drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that a resident wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a belief that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. it didn't work. To me, that's the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

---

Quote:

---

In technical terms, "conservative" is how we would use it in other context. Conserving the current way of being, hesitant to change, cautious in moving in a different direction, moderation.

---

Just tweaking you a bit, but given this definition, where would the progress come from?

Quote:

---

In the way it is often used in politics, "conservative" means the recent but pre-Trump historical platform of the Republican party. I think that is where you were going with your post.

Now, "conservative" means Trumpism, which is not conservative in either sense of the word.

---

Trump isn't conservative so much as opportunistic I think, but he's a byproduct, and it's those who support him that are the issue. I think it's anger the buoys him, and what he excels at is deriding those with whom his supporters hate.

Where would you put Tea Party conservatism? It feels to me the precursor to whatever it is we have now in Trumpism and seems to have risen on the hate fanned by hate fanners.

Quote:

---

What you are writing about is "individual accountability" versus "community accountability". It is not absolute in either way, but you and I tend to think that if there is a problem in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, we think that we have individual accountability, blame and responsibility. We will fix our own problem. Others view the same as community problem. If there is something wrong in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, the community or the society has failed to provide all of the means or not removing the barriers.

---

This I believe is the heart of it, and difficult to debate, but our positions are typically dictated by our takes on human nature. Without pretending to have the answer, I think it's a mistake to project onto others what we believe to be best for us.

The virtues of individualism and self-sufficiency are immensely attractive, but our specie's legacy is built on cooperation.

Economically speaking, is it more important we be producers or consumers? (I think this question is germane and less rando that it seems.)

---

The standard definition of "conservative" is not my definition but the dictionary definition. Not sure how that is tweaking me. As far as where progress comes from, I am sure people are conservative on certain things and more open to change on other things. And fixing things that is not broken may not be progress. For example, I am probably conservative on what strange "medication" I would take. Someone can tell me that, after a workout, taking some strange pill will make me feel better. I would probably take Tylenol and not think I am preventing progress by not taking that strange pill. On other things that I think are broken, I would not be conservative in my approach.

Tea Party was just small government and low taxes. One of the Tea Party leaders became one of the most ardent anti-Trumper and decided not to run again for congress. I am more a moderate fiscal conservative, with view towards smaller government, not cutting taxes or increasing entitlements when we have a deficit.

And we of course project our own preferences and experiences in developing our views on this world. Not sure how it is possible to be agnostic to one's own preferences and experiences.

As far as whether it is better to be consumers or producers, hopefully we produce more than we consume.

calbear93 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that a resident wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a belief that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. it didn't work. To me, that's the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

I think people consider "conservative" in different ways.

In technical terms, "conservative" is how we would use it in other context. Conserving the current way of being, hesitant to change, cautious in moving in a different direction, moderation.

---

Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with caution. Caution means not believing every conspiracy theory you hear. Caution means when someone makes a claim, you take the time to examine whether there's any concrete facts supporting the claim. Caution means not taking hydroxychloroquine just because a few outliers are telling you it works without supplying any facts when the predominant science is telling you that it doesn't work.

Caution and subtly moving the dials is a good thing when something appears to be working well.

People constantly confuse social conservative viewpoints with economic viewpoints. Both parties love to cater to social issues and claim that their social politics match their economic politics. But the truth is that neither party has a liberal economic policy. Both parties want to make very few changes to the economic system. They want to tinker at the margins, but they largely want things to remain as they are.

Quote:

---

In the way it is often used in politics, "conservative" means the recent but pre-Trump historical platform of the Republican party. I think that is where you were going with your post.

---

Reagan's conservatism was largely social conservatism. There was nothing conservative about his economic agenda. He did not advocate for slow cautious change. He promoted a very radical change to the underpinnings of the American economy and economic equality. He attacked labor unions, dismantled regulations designed to protect the public from predatory capitalism, dismantled anti-trust legislation, and promoted an economic theory that has been thoroughly discredited in real-world application, yet the Republican Party remains wedded to those theories because, quite frankly, there isn't much intellectual underpinning left to the Republican Party anymore. It's mostly just unbridled libertarian economics. Basically, he completed the unraveling of FDR's New Deal, which devotees of the Hoover school of "thought" had hated and wanted to destroy from the day it was enacted. Many people in the Democratic Party shared those views, but they couldn't say so out loud because he was so popular with the people.

Quote:

---

Now, "conservative" means Trumpism, which is not conservative in either sense of the word.

---

Exactly right. Trump campaigned as a radical. He told you that things were not remotely okay as is. He wanted to tear up trade agreements. He wanted to radically change immigration policy. But the truth is that Trump doesn't really believe much in any of that stuff. The only real thing he values is himself and the growth of his brand and whatever he perceives to give him a personal advantage is what he will advocate for. This is why he's been a Democrat at times and a Republican at others. There is no underlying philosophy other than telling people what they want to hear so that they will go along with him.

Quote:

---

What you are writing about is "individual accountability" versus "community accountability". It is not absolute in either way, but you and I tend to think that if there is a problem in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, we think that we have individual accountability, blame and responsibility. We will fix our own problem. Others view the same as community problem. If there is something wrong in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, the community or the society has failed to provide all of the means or not removing the barriers. The way I am built, I like the individual accountability because it gives me dignity to control my future and destiny instead of waiting for others to take care of it for me. And the way we view this will dictate how address issues.

---

And there is an appeal to that philosophy. I subscribed to it once myself when I saw the playing field as being more fair and unbiased. And it's easier to believe in that philosophy when you're white and heterosexual and you don't see the barriers that are so obvious to others.

But it's patently obvious that there are barriers and that there always have been. Blacks have never been on a level playing field with whites in regards to access to the best pre-college educational opportunity, hiring opportunities, opportunities to qualify for mortgages, and opportunities to build personal financial equity. There are examples of some blacks who've managed to overcome all that, but the predominant reality is that most have not and it isn't because they didn't want to or were too lazy. That's a myth that's been perpetuated.

And it applies to Latinos as well. There are a whole host of occupations that are dominated by Latinos and they are almost exclusively lower-paying, dead-end jobs with no opportunity for advancement or the building of skills that would enable them to have some economic mobility. And those barriers are as read and as man-made as the barriers for blacks.

Quote:

---

But in either case, I say I am a fiscal conservative, but I am starting to think that I am a fiscal rebel since I actually believe in being responsible in tax policy and spending to curb our deficit. Other than Clinton, neither party has been very fiscally responsible.

---

There is a benefit to maintaining a balanced budget and responsible fiscal policy and paying down our debts, but that's when times are relatively good. Times are not even remotely good for the majority of Americans right now. We are facing massive unemployment, the destruction of small businesses, and a massive health crisis. This is not a time for small measured change. It's a time for big ideas, big investments, and big change.

And it is not a time for ideology to trump reality. We have big problems and they will require a lot of money to solve. And there's only one engine that is big enough and recession-proof enough to do what's necessary to fix the giant problems we are facing.

When we are on steadier footing, I'm 100% for reduction of government and a return to fiscal sanity, but that can't be the focus right now. We have big structural problems that need to be fixed and we need our people to know how they are going to be able to provide for their basic needs.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Economically speaking, is it more important we be producers or consumers?

---

It's the most important question. Right now, we are a very vapid economy. We spend our money on stuff with little lasting economic intrinsic value that needs to be perpetually replaced for no real good reason other than that the lack of quality in the stuff we buy dictates that it won't last.

From a trade standpoint, it's possible that perhaps there are industries we don't want to participate in that are better performed by other countries where labor costs are far reduced. From a human standpoint, do we really want to be equal trade partners with countries who commit human rights atrocities and practice predatory labor practices on their workforce? Do we want to be equal trade partners with countries who engage in massive cybercrime and are constantly stealing information from us?

Right now, China is fleecing us in every way shape and form. We should be pursuing other countries to partner with. The rise of China economically in the way that they are doing it is very bad for our national interest. They are not a friendly nation and should not be treated as one.

calbear93 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that a resident wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a belief that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. it didn't work. To me, that's the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

---

Quote:

---

In technical terms, "conservative" is how we would use it in other context. Conserving the current way of being, hesitant to change, cautious in moving in a different direction, moderation.

---

Just tweaking you a bit, but given this definition, where would the progress come from?

Quote:

---

In the way it is often used in politics, "conservative" means the recent but pre-Trump historical platform of the Republican party. I think that is where you were going with your post.

Now, "conservative" means Trumpism, which is not conservative in either sense of the word.

---

Trump isn't conservative so much as opportunistic I think, but he's a byproduct, and it's those who support him that are the issue. I think it's anger the buoys him, and what he excels at is deriding those with whom his supporters hate.

Where would you put Tea Party conservatism? It feels to me the precursor to whatever it is we have now in Trumpism and seems to have risen on the hate fanned by hate fanners.

Quote:

---

What you are writing about is "individual accountability" versus "community accountability". It is not absolute in either way, but you and I tend to think that if there is a problem in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, we think that we have individual accountability, blame and responsibility. We will fix our own problem. Others view the same as community problem. If there is something wrong in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, the community or the society has failed to provide all of the means or not removing the barriers.

---

This I believe is the heart of it, and difficult to debate, but our positions are typically dictated by our takes on human nature. Without pretending to have the answer, I think it's a mistake to project onto others what we believe to be best for us.

The virtues of individualism and self-sufficiency are immensely attractive, but our specie's legacy is built on cooperation.

Economically speaking, is it more important we be producers or consumers? (I think this question is germane and less rando that it seems.)

---

The standard definition of "conservative" is not my definition but the dictionary definition. Not sure how that is tweaking me. As far as where progress comes from, I am sure people are conservative on certain things and more open to change on other things. And fixing things that is not broken may not be progress. For example, I am probably conservative on what strange "medication" I would take. Someone can tell me that, after a workout, taking some strange pill will make me feel better. I would probably take Tylenol and not think I am preventing progress by not taking that strange pill. On other things that I think are broken, I would not be conservative in my approach.

By "tweaking" I simply meant I was pulling your leg a bit, joking. The idea that those "hesitant to change" aren't likely to be the source of much progress.

Tea Party was just small government and low taxes. One of the Tea Party leaders became one of the most ardent anti-Trumper and decided not to run again for congress. I am more a moderate fiscal conservative, with view towards smaller government, not cutting taxes or increasing entitlements when we have a deficit.

I assume you're referencing Justin Amash, but he's just one, and the rest like Jim Jordan are now leading the party after having run John Boehner and Paul Ryan out.

And we of course project our own preferences and experiences in developing our views on this world. Not sure how it is possible to be agnostic to one's own preferences and experiences.

I'm not saying ignore your experience, I'm saying understand that most people aren't wired the way you are. What works best for me might not be what best serves the group.

As far as whether it is better to be consumers or producers, hopefully we produce more than we consume.

Well that depends on the future of productivity.

Also, without consumers, you lose the need for production and any associated profits.

The more cogent ratio will become restoration to consumption.

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that a resident wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a belief that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. it didn't work. To me, that's the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

I think people consider "conservative" in different ways.

In technical terms, "conservative" is how we would use it in other context. Conserving the current way of being, hesitant to change, cautious in moving in a different direction, moderation.

---

Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with caution. Caution means not believing every conspiracy theory you hear. Caution means when someone makes a claim, you take the time to examine whether there's any concrete facts supporting the claim. Caution means not taking hydroxychloroquine just because a few outliers are telling you it works without supplying any facts when the predominant science is telling you that it doesn't work.

Caution and subtly moving the dials is a good thing when something appears to be working well.

People constantly confuse social conservative viewpoints with economic viewpoints. Both parties love to cater to social issues and claim that their social politics match their economic politics. But the truth is that neither party has a liberal economic policy. Both parties want to make very few changes to the economic system. They want to tinker at the margins, but they largely want things to remain as they are.

Quote:

---

In the way it is often used in politics, "conservative" means the recent but pre-Trump historical platform of the Republican party. I think that is where you were going with your post.

---

Reagan's conservatism was largely social conservatism. There was nothing conservative about his economic agenda. He did not advocate for slow cautious change. He promoted a very radical change to the underpinnings of the American economy and economic equality. He attacked labor unions, dismantled regulations designed to protect the public from predatory capitalism, dismantled anti-trust legislation, and promoted an economic theory that has been thoroughly discredited in real-world application, yet the Republican Party remains wedded to those theories because, quite frankly, there isn't much intellectual underpinning left to the Republican Party anymore. It's mostly just unbridled libertarian economics. Basically, he completed the unraveling of FDR's New Deal, which devotees of the Hoover school of "thought" had hated and wanted to destroy from the day it was enacted. Many people in the Democratic Party shared those views, but they couldn't say so out loud because he was so popular with the people.

Quote:

---

Now, "conservative" means Trumpism, which is not conservative in either sense of the word.

---

Exactly right. Trump campaigned as a radical. He told you that things were not remotely okay as is. He wanted to tear up trade agreements. He wanted to radically change immigration policy. But the truth is that Trump doesn't really believe much in any of that stuff. The only real thing he values is himself and the growth of his brand and whatever he perceives to give him a personal advantage is what he will advocate for. This is why he's been a Democrat at times and a Republican at others. There is no underlying philosophy other than telling people what they want to hear so that they will go along with him.

Quote:

---

What you are writing about is "individual accountability" versus "community accountability". It is not absolute in either way, but you and I tend to think that if there is a problem in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, we think that we have individual accountability, blame and responsibility. We will fix our own problem. Others view the same as community problem. If there is something wrong in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, the community or the society has failed to provide all of the means or not removing the barriers. The way I am built, I like the individual accountability because it gives me dignity to control my future and destiny instead of waiting for others to take care of it for me. And the way we view this will dictate how address issues.

---

And there is an appeal to that philosophy. I subscribed to it once myself when I saw the playing field as being more fair and unbiased. And it's easier to believe in that philosophy when you're white and heterosexual and you don't see the barriers that are so obvious to others.

But it's patently obvious that there are barriers and that there always have been. Blacks have never been on a level playing field with whites in regards to access to the best pre-college educational opportunity, hiring opportunities, opportunities to qualify for mortgages, and opportunities to build personal equity. There are examples of some blacks who've managed to overcome all that, but the predominant reality is that most have not and it isn't because they didn't want to or were too lazy. That's a myth that's been perpetuated.

And it applies to Latinos as well. There are a whole host of occupations that are dominated by Latinos and they are almost exclusively lower-paying, dead-end jobs with no opportunity for advancement or the building of skills that would enable them to have some economic mobility. And those barriers are as read and as man-made as the barriers for blacks.

Quote:

---

But in either case, I say I am a fiscal conservative, but I am starting to think that I am a fiscal rebel since I actually believe in being responsible in tax policy and spending to curb our deficit. Other than Clinton, neither party has been very fiscally responsible.

---

There is a benefit to maintaining a balanced budget and responsible fiscal policy and paying down our debts, but that's when times are relatively good. Times are not even remotely good for the majority of Americans right now. We are facing massive unemployment, the destruction of small businesses, and a massive health crisis. This is not a time for small measured change. It's a time for big ideas, big investments, and big change.

And it is not a time for ideology to trump reality. We have big problems and they will require a lot of money to solve. And there's only one engine that is big enough and recession-proof enough to do what's necessary to fix the giant problems we are facing.

When we are on steadier footing, I'm 100% for reduction of government and a return to fiscal sanity, but that can't be the focus right now. We have big structural problems that need to be fixed and we need our people to know how they are going to be able to provide for their basic needs.

---

Agree with almost all of this, including the need to spend now in the middle of the (unnecessarily extended) pandemic to keep the floor of the economy from collapsing.