Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 83099 times)

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4013
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1600 on: October 14, 2018, 09:47:40 AM »
Fixed the strikeout bit for you.  If impropriety was a criminal offence, who should scape whipping?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety criminal offences meriting imprisonment took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1601 on: October 14, 2018, 10:08:16 AM »
Fixed the strikeout bit for you.  If impropriety was a criminal offence, who should scape whipping?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety criminal offences meriting imprisonment took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

I was using the word to indicate improper behaviour, and in context thought that illegal/meriting criminal offence would be understood.  But sure, your wording is more clear.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1602 on: October 14, 2018, 03:00:56 PM »

I have to confess to knowledge mostly of the Lewinsky affair and little else with Bill Clinton.  Were there no investigations into Bill Clinton's other misdeeds?  Is your contention that Democrats stood in the way of the FBI investigating Clinton's accusations in the same way that Republicans did for Kavenaugh?  Or are you saying that you think Clinton did something bad, therefore it's OK to fail to investigate Kavenaugh?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1603 on: October 14, 2018, 03:04:50 PM »
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

To be fair, I haven't seen anyone express that it is okay, or even insinuate it.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2012
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1604 on: October 14, 2018, 03:12:04 PM »
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

To be fair, I haven't seen anyone express that it is okay, or even insinuate it.

It seems to be fairly well implied, first with the election of Trump (remember he actually bragged about it), and now with the half ass investigation of Kavanaugh. I don't think anyone is going to come right out and say "yeah sexual assault is ok." Although I will say in a recent interview with Trump supporters at a local rally, one woman actually said that women need to keep their legs closed or they deserve it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1605 on: October 14, 2018, 05:54:26 PM »
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

To be fair, I haven't seen anyone express that it is okay, or even insinuate it.

Why the fuck weren't Kavenaugh's charges properly investigated then?  Why are people saying "well yeah, we didn't really look at our guy . . . But Bill Clinton did it, so why should we?"  If people believed that sexual assault was a real problem they should be saying "Look at our guy!  Look at Bill Clinton too!".

If people don't believe that "their" guy should get away with sexual assault, then there is no divisiveness on either issue, and proper investigations would get full support from both sides.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1606 on: October 15, 2018, 01:57:30 AM »
I'm a liberal, and I think the rape accusation against Bill Clinton is probably true (though tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt) and he should have been impeached  for committing perjury. President Al Gore would have been fine anyway. I think the rape accusation against Donald Trump is also probably true (though tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt).

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1607 on: October 15, 2018, 07:09:30 AM »
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1608 on: October 15, 2018, 07:33:58 AM »
Why the fuck weren't Kavenaugh's charges properly investigated then? 
I admit I don't follow american politics a lot and didn't read through this thread, but is there some provision that prevent investigating him after being sworn in?
"There is no point in such a post-appointment investigation because he'd held his position even in case of a conviction."
Ok but even if this is true (I don't know), truth has a value in itself, so this argument should stop dems and libs from keeping asking for a proper investigation,
unless what they wanted wasn't the truth but just to stop Kavanaugh's nomination.
As far as I understand it, reps wouldn't oppose such an investigation

Part of the issue (and the reason that investigation before appointment was so important) is that it's very hard to remove a supreme court justice after they're in.  So difficult that it has never happened in history.  There's a process to impeach that can be started by the house of Representatives, but even if impeached, the senate can acquit the judge.  Given the willingness of the Republican party to even investigate the issue, it's safe to say that a Republican senate will almost certainly acquit Kavenaugh regardless of any information that may come out . . . and that a Republican house will never move to impeach him to begin with.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1609 on: October 15, 2018, 08:06:03 AM »
In the 20 20 interview Trump had with Lesley Stahl trump said: Later, when pressed more by Stahl about whether he believes he treated Ford with respect, Trump said: “W―you know what? I’m not gonna get into it because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”

Nothing matters but winning. Doesn't matter that Kavanaugh has a dark background. Yes, it was a long time ago but just seeing him act like a rotten spoiled brat sitting in a dirty diaper when he was questioned, shows his true side.

Full story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-60-minutes-interview-moments_us_5bc39a63e4b040bb4e836a40

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3804
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1610 on: October 15, 2018, 08:29:03 AM »
In the 20 20 interview Trump had with Lesley Stahl trump said: Later, when pressed more by Stahl about whether he believes he treated Ford with respect, Trump said: “W―you know what? I’m not gonna get into it because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”

Nothing matters but winning. Doesn't matter that Kavanaugh has a dark background. Yes, it was a long time ago but just seeing him act like a rotten spoiled brat sitting in a dirty diaper when he was questioned, shows his true side.

Full story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-60-minutes-interview-moments_us_5bc39a63e4b040bb4e836a40

This is f***ing disgusting. Donald Trump is a garbage human being, and anyone who supports him at this point is a garbage human being as well. Period.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1611 on: October 15, 2018, 08:44:43 AM »
about how we're more divided than ever on this matter, and I worry for our country:

Careful, this is what the media wants us to think -- a country divided is good for revenues.  As taught by Alinsky, the media seeks to create the conflicts, they want the violence and chaos -- a divided country gets more eyeballs in the media.  Trump is great for the business of media.

Many of us are exhausted.  The majority of us really could find common ground but we're being shouted down by the extremes on both ends, which is exacerbated by the majority political parties and the media catering more and more to the extremists in each party who represent the small minority. It really is exhausting emotionally. Logic would suggest the eventual rise of a midstream party that plays to what most of us believe. 

Fear and anger are powerful emotions. Motivating voters to turn out is a key issue for politicians. Seeking compromise doesn't drive votes. Good versus evil. Seeking to raise fear/anger in your voters. That's the current goal of political parties. The political parties WANT us to be tribalized and divided.  This happens to be what sells in media too, so the media helps to fulfill this aim.

There are two excellent articles recently put out by The Atlantic.  Can't believe Im admitting that, as I typically think the Atlantic skews too left for my tastes.  But I try to remain objective, no matter the source.

The first was referenced earlier:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

The second also a great read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

Good finds.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 542
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1612 on: October 15, 2018, 09:32:35 AM »
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

Hey, just got an idea for a Constitutional amendment:

The percent of ayes a SC Justice receives for confirmation shall equal the percent of ayes needed for impeachment (or something of that sort).

So that would give us:
Thomas - 52%
Ginsburg - 97%
Roberts - 78%
Alito - 58%
Sotomayor - 68%
Kagan - 63%
Gorsuch - 55%
Kavanaugh - 51%

Would probably make nominations and confirmations even more political, but I at least found this an interesting thought experiment.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1613 on: October 15, 2018, 09:33:38 AM »
I cannot help but wonder if "politcally correct" is going to turn into one of those slur terms, like "socialist" that gets used to dismiss something when the person doesn't want to actually engage with it intellectually.

No one is ever going to want to defend it, merely use it as an epithet.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1614 on: October 15, 2018, 09:44:57 AM »
I cannot help but wonder if "politcally correct" is going to turn into one of those slur terms, like "socialist" that gets used to dismiss something when the person doesn't want to actually engage with it intellectually.

No one is ever going to want to defend it, merely use it as an epithet.

Turn into?  Isn't that what it already is?

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1615 on: October 15, 2018, 12:53:19 PM »
about how we're more divided than ever on this matter, and I worry for our country:

Careful, this is what the media wants us to think -- a country divided is good for revenues.  As taught by Alinsky, the media seeks to create the conflicts, they want the violence and chaos -- a divided country gets more eyeballs in the media.  Trump is great for the business of media.

Many of us are exhausted.  The majority of us really could find common ground but we're being shouted down by the extremes on both ends, which is exacerbated by the majority political parties and the media catering more and more to the extremists in each party who represent the small minority. It really is exhausting emotionally. Logic would suggest the eventual rise of a midstream party that plays to what most of us believe. 

Fear and anger are powerful emotions. Motivating voters to turn out is a key issue for politicians. Seeking compromise doesn't drive votes. Good versus evil. Seeking to raise fear/anger in your voters. That's the current goal of political parties. The political parties WANT us to be tribalized and divided.  This happens to be what sells in media too, so the media helps to fulfill this aim.

There are two excellent articles recently put out by The Atlantic.  Can't believe Im admitting that, as I typically think the Atlantic skews too left for my tastes.  But I try to remain objective, no matter the source.

The first was referenced earlier:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

The second also a great read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Good post, ideas, and links. i skimmed the first article and will go back and spend more time with them.

Yes, media loves controversy, stirring ip the readers and etc.

Just this morning I was thinking about how, when I first moved to this racially divided city, my black friend pointed out that the local city newspaper is a proponent of race baiting, to keep it all stirred up and to keep people reading the “news.” Then today I read dustins post with similar sentiments.


Then,  just two minutes ago, I got an email from that same city newspaper. It is highlighting the video that went viral two days ago. Those of you from St. Louis know which one I’m talking about, the condo video. What is ridiculous about this email is it I’ve already seen the video on 2 other social media sites, why does this old ancient creaking  city news organization think it is at all relevant with its days late race baiting “news.” 

Much of the media is ridiculous. Our free  society cannot function without them, but really, fk them half the time.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 12:56:27 PM by iris lily »

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1616 on: October 16, 2018, 06:59:00 AM »
I cannot agree with this. I can simulataneously believe Ford and agree that no district attorney would bring charges against Kavanaugh based on the evidence we've seen presented.

But I think there is so much political inertia on the Right that nothing that comes out could ever convince many conservatives that Kavanaugh is anything other than a champion of their cause at this point. I think the rapid spinning of the Elizabeth Warren DNA test is another case of this: people are interpreting the results differently based on whether they like Warren or like Trump. We've fragmented our society epistemologically.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1617 on: October 16, 2018, 07:14:48 AM »
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

Part of the issue (and the reason that investigation before appointment was so important) is that it's very hard to remove a supreme court justice after they're in.  So difficult that it has never happened in history.  There's a process to impeach that can be started by the house of Representatives, but even if impeached, the senate can acquit the judge.  Given the willingness of the Republican party to even investigate the issue, it's safe to say that a Republican senate will almost certainly acquit Kavenaugh regardless of any information that may come out . . . and that a Republican house will never move to impeach him to begin with.

I get it: even if convicted, there would be no impeachment or removal.
I get it, but the point of my post was the "truth has a value in itself" line.
That means, sometime it is worth to search for the truth no matter which and no matter whether consequences will come out of it.

I understand that politics are not the place for philosophy, but if the dems are really so truth-yearning they should keep asking for a thorough investigation irrespective of whether the outcome will bear any consequences.
They own it to Mrs. Ford and to Mr. Kavanagh anyway.
And if we leave ethics and consider politics, can you imagine the political benefits for the dems if such an investigation should convict Kavanagh?

So, again, and particularly when we know reps wouldn't oppose it, why the dems have stopped from asking for an investigation?

I agree, there's value in finding out the truth for truth's sake and would like to see that happen (even though it's probably too late to fix the problem).  What I'm wondering though, is why this is a partisan obligation in your mind.  Why is the party who selected, vetted, and nominated the man and then blocked attempts to investigate his past not obligated to the people involved to find out the truth in your eyes?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5319
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1618 on: October 16, 2018, 08:18:01 AM »
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

Part of the issue (and the reason that investigation before appointment was so important) is that it's very hard to remove a supreme court justice after they're in.  So difficult that it has never happened in history.  There's a process to impeach that can be started by the house of Representatives, but even if impeached, the senate can acquit the judge.  Given the willingness of the Republican party to even investigate the issue, it's safe to say that a Republican senate will almost certainly acquit Kavenaugh regardless of any information that may come out . . . and that a Republican house will never move to impeach him to begin with.

I get it: even if convicted, there would be no impeachment or removal.
I get it, but the point of my post was the "truth has a value in itself" line.
That means, sometime it is worth to search for the truth no matter which and no matter whether consequences will come out of it.

I understand that politics are not the place for philosophy, but if the dems are really so truth-yearning they should keep asking for a thorough investigation irrespective of whether the outcome will bear any consequences.
They own it to Mrs. Ford and to Mr. Kavanagh anyway.
And if we leave ethics and consider politics, can you imagine the political benefits for the dems if such an investigation should convict Kavanagh?

So, again, and particularly when we know reps wouldn't oppose it, why the dems have stopped from asking for an investigation?

I'm not sure I agree with you here.

Democrats pushing for an investigation would be spun as "lol elections have consequences, get over it, stop being sore losers."

As GuitarStv said, putting the onus solely on Democrats for this is absurd. They pushed for an investigation, remember?

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2836
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1619 on: October 16, 2018, 08:20:08 AM »
Um. The Dems did ask for an investigation. The Dems stated their piece. And since Flake sided with them, they did a (very cursory) investigation. And Ford did everything asked of her. I'm not sure what else you are asking the Dems to do? They don't have any power in this situation.  What we know is not enough for a criminal conviction. Heck with William Kennedy Smith, with a contemperanous charge, him admitting they had sex, it was insufficient for a conviction.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 08:23:08 AM by partgypsy »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8220
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1620 on: October 16, 2018, 09:02:22 AM »
So, again, and particularly when we know reps wouldn't oppose it, why the dems have stopped from asking for an investigation?

Democrats have stopped asking for an investigation because they are the minority party right now, and the way Congress is structured the minority party are basically spectators in government.

I used to work with Congresspeople and their reps with some regularity, and this is one of the more shocking things I learned when I started.  Your senators who's been in Congress since the 1980s can't do shit if the other party is in control.  The majority party sets the agenda for what topics get considered.  The majority party assigns chairs of all of the subcommittees that pass decisions up the chain.  The majority party chooses when to vote, if at all, and when to ignore.  The majority party does absolutely everything, and if you're not part of that majority then you are totally powerless.  You get to show up and have lunch with the people who are actually running the country.  Right now, a democratic rep has just as much power as the Puerto Rico rep.

Would it make sense for the Puerto Rico rep to call for investigation?  There might be some good PR in it, if the press picks up the story, but it's never going to happen so it's kind of pointless.  The Puerto Rico rep (and the democrats right now) can make better use of their time by building relationships with Republicans who actually get to make stuff happen.  In effect, every democrat in congress right now is a lobbyist only, asking for things and cajoling and making arguments, but ultimately having zero power.  Being mad at them is kind of pointless.

So they can, and maybe should, ask for an investigation.  And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and Kevin McCarthy) will just say no, and that will be the end of it.  There is no recourse.  There is no second chance.  The only reason to keep asking is to hope the press reports their efforts and it convinces people to vote against the republicans, but they usually decide that there are more effective messages for that purpose.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1621 on: October 16, 2018, 04:56:35 PM »
What Sol says about the Minority party being as effective as Puerto Rico is how I view it.

In National elections that are not for president of the United States, I pretty much vote Republican ticket because I know that whoever I vote for, they are going to caucus with their party. So I vote for them but I give money to Rand  Paul because I want to see Rand stay in the Senate and remind everyone there about fiscal conservatism. Like they will pay any attention, sigh.

I don’t think the minority party is completely irrelevant because they can do all kinds of committee work that is important.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3804
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1622 on: October 16, 2018, 05:03:55 PM »
What Sol says about the Minority party being as effective as Puerto Rico is how I view it.

In National elections that are not for president of the United States, I pretty much vote Republican ticket because I know that whoever I vote for, they are going to caucus with their party. So I vote for them but I give money to Rand  Paul because I want to see Rand stay in the Senate and remind everyone there about fiscal conservatism. Like they will pay any attention, sigh.

I don’t think the minority party is completely irrelevant because they can do all kinds of committee work that is important.

That Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/361949-rand-paul-to-vote-for-senate-gop-tax-bill

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1623 on: October 16, 2018, 05:17:59 PM »
The number of people who have bought the lie that the Republican Party has anything to do with fiscal conservatism in this day and age is truly a testimony to the effectiveness of messaging over fact with their base.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1624 on: October 16, 2018, 06:40:19 PM »
Republicans cut taxes on the wealthiest and jeopardize social programs through efforts to slash them.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1625 on: October 16, 2018, 06:44:15 PM »

That Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/361949-rand-paul-to-vote-for-senate-gop-tax-bill

Sorry, I'm slow and must not be very smart.  I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in this article.  It looks like he supports low taxes, which is one of the key principles of fiscal conservatism.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3804
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1626 on: October 16, 2018, 06:54:01 PM »

That Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/361949-rand-paul-to-vote-for-senate-gop-tax-bill

Sorry, I'm slow and must not be very smart.  I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in this article.  It looks like he supports low taxes, which is one of the key principles of fiscal conservatism.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1627 on: October 16, 2018, 07:02:55 PM »
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3804
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1628 on: October 16, 2018, 07:10:39 PM »
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1629 on: October 16, 2018, 07:11:43 PM »
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 07:14:56 PM by dustinst22 »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9192
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1630 on: October 16, 2018, 07:45:39 PM »
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.
Perhaps consider "balancing the budget" as a common attribute of fiscal conservatism, and how the tax cut will affect that measure.

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4228
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1631 on: October 16, 2018, 07:47:28 PM »
Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.

Fiscal conservatism is three-pronged. Low taxes, low spending, and low debt/deficit. The Republicans have fairly consistently accomplished one of those three (tax cuts), have done nothing about the second (spending), with the result of blowing up the third (debt/deficit). You can build a stool with one leg, but it isn't going to work.  Lowering income without lowering spending is not fiscally conservative, it's a recipe for massive debt.

Real fiscal conservatism is basically what mustachians espouse on a personal level - we can live on a lean income with low spending and as a result we don't need to do any deficit spending, and everyone lives happily ever after. If someone came in here with a case study saying they were in a lot of debt, and were planning to cut their income to $25k/yr and keep their spending at $60k/yr - you would give them a huge facepunch. So why is it OK for Republicans in Congress to do that to the federal budget?

Anyway, you should probably start another thread if you want to discuss this at length because it's pretty OT for this thread.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1632 on: October 16, 2018, 07:52:29 PM »
I agree with this ^^^.  Hence, my question. 

Of course, with Obama at the helm our national debt increased almost more than every president in history combined (which can be seen in the pretty graph up above), but that's another discussion.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 07:54:33 PM by dustinst22 »

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4456
  • Age: 11
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1633 on: October 16, 2018, 08:01:06 PM »
I agree with this ^^^.  Hence, my question. 

Of course, with Obama at the helm our national debt increased almost more than every president in history combined (which can be seen in the pretty graph up above), but that's another discussion.
You understand that the deficit was increased under Obama specifically because of this little known event at the beginning of his first term that had Americans squealing like little pigs about how something needed to be done to save their jobs, right?

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1634 on: October 16, 2018, 08:04:57 PM »

You understand that the deficit was increased under Obama specifically because of this little known event at the beginning of his first term that had Americans squealing like little pigs about how something needed to be done to save their jobs, right?

Yeah, of course.  I won't comment on this any further here as it's not pertinent to the thread.  Suffice to say, I don't think our debt should have increased more than every other president in history combined due to the recession.  Too many bailouts of companies that should have been allowed to fail.  In fact allowing companies to fail is the single most important component of a healthy free market.

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4228
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1635 on: October 16, 2018, 08:10:59 PM »
I agree with this ^^^.  Hence, my question. 

Of course, with Obama at the helm our national debt increased almost more than every president in history combined (which can be seen in the pretty graph up above), but that's another discussion.

Right. Obama is not a fiscal conservative (I know, you're shocked!). The difference here is that the Democrats don't CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives, and therefore are not lying openly about their fiscal policies like the Republicans are. But it all works out OK, because Republican voters seem to like being lied to.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1636 on: October 16, 2018, 08:15:42 PM »


Right. Obama is not a fiscal conservative (I know, you're shocked!). The difference here is that the Democrats don't CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives, and therefore are not lying openly about their fiscal policies like the Republicans are. But it all works out OK, because Republican voters seem to like being lied to.

Pretty broad stroke in my view.  Some politicians that run as Republicans are certainly not fiscal conservatives (particularly Trump, who I don't consider a conservative).  But many republicans are true fiscal conservatives.  As far as the Democrats go, there are plenty of things they lie about too when running, this cuts both ways.  All this said, I would like to see a strong fiscally conservative presidential candidate rise.  I think Romney would have fit this. Ben Sasse certainly would, here's hoping it happens.  And also let's all agree (whether conservative or liberal) that Trump is a terrible president.  I certainly agree.  This is why it's so important to ensure the president (and other branches) has very limited power.  Then if/when we get a bad president, it doesn't impact our country too much.  We shouldn't care too much who the sitting president is.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 08:24:05 PM by dustinst22 »

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4456
  • Age: 11
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1637 on: October 16, 2018, 08:48:07 PM »
This is why it's so important to ensure the president (and other branches) has very limited power.  Then if/when we get a bad president, it doesn't impact our country too much.  We shouldn't care too much who the sitting president is.
(this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, but since I've already made the mistake of commenting in this thread, might as well get an interesting discussion out of this)

The problem is that whoever gets elected president is the de facto leader of his party, and more often than not, that means he's also the de facto shadow leader of Congress, setting the legislative agenda through both chambers' senior leadership. You could argue that Congress should do its own thing, but between outrageously short terms (seriously, who thought 2 years was a good idea) and a lack of legitimacy for any one congressman to dictate his vision, it's not realistic to expect otherwise.

This isn't just an American problem. Most modern democracies of decent size feature a strong executive branch, because it's really hard to get a large population to agree on anything, so somebody needs to set the tone.

Foreign policy, the other major responsibility of the executive branch, matters enormously and just can't be done through anything than a united front.

So yeah, the importance of presidents isn't going away.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4013
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1638 on: October 17, 2018, 04:31:37 AM »
But many republicans are true fiscal conservatives. 

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?

It would be more accurate to say that many republicans who don't hold power at the time will say that they are fiscal conservatives but not live up to that statement when they get into power.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1639 on: October 17, 2018, 07:07:35 AM »


Right. Obama is not a fiscal conservative (I know, you're shocked!). The difference here is that the Democrats don't CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives, and therefore are not lying openly about their fiscal policies like the Republicans are. But it all works out OK, because Republican voters seem to like being lied to.

Pretty broad stroke in my view.  Some politicians that run as Republicans are certainly not fiscal conservatives (particularly Trump, who I don't consider a conservative).  But many republicans are true fiscal conservatives.  As far as the Democrats go, there are plenty of things they lie about too when running, this cuts both ways.  All this said, I would like to see a strong fiscally conservative presidential candidate rise.  I think Romney would have fit this. Ben Sasse certainly would, here's hoping it happens.  And also let's all agree (whether conservative or liberal) that Trump is a terrible president.  I certainly agree.  This is why it's so important to ensure the president (and other branches) has very limited power.  Then if/when we get a bad president, it doesn't impact our country too much.  We shouldn't care too much who the sitting president is.

Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican party right now.  He has had full support on all of his actions from other elected Republicans.  As you said, he's not fiscally conservative.  What does that say about the importance of fiscal conservatism to all of those Republicans who are steadfastly supporting him?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5319
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1640 on: October 17, 2018, 07:08:51 AM »
Thanks @GuitarSteve,
"Why is the party who selected, vetted, and nominated the man and then blocked attempts to investigate his past not obligated to the people involved to find out the truth in your eyes?“
First, "then blocked attempts to investigate", the basic assumption of my post - which I could be wrong about - was that the Reps didn’t blocked the investigation per se, but they refuted to postpone Kavanagh’s nomination until such an investigation would be over. Which means, now they wouldn’t oppose such an investigation.
Second, "Why are the Reps not obligated to find out the truth in your eyes?"
I never said that. In my eyes the Reps are obligated to find out the truth as much as the Dems.
The question is which side should push nor for an (post-nomination) investigation.
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side.
If I accuse you of having raped me, the onus of pushing for an investigation and bringing up evidence lies on me, not on you.
Your obligation is not oppose it.
Since in the Kavanagh’s case the Dems are "representing" Mrs. Ford, the onus to push for an investigation lies on them.

@JLee
"As GuitarStv said, putting the onus solely on Democrats for this is absurd."
The onus of supporting the investigation, of seeking the truth, is a partisan one, it lies on both.
I hope we agree on that.
The question we are debating upon is which side should push for an post-nomination investigation.
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side (s. above)

@partgypsy
"I'm not sure what else you are asking the Dems to do?"
Since the Reps didn’t blocked the investigation per se but just refuted to postpone Kavanagh’s nomination until such an investigation would be over, what I’m asking the Dems to do is to keep pushing for an investigation.
Actually they don't need to push a lot, it's enough for them to ask for an investigation, because, as I have already stated, in my opinion the Reps don't oppose it.

Thanks @sol,
"So they (Dems) can, and maybe should, ask for an investigation.  And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and Kevin McCarthy) will just say no."
As you can read above, I disagree on this premise


Now I’ll evaporate from this thread because I’m new in this forum and not even USA based, as you can see from my english, and I didn’t came here to get involved in discussions about USA politics.
It looks that I came here to support the Reps. I think if I were american I’ll vote based on the person and not on the party affiliation.
I’m interested in the financial role of precious metals. In those forums there are a lot of conservatives, you know, gold and conservative get along swimmingly.
You can sense that many of the forum members over there are Reps, those old, wealthy Reps who sometimes brag about their wealth, about having been successfull, and who like to call themselves patriots. With one in particular there was once a big clash.
So no, I don't have a particular sympathy for the Reps.
Point is, probably I better stood out of this whole discussion

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a partisan institution. It is supposed to be independent of party.  There are not supposed to be "sides," but that is what it has become.

Grassley basically said that an investigation is not their job and they have the power to do whatever they want. Direct quote:

Grassley struck a conciliatory tone while firmly rejecting the substance of Blasey’s request in his reply. “We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence,” he wrote. “The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours and ours alone.”

Republicans pushed back hard against an investigation and Trump only ordered one to happen after Jeff Flake (key swing vote) said he wouldn't go through with the nomination/vote/confirmation without an investigation. They kept it severely limited both in scope (they did not interview Kavanaugh's college roommate, who contacted the FBI directly) and in time (less than one week).

"I've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file," Trump said in a statement. "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week."
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 07:15:55 AM by JLee »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1641 on: October 17, 2018, 07:22:31 AM »
Thanks @GuitarSteve,
"Why is the party who selected, vetted, and nominated the man and then blocked attempts to investigate his past not obligated to the people involved to find out the truth in your eyes?“
First, "then blocked attempts to investigate", the basic assumption of my post - which I could be wrong about - was that the Reps didn’t blocked the investigation per se, but they refuted to postpone Kavanagh’s nomination until such an investigation would be over. Which means, now they wouldn’t oppose such an investigation.

Republicans blocked attempts to investigate all the sexual assault allegations other than those from Ms. Ford.  Republicans prevented the FBI from even questioning Ford or Kavenaugh in their investigation.  It was also not allowed for the FBI to investigate the truth of any of the testimony given by Kavenaugh during the hearings.  The Republicans also imposed a completely arbitrary and artificial timeline of a single week on the investigation that did take place.

I don't know what you would consider blocking an investigation if the above doesn't count.




Second, "Why are the Reps not obligated to find out the truth in your eyes?"
I never said that. In my eyes the Reps are obligated to find out the truth as much as the Dems.
The question is which side should push nor for an (post-nomination) investigation.
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side.
If I accuse you of having raped me, the onus of pushing for an investigation and bringing up evidence lies on me, not on you.
Your obligation is not oppose it.
Since in the Kavanagh’s case the Dems are "representing" Mrs. Ford, the onus to push for an investigation lies on them.

So, you're not saying that the Republicans aren't obligated to find the truth  . . .  but believe that the Democrats and only the Democrats are obligated to find the truth.  This is because the Republicans didn't bother to find the truth when they selected Kavenaugh for the supreme court and did everything possible to block the truth from coming out and succeeded.  No.  That's bullshit reasoning.

The Democrats aren't accusing Kavenaugh of anything, the people who were sexually assaulted are.  The fact that Republicans aren't interested in finding out the truth shouldn't shift all responsibility to the democrats.  I'd argue that since the Republicans chose Kavenaugh, they are more responsible for ensuring that any hint of impropriety is completely and utterly stamped out.  He's their man, and they didn't do due diligence.  If they had picked one of the dozens of candidates without a history of binge drinking and assault we wouldn't be having this conversation.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1642 on: October 17, 2018, 07:27:22 AM »
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.
Thank you, agreed. Trump is not a fiscal conservative.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1643 on: October 17, 2018, 08:26:45 AM »
He's just the leader of our party, selected by our party, who operates with full party backing . . . but doesn't represent a true Republican.

This level of doublethink must be painful to maintain.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8220
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1644 on: October 17, 2018, 09:07:48 AM »
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side.
If I accuse you of having raped me, the onus of pushing for an investigation and bringing up evidence lies on me, not on you.
Your obligation is not oppose it.
Since in the Kavanagh’s case the Dems are "representing" Mrs. Ford, the onus to push for an investigation lies on them.

This is so very very wrong.

The onus for investigating crimes lies with the government, regardless of party.  You can't say "Democrats are the police and Republicans are the criminals so it's the Democrats' job to find evidence" when we're talking about a sexual assault committed by one individual against another individual.  Party shouldn't enter into it. 

Are we really so lost in partisan bickering that anyone looks at the above quote from Paul67 and isn't immediately revulsed?  How fucking broken are we as a country that anyone can honestly think "This criminal is a Republican, therefore Republicans have no responsibility to enforce the rule of law against this person."  What if the crime were murder instead of sexual assault?  Would anyone argue that the onus lies only on the Democratic party to investigate murders?  Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

This is disgusting, Paul67, and you should know better.  Brett Kavanaugh's history of sexual assault shouldn't be about what party he belongs to, it should be about him being a violent sexual predator who needs to be behind bars instead of sitting on a bench dispensing justice.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1645 on: October 17, 2018, 09:21:10 AM »

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?



Not sure I follow your logic.  We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4013
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1646 on: October 17, 2018, 09:24:23 AM »

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?



Not sure I follow your logic.  We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible.  You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1647 on: October 17, 2018, 09:32:28 AM »


On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible.  You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Oh I've already said Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  Not all republicans agree with his overall budget is the problem.  But his tax cuts are in alignment with fiscal conservatism.  Some fiscal conservatives would even like to see taxes cut further.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8220
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1648 on: October 17, 2018, 09:37:15 AM »
We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we?  You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances.  It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support.  The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience.  Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income.  They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes.  We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income.  Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income? 

Taxes are just income too.  Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff.  A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make.  I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism.  It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc).  They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed.  The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1649 on: October 17, 2018, 09:40:55 AM »
We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we?  You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances.  It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support.  The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience.  Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income.  They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes.  We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income.  Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income? 

Taxes are just income too.  Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff.  A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make.  I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism.  It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc).  They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed.  The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.
Maybe this is why Calvin Coolidge didn't get a seat at the table in the now-famous painting of republican presidents having a drink.