Do liberals care about the debt and deficit?

A strawman argument is when you argue against a point that has not been raised.

You jumped into the conversation where I was explaining how Conservative voters care about the debt but also recognize that a President going after it agressively cannot win, so they vote for those that will best push the Conservative agenda. Choosing the lesser of two evils if you will.

Your response of "Unfortunately the two frontrunners are pushing an populist pseudo-conservative agenda. Rand Paul would push forward conservative agenda, but he has not announced he is running yet." was not on topic. The topic was not which candidates best embody conservative ideals, yet that was your response. Hence it was a strawman. You are arguing against a point that was not raised or even being discussed.

Since the conversation was not about which candidates best embody Conservative ideals, my statement of "for purposes of this conversation, it does not matter" was spot on. The conversation was about Conservative voters caring about the debt but being pragmatic, not the two frontrunners for the current nomination as you tried to imply when you submitted your strawman argument.

For purposes of this conversation it does not matter. This conversation was not about the current election.

 

Dude Neocons have been around since the 80's. During the later days of the Carter Admin what were then called Scoop Jackson Democrats rebranded themselves as Neoconservatives. The name in and of itself is a lie as they are neither new nor terribly a conservative, though they do talk a good game. They are largely a one issue voting block with the one issue being military spending and warfare when ever possible with out ever actually attempting to win a war. For all practical purposes they are a wholely own subsidiary of the military industrial for whom many of them work when not in public office. The family Bush aren't technically Neocons, they are the rump end of what used to be called country or Rockefeller Republicans.

 

I was not arguing, hence there is no strawman. Don't use words you do not understand.

I said what was on my mind. Why does it offend you?

And OF COURSE it was about the elections.

The post: "Its about who can succesfully win and thus push forward the Conservative agenda."

 

It's not the size of the debt that matters, it is the proportion of interest on the debt in relation to revenue that matters . When it takes 100% of revenue to service the interest on the debt, then you can sound the alarm bells. When that happens, the only way to pay the governments bills is more debt and more fiat currency, which will put America on the road to economic apocalypse rather rapidly.

History proves that neither Dems nor Repubs care about the debt, which is why we have so much of it.

We had a huge surplus coming out of Clinton's presidency, and Bush II put an end to that.

Yes, we do need to do something about it. We can slash military spending because much of it is going to contractors for crap we don't need (the fault of lobbying) and then we are being gouged by manufacturer for parts. Then we can tax the super rich. We can make entitlements more efficient without cutting benefits.

 

Close, but not quite right. A strawman argument is where you exaggerate, twist your opponent's argument into something that it no longer resembles, and then argue that as if that was the argument being made by the opponent. People do this all the time, it's rather common.

So, if I said 'let's debate the value of welfare', and you said 'i don't think giving money to lazy people is a good idea', that is an example of a strawman argument AKA the 'strawman logical fallacy'.

 

It is accurate to some extent that there were individuals within the Scoop Jackson Democrats who later became associated with the Neoconservative movement. For example, prominent figures like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, who were once aligned with the Scoop Jackson Democrats, went on to play influential roles in shaping Neoconservative thought.

However, it is important to note that not all Neoconservatives were formerly part of the Scoop Jackson Democrats, and not all Scoop Jackson Democrats became Neoconservatives. The Neoconservative movement had a broader range of contributors and influences beyond this specific faction of the Democratic Party.

Hmm, you offer several claims about Neoconservatives and their history, I see some issues with your opinion::

Generalization: you generalize Neoconservatives as a one-issue voting block solely focused on military spending and warfare. While Neoconservatives have often advocated for a strong military and interventionist foreign policy, it is an oversimplification to suggest that their entire platform revolves solely around this issue. Neoconservatives have diverse views on various policy areas, including economics, social issues, and foreign policy beyond military intervention.

Lack of evidence: You haven't offered specific evidence to support the claim that Neoconservatives are primarily a subsidiary of the military-industrial complex. While some Neoconservatives may have worked in the defense industry, it is misleading to assert that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of that sector. Assertions without concrete evidence can weaken the overall argument.

Inaccurate characterization: You make a distinction between Neoconservatives and the Bush family, suggesting that the latter are not technically Neoconservatives but rather belong to another Republican faction. This characterization is not entirely accurate. While it is true that the Bush family has its own political identity and history, they have been associated with Neoconservatism in their policy approach, particularly during the presidency of George W. Bush.

Lack of nuance: You present a simplistic understanding of the Neoconservative movement by suggesting that they are neither new nor conservative. It is important to note that the term "neoconservative" emerged to describe a distinct group of intellectuals and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s who had differing views from traditional conservatives on foreign policy and international relations. The label "neoconservative" does not imply that they are entirely disconnected from conservative principles, although there may be variations within the movement.

See: neoconservatism summary | Britannica

In summary, while your opinion raises some valid points about the history and associations of Neoconservatives, it tends to oversimplify and make sweeping generalizations that may not accurately represent the complexity of the movement or the individuals involved. It is essential to approach the topic with a nuanced understanding and provide concrete evidence to support claims.

You see, I used to be one of those guys, back in 1980-86, but by the end of Reagan, I become disillusioned with 'neoliberalism'/'neoconservatism' and now am against their way of thinking in a number of respects

 

@garyd the neocons have a broad array of interests all exposed in "project for a new american century."

they are interested in projecting american power and influence in the interest of their #1 issue : "greater israel."

 

This is silly. For starters whether you want to call it an argument or a statement does not change whether it is a strawman argument. You are giving a response to something that was not raised in this context has the same meaning.

It doesnt offend me, rather strawmen arguments are just a very unproductive way to meander through a conversation. If you want to just keep talking in circles where going nowhere, then just giving responses to different subjects is not a conversation. That is two people having two diffetrent conversations.

Do you understand now?

No, you cannot take the general term of "elections" and then pretend like that makes anything even slightly releated to elections the same subject. We could just say we are talking about humans and with your ridiculous logic we could conclude that darn near ANYTHING is therefore on topic. We could literally take a conversation about football players, and then respond with Trump and conclude that the subject was humans.

That is friggen ridiculous. MY god. Just stop.

 

Exxagerating/twisting your opponent argument into something it no longer resembles.... is just another way of saying that they are arguing against a point that has not been raised. Yeesh. I cannot believe that you bothered to post this.

The point they are arguing against doesnt actually have to be an exxageration to be a strawman, although it often is. Arguing against an exxageration is another way to argue against a point that was not raised, but as a point of fact since you are being so fastidious, it does not have to be an exxageration or a twisting. It can simply just be arguing against something that has not been said. In that situation it is an implication. If I say that oranges sell are over $10 per dozen, and then you respond by saying NONSENSE, apples are only $5 per dozen. That is in fact a strawman. You have set up the situation where you are acting as if you can prove that apples sell for $5 per dozen that therefore my claim about oranges is wrong.

Obviously that would be a nonsensically stupid strawman because the price of apples does not prove anything about the price of oranges, but your strawman would be aimed at making that implication that they are related. The strawman there is the price of apples, and you are setting it up as if you can knock down the easy argument you made for yourself which is proving the price of apples and then acting as if you can prove that, that therefore my claim about oranges is wrong.

 

Sorry bubba, but you did raise the point when you brought up winning the elections. Maybe you'll just need to learn to own your words and not make 5 posts only to complain about what other people post

This is the post I responded to, so there is no twisting either. Your post was quoted word for word:

You: "Its about who can succesfully win and thus push forward the Conservative agenda."

So yea, talking about elections and those who are in the race it totally on topic which you raised.

Maybe you can ask the mods if you can become a junior mod, and then you can spend your days policing what other people say.

 

It is not talking about just anything related to elections. It is talking specifically and ONLY about pushing forward candidates that can win in the context of how much they desire the debt being addressed. It wasnt about any particular candidate or even any particular election. That discussion was as generic as it gets relating to Conservatives and their opinion on the debt.

No, you cannot take the general term of "elections" and then pretend like that makes anything even slightly related to elections the same subject. We could just say we are talking about humans and with your ridiculous logic we could conclude that darn near ANYTHING is therefore on topic. We could literally take a conversation about football players, and then respond with Trump and conclude that the subject was humans.

That is friggen ridiculous. MY god. Just stop.

 

Winning elections has nothing do with elections.

All righty then. Now I've heard it all

 

No, you cannot take the general term of "elections" and then pretend like that makes anything even slightly related to elections the same subject. We could just say we are talking about humans and with your ridiculous logic we could conclude that darn near ANYTHING is therefore on topic. We could literally take a conversation about football players, and then respond with Trump and conclude that the subject was humans.

That is friggen ridiculous. MY god. Just stop.

 

WOW. My post REALLY hit a nerve. Ouch!!

 

Hmmm.

Not really, but if it makes you feel good to think that, go with it.

 

Simple observation since you have made 10 posts to vent out about it. It does not make me feel one way or another.

 

10 posts to vent about it? Or 10 posts responding to you redundantly trying to take another bite at the same apple?

Hmmm. What a mystery (sarcasm)

 

Are you willing to stipulate one cares more than the other as demonstrated by these just completed budget negotiations? I think it was abundantly clear that the Reps are the only ones trying to get some fiscal sanity back in the process while the Dems were demanding unlimited deficits and debt.

 

Because President instruct Congress how much will be spent and where it will be spent and Congress then passes that?

Reagan requested LESS spending each year than Congress authorized and Congress refused to pass all the spending recessions he submitted to them.

Only if you believe that when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi won back the Congress in 2007 they simply asked Bush how much he wanted and where did he want it a passed it? Is that what you are claiming the Dem Congress just bowed down to Bush?

Only if you exclude the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill that was purposely withheld from Bush so Obama could add in his HUGE stimulus plan which of course failed by his own measure to get the economy back in gear.

Dragged kicking and screaming to sign the Gingrich/Kasich budgets, tax cuts and welfare reforms. Clinton who requested MORE spending each year than Congress authorized.

They how come Bush and the Reps handed the Dems a paltry $161B deficit heading to surplus in 2007?

Which party fought tooth and nail against spending restraint and some semblance of a fiscal turnaround here? Which party was demanding no cuts, no reforms just bigger deficits and more debt?

 

How about reduced taxes especially investment, reduced regulatory burdens, pro-growth policies, welfare to work policies and spending restraints on the less priority spending? Works every time. We get our still dismal LFPR back up with more people at work producing supply which will lower inflation and instead of being a government expense they become new government revenue as taxpayers. Grow the economy faster than the government the goal being to get it back in balance and then keep lowering the amount of GDP the government takes in taxes and that capital stays in the private markets to continue the growth. How about that Grand Bargain?

 

The discussion is actually over. Recent economic happenings have proven that MMT was bogus BS and we have been paying the price for it with hyper inflation which won't be stomped out, even as we raise interest rates, both making life miserable for the 99%'rs and making income inequality worse.

 

Hahahaha....the disingenuous of the Republicans who are willing to spends like there is no tomorrow, raise the debt ceilings 3 times under the last administration without conditions but all of a sudden now wanting to be "fiscal conservatives". Funny that.

 

Nope. We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the working poor for you. Everyone has to compromise or nobody compromises at all.

 

Yes I know all of them involve the application of military muscle to get there.

 

Silly the working poor pay almost no taxes and if they play there cards right get almost everything back they pay in.