User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 69

  1. #41
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dga View Post
    republican scandals are a lot more funny

    That depends. I still laugh about Marion Barry and Ted Kennedy. Those jokes never get old.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #42
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That depends. I still laugh about Marion Barry and Ted Kennedy. Those jokes never get old.
    Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun!

    I love that bumper sticker.



  3. #43
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun!

    I love that bumper sticker.

    Yeah, that is a T-shirt, too. My favorite was Norm MacDonald on Dennis Miller's radio show. He was "going through old material" during the writers' strike, and he said, "So, this amnesty bill was spearheaded by Teddy Kennedy. It died in Congress. Apparently, out of sheer habit, Kennedy didn't report it dead for ten hours."
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #44
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That depends. I still laugh about Marion Barry and Ted Kennedy. Those jokes never get old.
    those were good, yea.

    blagovich is pretty funny, too

    still - rush, newt, and all of the affairs (esp the gay sex stuff) just keep giving

  5. #45
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I disagree with your assessment of that being an ideological statement. Responsibility and irresponsibility are subjective judgments on actions; there is no hard definition of what being responsible is. For example, World War II was funded heavily through deficit spending. Does that mean it was an irresponsible action?

    Likewise, many economic theories posit that deficit spending in deflationary periods re-energizes the economy more quickly and allows the accrued deficits to be recouped more easily later than if a fully balanced budget were followed. In their estimation, deficit spending would be the more responsible tack to take. In the absence of hard evidence, what's to say that viewpoint is incorrect?
    Is it financially responsible to engage in deficit spending during inflationary periods, as well? Because that's what we've done.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #46
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Is it financially responsible to engage in deficit spending during inflationary periods, as well? Because that's what we've done.
    No, that's generally when you're supposed to raise taxes to pay for the previous debts a government's accrued, getting ahead because you're paying off the loans with less real money.

    "Fiscally responsible" candidates in the 1980s took that to mean jacking up military spending, slashing taxes and accruing massive amounts of debt, under the guise of "why should the government be taking your money when times are good?". Needless to say, the ease at which this argument is made is one of the major flaws of traditional Keynesian economics.

  7. #47
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    No, that's generally when you're supposed to raise taxes to pay for the previous debts a government's accrued, getting ahead because you're paying off the loans with less real money.

    "Fiscally responsible" candidates in the 1980s took that to mean jacking up military spending, slashing taxes and accruing massive amounts of debt, under the guise of "why should the government be taking your money when times are good?". Needless to say, the ease at which this argument is made is one of the major flaws of traditional Keynesian economics.

    Calling yourself "fiscally responsible" doesn't make it so. Reagan and Co. did some positive things in the 1980s, but quadrupling the federal debt was not one of them.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #48
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Calling yourself "fiscally responsible" doesn't make it so. Reagan and Co. did some positive things in the 1980s, but quadrupling the federal debt was not one of them.
    You see my point, however - "fiscal responsibility" is whatever you make of it. It's a phrase that has no real meaning. You can say "I want the government to balance its budget every year" - that's a distinct policy position. You can say "I would rather the government cut down its spending on social programs" - too, a policy position. Finally, you could say "I want the government to raise taxes in order to pay down the national debt" - obviously, a policy position.

    The problem is, all three positions can claim the mantle of "fiscal responsibility", and none of them would be wrong... even when their goals are all either contradictory or competing! That's simply because "fiscal responsibility" doesn't mean anything at all.

    When Reagan claimed that he was "fiscally responsible", that was code speech that supporters would recognize - he would cut funding to social programs (particularly ones that minorities disproportionately benefit from; remember the welfare queen in her pink Cadillac), increase spending on preferred areas, such as the military, and cut top-level marginal tax rates. As you said, this led to a massive national debt, as the Democratic Congress wouldn't allow program cuts, and Reagan still jacked up military spending and slashed taxes on the wealthy. Now, even with this in mind, would Reagan be a hypocrite for running in 1984 (heh) as a "fiscally responsible" president? Not at all, because by what he intended "fiscal responsibility" to mean, he fulfilled every part of the bargain he had direct control over. Even when it meant huge amounts of deficit spending in a massively inflationary era.

    Say what you mean. Don't hide behind words that sound good but mean nothing. If you're for something, be proud of it and own up to it.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You see my point, however - "fiscal responsibility" is whatever you make of it. It's a phrase that has no real meaning. You can say "I want the government to balance its budget every year" - that's a distinct policy position. You can say "I would rather the government cut down its spending on social programs" - too, a policy position. Finally, you could say "I want the government to raise taxes in order to pay down the national debt" - obviously, a policy position.

    The problem is, all three positions can claim the mantle of "fiscal responsibility", and none of them would be wrong... even when their goals are all either contradictory or competing! That's simply because "fiscal responsibility" doesn't mean anything at all.

    When Reagan claimed that he was "fiscally responsible", that was code speech that supporters would recognize - he would cut funding to social programs (particularly ones that minorities disproportionately benefit from; remember the welfare queen in her pink Cadillac), increase spending on preferred areas, such as the military, and cut top-level marginal tax rates. As you said, this led to a massive national debt, as the Democratic Congress wouldn't allow program cuts, and Reagan still jacked up military spending and slashed taxes on the wealthy. Now, even with this in mind, would Reagan be a hypocrite for running in 1984 (heh) as a "fiscally responsible" president? Not at all, because by what he intended "fiscal responsibility" to mean, he fulfilled every part of the bargain he had direct control over. Even when it meant huge amounts of deficit spending in a massively inflationary era.

    Say what you mean. Don't hide behind words that sound good but mean nothing. If you're for something, be proud of it and own up to it.
    No, fiscal responsibility is not whatever you make of it. Perversion of the term for political gain does not make the term illegitimate. Reagan was not fiscally responsible. Neither was Bush. It doesn't matter what politicians and pundits say, the fact is that they were not. I would sooner call them liars than say the term has no meaning.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #50
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    No, fiscal responsibility is not whatever you make of it. Perversion of the term for political gain does not make the term illegitimate. Reagan was not fiscally responsible. Neither was Bush. It doesn't matter what politicians and pundits say, the fact is that they were not. I would sooner call them liars than say the term has no meaning.
    Then what is fiscal responsibility?

Similar Threads

  1. How to fix things with my ex ISTJ boyfriend
    By Lilacliving in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-13-2017, 05:44 PM
  2. [ENFJ] Discussing personal things with an ENFJ
    By rosemilk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-03-2014, 11:38 PM
  3. 10 Things Most Americans Don't Know About America
    By Eilonwy in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 10:42 AM
  4. Moving things with your MIND!!!!!!! It's MINDblowing.
    By Chimerical in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 05:15 PM
  5. 10 Things I Hate About You
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 08:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO