Didn't Conservatives staple teabags to their faces because of this very thing?

[LV426]

The post wanted a right-winger, not an elected official. You are ignoring the main issue.

Michael Steele only cared about deficits 10 years ago, when he was head of the RNC.

He hasn't cared about them since.

[Nordberg]

Conservatives said over and over that their Russia Tax Cut would increase economic activity that would result in increased revenues.

Actual economic growth in 2018 was the same as it was in 2015, without a tax cut.

Conservatives are terrible at managing anything.

that was never the point. It was designed to increase the debt and then they could try and end Social Programs for those who need help. Social Security, Welfare, food stamps and other programs have been targeted by the right for decades.

[LV426]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4e99c12ccb21

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.8e6bc0409d74

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...313-story.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...tariffs-665265

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...n-13127220.php

When did Michael Steele rail about deficits?

NOT IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO, MR. #WALKAWAY

This is the only mention of deficits in the entire piece:

After Republicans approved a sweeping tax bill in December, Steele reminded viewers of its cost, and noted deficits had once been a central concern for the GOP.

So he's not railing about deficits there, just pointing out that they had the opposite position on it.

Nice try, propagandist.

[Flash]

"Deficit" was mentioned just one time in this article, in this context:

So what we have here is Flash spamming the board with links to try and distract from the fact that Conservatives have said nothing about the massive deficits their tax cuts and poor policy have caused.

It referred to "growing federal deficits." How many times does it need to be mentioned to satisfy you? You ignore the fact that all of these posts were right-wingers criticizing the budget, deficit, and other Trump policies.

Now you are asking for something different than the original post requested. You always deflect from the main issue.

[LV426]

that was never the point. It was designed to increase the debt and then they could try and end Social Programs for those who need help. Social Security, Welfare, food stamps and other programs have been targeted by the right for decades.

Exactly.

Fiscal Terrorism

Fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, posture over the resulting deficits, then use those deficits as the excuse to cut spending on social programs they oppose on a fundamental level, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal through conventional legislation.

That is why we must #BURNTHELIFEBOATS.

Conservatism cannot and must not survive this decade.

[LV426]

It referred to "growing federal deficits"

"...ripe for discussion."

You left that part out.

So it's not railing about deficits, it's saying that the growing deficit is "ripe for discussion"

Language is not your friend.

[LV426]

How many times does it need to be mentioned to satisfy you?

I won't be convinced of the sincerity until Conservatives staple teabags back to their faces and scream at Donald Trump and other Republicans for increasing the deficit, just as they did to Democrats and Obama 10 years ago.

[LV426]

You ignore the fact that all of these posts were right-wingers criticizing the budget, deficit, and other Trump policies.

NOTHING YOU POSTED actually showed that.

And until all of you staple teabags to your faces and scream at Donald Trump and other Republicans, I won't believe your sincerity.

[LV426]

Now you are asking for something different than the original post requested. You always deflect from the main issue.

You didn't actually provide anything.

What you did was a lazy Google search, and you didn't even read the articles to which you linked!

Bad form.

Bad faith.

[Flash]

When did Michael Steele rail about deficits?

NOT IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO, MR. #WALKAWAY

This is the only mention of deficits in the entire piece:



So he's not railing about deficits there, just pointing out that they had the opposite position on it.

Nice try, propagandist.

"After Republicans approved a sweeping tax bill in December, Steele reminded viewers of its cost, and noted deficits had once been a central concern for the GOP.

“I think I’ve earned the right to be critical of a party that lost its way,” Steele told The Baltimore Sun. “It’s become a dumbing down to the lowest common denominator."

This is a criticism of deficits. Just because he criticizes other policies does not negate his criticism of budget issues.

For some reason you are trying very hard to ignore conservative criticism of budget deficits. I list several links and your replies are but Paul voted for the tax cut (ignoring his criticisms), but the article only mentioned the deficit once, but Steele hasn't been an elected official in years (which has nothing to do with criticizing his party for deficits).

I would also refer you to conservative columnists who have written about this issue on several occasions:

"Trump's fantasy budget may cause us to face reality" Robert Samuelson

[Flash]

"...ripe for discussion."

You left that part out.

So it's not railing about deficits, it's saying that the growing deficit is "ripe for discussion"

Language is not your friend.

Why do you suppose the growing deficit is "ripe for discussion"? Maybe because it is something they are concerned about? Otherwise, they would not bother to mention it.

[Flash]

I won't be convinced of the sincerity until Conservatives staple teabags back to their faces and scream at Donald Trump and other Republicans for increasing the deficit, just as they did to Democrats and Obama 10 years ago.

You changed the entire subject of the discussion in which asked for links from right-wingers railing against the budget.

I was providing those links. Because that does not satisfy you has nothing to do with providing links showing conservative criticism of the deficit. You always change the topic to divert from the issue.

[Flash]

You didn't actually provide anything.

What you did was a lazy Google search, and you didn't even read the articles to which you linked!

Bad form.

Bad faith.

But it provided exactly what the poster asked for. With additional time I'm sure I can find many more conservatives critical of Trump, the deficit, the debt, tariffs, etc.

How many times the article mentioned "deficit" or how long it has been since the person has held public office are irrelevant and real stretches on your part to find something wrong with posts that provided exactly what the poster requested..

[Flash]

You didn't actually provide anything.

"Conservatives Rail Against Trump’s Ballooning Budget Deficit"

https://www.newsweek.com/conservativ...eficit-1333853

[LV426]

"Conservatives Rail Against Trump’s Ballooning Budget Deficit"

https://www.newsweek.com/conservativ...eficit-1333853

But they all voted for and supported the tax cut.

So this is fiscal terrorism; fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, then scream about the inevitable deficit caused by the tax cuts.