That didn't take long--Elon jumps ship

Even more can be saved if you required red states to pay as much in taxes as they receive in Federal dollars.

and if you want red state rural areas to economically collapse get rid of their illegal immigrant labor.

As you can see, conservatives hate excessive spending and love tax cuts ( I'm so guilty myself it ain't even healthy)..it's a core thing, ya know?  Like Big Government  for Dems is a core thing. You know all this corny description..and both sides screw up the real-life details sometimes by hanging onto those positions. No matter how much each side bitches and squabbles and moans  about those two divergent approaches, they kinda fall into the axiom category and will not change. Tit for tat thing...philosophically. It's a current Bunker Hill..neither side has to or will like the other alternative. Compromise very rarely finds a way sometimes..less and less these days. These politicians ( all / most) are just too interested in self-preservation / reelection.

I'm here to tell you that the average R congressperson also is aware that cutting revenues can contribute to the deficit ( don't scream).  R's will turn over any rock they can to find monetary buffers for spending cuts ( tax reduction revenue shortfalls included); eg tariffs ( right or wrong..don't cry) and duties; national and foreign private company investment in US; upselling treasury notes, bills, bonds; I could live with hiking excise taxes on items that kill people in the long run (alcohol, tobacco, and Fruit Loops for example). 

The yeeping you refer to is incessant..in here and in DC. It's like water when it wants to go downhill.

Spending cuts is certainly the Republican  mantra.   Every Republican president in my voting lifetime  anchored their platform on that premise.    And not a single one ever delivered - starting with the King of that movement, Ronald Reagan.

Truth be told - Republicans have never been "anti-spending".  A more accurate phrase would be they are "anti-safety net programs".   They have been trying to cut those forever.     One problem they have with that now is the fact that Trump has stolen lots of those programs' voting recipients from Democrats.      I think he gets that.  Josh Hawley gets that.   Rand Paul and Ron JOhnson dont.    And thats going to be interesting to see who wins on that front.   

 My money is on Trump and Hawley....and we get another Republican administration that promises to cut spending and does the oppositte.

Sure, I've always agreed that R's overspend as well ( eg the current big beautiful bill); too much evidence. So imo Senators Paul, Johnson, and Massie have it right to oppose this legislation and they represent a true conservative approach no matter who gets pissed off. I don't know if Trump will put their goodyberries in a vice nor how much he'll crank the handle nor how stout they really are.  There are obviously some elements of compromise in this bill within the R party and when I observe that there's some elements of appreciation. You know..they're doing something!? There is supposedly $1.5T in spending cuts..a plus; but there's a good chance it'll be overwhelmed by spending items in the same bill. Same ol crap, essentially.

Just wanted to observe...BIG GUMMINT AM BAD is a core Republican tenet...but every nation on earth with small government is poor and its citizens are miserable and don't live very long. Whereas those nations with the most extensive, and yes if you like, intrusive (a better word would be participatory) governments are both the richest and the happiest.

It's not unlike conservatism vs. liberalism. Liberalism is inherently superior to conservatism because human history and experience thrive on change--which conservatism resists. Likewise, government is a GOOD thing. Societies lacking it disintegrate.

These are fundamentals. Personal philosophy doesn't enter into it.

Oh brother. When you ascribe to either of those divergent philosophies, they do become personal; one applies the philosophy to his /her everyday life. This disparity is all about conservatism vs liberalism.

I assume you meant "subscribe"...but I'm afraid you're dead wrong. I know several. liberals who are quite conservative in their daily lives, and vice versa. The disparity you refer to is about how people think SOCIETY and GOVERNMENT should act. 

For example, liberals embrace change, while conservatives fear it--but one should raise a family, particularly a large one, in a conservative manner, because stability is paramount. 

You're referring to 'conservative liberals' and / or 'liberal conservatives' ? ; some of those have conservative fiscal stances and simultaneously harbor liberal social issue stances..and / or alternatively the reciprocal/ vice versa of those . A  portion ( who knows) of the voting population pie is represented by  those factions. 

But, as you are absolutely and completely aware of,  there are traditionally understood and commonly known base philosophy/ governance disparities between conservativism vs liberalism and/or right vs left, respectively.

It's played out in greasy spoon cafes and in here daily..and you know damned well that was my original point. The semantics really don't really matter much from a practical standpoint, but I'll concede "it depends on the specific issue". You should just be thankful that those on either side of the political /ideological spectrum are allowed  to make an ass of themselves with their proclaimed arguments.

Yes, you certainly have that right, and you profligately exercise it here and I suspect, elsewhere. Go to! Go to!

But my point was that liberalism is inherently superior to conservatism, because societies as well as governments cannot grow and cannot improve unless they embrace change...and conservatism resists change. If the planet's societies had been conservative throughout history, we'd still be living in thatched huts.

Likewise, "big government" is better than "small government"--because there are many societal needs that cannot be adequated fulfilled by private enterprise. Medical care (for all, not just those who can afford it), transportation, infrastructure, consumer safety, postal service, law enforcement...the list goes on and on. And whether or not you agree--the evidence is there. Big government societies do better, by any metric you wish, than small government societies. And while we're at it--liberal societies do better than conservative ones.

So why are so many people conservatives? Short answer: fear. Change upsets many people, either in the process or impending. So they resist it.

You just bolster my point here, imo. True about change..most of 'us' (conservatives) don't like it..I  certainly don't on average even though some degree of it is inevitable. Simultaneously, you and many Dems / lefties assume all / most change is good; plenty of evidence that it isn't. Change for the sake of change alone always makes me skeptical. In my profession we have the option to use a laser and / or a true bubble level to do a lot of tasks; I still prefer the bubble level ( just out of life long habit) and use it to confirm what a laser line is tellin me; the new tech ( not just level / plumb line devices) at first glance is often appealing, seems 'easier', and is touted as having equitable accuracy..not always the case in real life.