It is inconsistent to be both pro life and be in favor of cutting government spending

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Fiscal conservatives: We want to cut government spending to balance the budget.

Me: On what?  You would have to cut spending by 20%.  The Us budget is here:


Please tell me what you want to cut.  These are your only options whether you like it or not.

Fiscal conservatives (FC): I dOn'T KnOw!.

Me: When you advocate for cutting government spending to balance the budget, you don't mean what you say; you bandwagon.

Cutting government spending leads to people dying.  Accept that or don't call yourself fiscally conservative.

FC: How would you rather balence the budget?

Me: Raise taxes on the globalists!
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

Go back to Eisenhower's 92 percent top tax rate.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
I got to see what the conservatives think of it.

You either want to raise taxes on the globalists or you are pro-globalist.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

I want to raise taxes on the rich. I am poor (worth less than $300 million).
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
If you say, "Raise taxes on the rich to help the poor", then the right thinks you are a socialist.

If you say, "Raise taxes on the globalists to help American Patriots!", then the right thinks you are a patriot.

Framing is important.
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
What if I oppose government spending on bombs that kill children?
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
We should maybe not overspend. However maybe, murdering people to cut down on government spending is unethical. 

#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
You can reduce:

1. Military
2. Healthcare
3. Social security

Or reduce all 3.

The bigger question is how do you reduce without causing negative consequences.

Abolishing police, for example, would reduce spending and boost economy since that workforce would be moved to productive sector.

But then crime could  be a problem.

Making all schools private would probably be best.

As for reducing healthcare, I dont see that happening, but it would mean someone no longer has health insurance.

Reducing military at the time when all our enemies are increasing theirs rapidly might not be a great move.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Savant
What if I oppose government spending on bombs that kill children?
That would be maybe the one exception.  But the one time the pro life and the pro money position agree, the conservatives don't agree.

Cutting the military budget is not fiscally conservative because the conservatives are against it and the liberals are for it.  Fiscally libertarian is not the same as fiscally conservative.  The libertarians are principled and so are the leftists.  I respect both. Not the conservatives though; the one time they support expanding government funding is when it's a program that stereotypically murders and tortures people.

But what about the police???
If the police never were stereotyped to be killing black people, then the left would have no problem with them; but the right would because it's "government spending" and they would correctly view police officers as government employees; so they would get treated like how the right treats teachers.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
@Wylted
We should maybe not overspend. However maybe, murdering people to cut down on government spending is unethical. 
Then what program do you want to cut?  If none, then according to you, we already don't overspend.  With few exceptions (none backed by the right), cutting government spending leads to death.  You don't want to pay a lot in taxes for strangers?  Fine.  Let the globalists pay more in taxes.

Why would you care if the globalists pay more in taxes?

I've tried to tag you before and it failed.  This time it worked though.
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The bigger question is how do you reduce without causing negative consequences.
If you don't have a specific idea on how to do that, then it's impossible.

Abolishing police, for example, would reduce spending and boost economy since that workforce would be moved to productive sector.
The conservatives won't agree to this.

Making all schools private would probably be best.
Then poor kids (defined as kids who have parents that can't afford to spend $20K/year on all of their kid's education for 13 years of school) don't get education and they become incompetent for the future's jobs.

As for reducing healthcare, I dont see that happening, but it would mean someone no longer has health insurance.
That's the drawback of letting the globalists have lower taxes.

Reducing military at the time when all our enemies are increasing theirs rapidly might not be a great move.
I trust NATO to protect us, but you don't have any good ideas on how to cut government spending so the globalists can have a tax cut.
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then poor kids (defined as kids who have parents that can't afford to spend $20K/year on all of their kid's education for 13 years of school) don't get education and they become incompetent for the future's jobs
There are plenty of jobs which dont require any education other than what you get while doing those jobs anyway. Jobs such as cleaners, factory workers, farmers...ect. and almost any physical job. Parents can teach their kids to read and write, and for many people thats quite enough.
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
There are plenty of jobs which dont require any education other than what you get while doing those jobs anyway. Jobs such as cleaners, factory workers, farmers...ect. and almost any physical job. Parents can teach their kids to read and write, and for many people thats quite enough.
But for many people, they need college education.  You can't tell who is who at a young age.  When I was 4, I wanted to be a fireman.  When I was 7; a professional athlete.  Not anymore.  It's better to have education and not need it than to need it and not have it.
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then what program do you want to cut?  
I just saw a US budget statement where there was $75 spent on a stapler. Maybe we can buy cheaper staples. As far as cutting programs here are some that can be cut

1. Money spent on reverse stings which seem border line illegal

2. Art exhibits that are just people spraying paint out of their ass onto canvas

3. Putting American troops in Germany, pretty sure we are no longer at war with Germany and don't need troops there.

This is just off the top of my head
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's better to have education and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Is it better?

Education costs money and lowers workforce.

Schools anyway have incentive to allow smart kids to go there, but when it comes to stupid kids, most of them are just wasting 12 years of resources not working while having others work for them. And in the end, they end up doing a job which didnt even require education.

I went to school for 12 years. I ended up doing a job as a factory worker which didnt even require me to know how to read. Then I moved to farming, and all it takes is knowing how to set prices, which doesnt require knowledge further from reading.
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
1. Money spent on reverse stings which seem border line illegal

2. Art exhibits that are just people spraying paint out of their ass onto canvas

3. Putting American troops in Germany, pretty sure we are no longer at war with Germany and don't need troops there.
Maybe we should cut these programs, but how much do they cost?  Because lets say someone steals $1 from me and I don't notice.  I would be way less upset than if someone stole $20,000 from me and I find out.  I wouldn't vote for a politician because of their promise to give me back the $1 that was stolen from me; but I would be way more inclined to vote if it was $20,000.

1 and 3 are left wing ideas that the right disagrees with.  2 is government waste if federally funded, but it doesn't cost that much money as a program per American taxpayer.  It's not like the taxpayers spend $1 trillion on art museums.
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Schools anyway have incentive to allow smart kids to go there, but when it comes to stupid kids, most of them are just wasting 12 years of resources not working while having others work for them. And in the end, they end up doing a job which didnt even require education.
That makes sense.  Don't force the dumb kid to go to school to free up recourses for the smarter kids.
#18
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's not like the taxpayers spend $1 trillion on art museums.
Of my disposable income I spent $3000 last month. 

Nothing cost me more than $20. 
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
When I was at school, my parents made me study and do all sorts of tasks which will never be useful to me.

I had to draw, but I am never going to be an artist.

I had to learn complicated equations, only to never use them after that.

I had to learn about biology, only to forget it all.

I had to learn history, which wasnt useful.

And after years of finishing school and high school, I realized that everything I learned there, I learned for nothing, and I had to start from nothing learning job skills which I was never taught in school.
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
How much does the government spend on art museums?
Topic's author
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
They didn't know what you were going to become.
#22
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
How much does the government spend on art museums?
I am not sure why you are asking this. I mentioned that there are some instances of wasteful spending in the government and that they should be good stewards of our money. I think you insinuated that programs would have to be cut to cut spending, which is false, but I did mention some programs that I don't see a need for and I guess you dismissed them and for some reason believe conservatives support troops in Germany . 
Topic's author
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
Cutting money to art museums means some artists become unemployed, so they would go on welfare or they would starve (unless they found a different job, but it's unlikely).  Now, I'm alright with that.  But it's unpopular to advocate cutting government spending because it leads to there being more unemployed people and more suffering instead of just taxing the globalists.

I guess you dismissed them and for some reason believe conservatives support troops in Germany . 
Conservatives back high military spending, so they would want troops in Germany.

#24
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
How would buying staples at Walmart for $10 instead of $75 cost jobs?

Why do you think there are zero ways to save on things without cutting jobs?

How many jobs need to be cut by saving on energy cutting off the lights when you leave a building?
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10

@Wylted
How would buying staples at Walmart for $10 instead of $75 cost jobs?
It wouldn’t cut any jobs, but I don’t think the government spends $75 on one staples.  Governments have some incentive to cut costs because high taxes isn’t appealing.  This is for both left and right wing governments as right wing governments would convert it into a tax cut and left wing governments would use the money to help more poor people out.