and you depict it as our being in favor of unrestrained (as in, unlimited) spending. Dishonest depiction of our position. Plus, as I apparently keep having to say, the current debate isn't about spending.

 

I don't disagree with your portrayal of two competing ideologies, but since when is, or should be, PAYING THE BILLS be an ideological issue? The primary reason the credit of the United States is the anchor for the world's financial system is that we will pay our bills no matter what. And which party keeps threatening not to do that? Get back to us on that one, Charles.

I don't disagree with paying the bills..I'm glad they may have (depending on the actual voting/passage and potential text changes) avoided the default and predicted they would because of the potential political and economic fallout for either side. We just exprienced a wee bit of probable compromise with this package..an anomaly in DC of late..and both sides ( here and in Congress) are still raising hell. It's au naturale..this screamfest. I get sick of it..and am sick of it.

 

Spending reduction is in fact a great part of this debt ceiling debate..whether you'll admit it or not. You don't like it, but the R's campaigned on spending reduction, as they always have and will continue to. You don't have to like it and are free to point out their particular brand of inefficiencies, but don't tell me this debt ceiling debate issue doesn't involve spending cut approaches. Read the damned text. I don't let the R's off the hook for their historical and current contributions for overspending / debt increasing actions, either. All are guilty. But the current  multi-issue situation is ridiculous. Further,  we haven't even addressed the multifaceted programs and bureaucracies that are funded that I personally feel don't actually benefit tax-paying citizens. Like I said previously, that won't change for me. I'll just cast my vote accordingly. That's the end of it.

Jerry Ice 33
Jerry Ice 33
May 30, 2023
7:49pm
Block User
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

I don't disagree with paying the bills..I'm glad they may have (depending on the actual voting/passage and potential text changes) avoided the default and predicted they would because of the potential political and economic fallout for either side. We just exprienced a wee bit of probable compromise with this package..an anomaly in DC of late..and both sides ( here and in Congress) are still raising hell. It's au naturale..this screamfest. I get sick of it..and am sick of it.

 

Spending reduction is in fact a great part of this debt ceiling debate..whether you'll admit it or not. You don't like it, but the R's campaigned on spending reduction, as they always have and will continue to. You don't have to like it and are free to point out their particular brand of inefficiencies, but don't tell me this debt ceiling debate issue doesn't involve spending cut approaches. Read the damned text. I don't let the R's off the hook for their historical and current contributions for overspending / debt increasing actions, either. All are guilty. But the current  multi-issue situation is ridiculous. Further,  we haven't even addressed the multifaceted programs and bureaucracies that are funded that I personally feel don't actually benefit tax-paying citizens. Like I said previously, that won't change for me. I'll just cast my vote accordingly. That's the end of it.

Further, we haven't even addressed the multifaceted programs and bureaucracies that are funded and I personally feel don't actually benefit tax-paying citizens.....

 

How dare you Charles!!!!  You mean like "increasing our revenue stream" like I constantly see the term thrown around here on this forum by the libs while we fund billions and billions of $s for Ukraine?  


Kevin Lewis
Kevin Lewis
May 31, 2023
1:14am
Block User
Originally posted by: Jerry Ice 33

Further, we haven't even addressed the multifaceted programs and bureaucracies that are funded and I personally feel don't actually benefit tax-paying citizens.....

 

How dare you Charles!!!!  You mean like "increasing our revenue stream" like I constantly see the term thrown around here on this forum by the libs while we fund billions and billions of $s for Ukraine?  

Jerry, dude...like so many conservitard pundits trying to score brownie points with the base, you pretend to be so stupid as to fail to realize that if we don't send billions in aid to Ukraine, we'll have to spend trillions to contain Russia later?

 

Y'all THAT dumb?

Kevin Lewis
Kevin Lewis
May 31, 2023
1:26am
Block User
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

I don't disagree with paying the bills..I'm glad they may have (depending on the actual voting/passage and potential text changes) avoided the default and predicted they would because of the potential political and economic fallout for either side. We just exprienced a wee bit of probable compromise with this package..an anomaly in DC of late..and both sides ( here and in Congress) are still raising hell. It's au naturale..this screamfest. I get sick of it..and am sick of it.

 

Spending reduction is in fact a great part of this debt ceiling debate..whether you'll admit it or not. You don't like it, but the R's campaigned on spending reduction, as they always have and will continue to. You don't have to like it and are free to point out their particular brand of inefficiencies, but don't tell me this debt ceiling debate issue doesn't involve spending cut approaches. Read the damned text. I don't let the R's off the hook for their historical and current contributions for overspending / debt increasing actions, either. All are guilty. But the current  multi-issue situation is ridiculous. Further,  we haven't even addressed the multifaceted programs and bureaucracies that are funded that I personally feel don't actually benefit tax-paying citizens. Like I said previously, that won't change for me. I'll just cast my vote accordingly. That's the end of it.

It's ideological for you, though. "A'SPENDIN AM BAD!" That's the holy hosannah of conservatives and will be until the last conservative dies whispering "Small government..."

 

It may amuse you to learn that I used to think like you. I was pretty much a diehard conservative and railed against all that thar liberal foolishness. Then I saw that the countries and societies that were the most liberal were both the happiest AND the most prosperous. I traveled to all those countries. I saw what the people's lives were like. I saw that BIG GUMMINT, done properly of course, was the best plan for societal functioning. Countries with small government are, in fact, more often than not, shitholes.

 

I also push back on your portrait of American government growing bigger and bigger "out of control." We have a much more prosperous, happy, and healthy society than we did in 1930. Or 1960. We have better medical care, cleaner air and water, etc. etc. etc. All because BIG GUMMINT can do things private enterprise either can't or won't.

 

One seemingly mundane example: consider the incredible services you get when you put a stamp on an envelope and drop it in a mailbox. How much do you think it would cost if private enterprise did that? $10? $20?

 

Government spending is inherently a good thing (LIGHTNING BOLT)

Boilerman
Boilerman
May 31, 2023
6:07am
Block User
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

Cheap?  no.  Paid for ?  Yes...or at least until Trump and the Republicans removed the things that paid for it.

BUt thanks for yet another example of how Democrats manage the country's finances better than the people you vote for.

Giving money away with borrow funds is not managing finances well.

Kevin Lewis
Kevin Lewis
May 31, 2023
10:23am
Block User
Originally posted by: Boilerman

Giving money away with borrow funds is not managing finances well.

I'm going to go WAAAAY over Boiler's head here: whether borrowing is good or bad depends on its cost. And the US can borrow funds for a lower cost than any other country or business entity in the world. When that's true, it's foolish NOT to borrow.

 

And "giving money away," as Boiler puts it, can be good strategy if it forestall greater expenses later. Example: free universal medical care. The countries that have it spend less than half of what we do per capita.

PJ Stroh
PJ Stroh
May 31, 2023
10:26am
Block User
Originally posted by: Boilerman

Giving money away with borrow funds is not managing finances well.

They weren't borrowed until Trump got rid of the pay-fors.   And I cant find a single thread on this board anywhere from you complaining about that.    

 

Obama paid for his spending.  Trump put it on the credit card.  And you cheered him the whole way.   

 

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane

Vegas Todd
Vegas Todd
May 31, 2023
10:29am
Block User
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

They weren't borrowed until Trump got rid of the pay-fors.   And I cant find a single thread on this board anywhere from you complaining about that.    

 

Obama paid for his spending.  Trump put it on the credit card.  And you cheered him the whole way.   

 

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane

ZING!!!!

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now