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

[LV426]

"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.

No it's not.

It's Steele reminding everyone that the GOP used to be deficit squawkers.

That's not the same thing as him saying the deficit caused by tax cuts is a bad thing.

And it's certainly not the same thing as railing Conservatives for the deficits.

Until Steele and every other Conservative staples teabags to their faces and screams about deficits to their fellow Republicans, all of this is disingenuous bullshit.

For some reason you are trying very hard to ignore conservative criticism of budget deficits.

Conservatives only criticize budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House.

Nothing you posted is a criticism of deficits. Not even this from Steele.

"Criticism of the deficit" would entail stapling a teabag to your face and disrupting town halls because of your fake concern.

When did that happen in the last 8 years?

I list several links and your replies are but Paul voted for the tax cut

Yes! Paul voted for the tax cut that is responsible for the massive deficits Paul is also posturing his concern over.

So do we judge someone by their actions or their words?

ut 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).

He's not criticizing his party over deficits.

Not once did he do that in the article you linked. All he said was that the GOP used to be opposed to deficits. That's not the same thing as attacking the GOP for manufacturing deficits today.

[LV426]

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

OK, you found one guy who is not an elected official.

No one else, though.

[LV426]

Why do you suppose the growing deficit is "ripe for discussion"?

But that's not a criticism of the deficit. That's just saying it's ripe for discussion. No position is taken.

Maybe because it is something they are concerned about?

If they were concerned about it, they wouldn't have supported a tax cut that increased it, right?

Otherwise, they would not bother to mention it.

No, they mention it because it's fiscal terrorism; fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, then use the resulting deficit increases as an excuse to cut the spending to which they're ideologically opposed, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal through conventional legislation. So they just posture deficit concerns instead; and their deficit concerns are because their tax cuts created and/or expanded deficits.

Have you learned nothing from the last 19 years?

[LV426]

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

Moving the bar, there, Flash.

This isn't about railing about the budget, this is about railing about the deficit.

Railing against the deficit is stapling a teabag to your face and screaming at elected officials.

Railing against the deficit is not voting to increase the deficit by cutting taxes then feigning concern over the deficit that was created and/or increased by cutting taxes.

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.

You said yourself it's not criticism of the deficits, but rather the budget.

Criticism of the deficit would be stapling a teabag to your face and screaming about it in the faces of elected officials.

[MAGA MAN]

They have tea gonads slapping their chins .

You have a disturbing imagination...

[LV426]

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..

The question was; where is the Conservative criticism of deficits?

The answer is nowhere.

So not mentioning the deficit doesn't really mean you are railing against it, does it?

Conservatives screeching about the deficit now, in absence of mentioning the tax cuts that created the massive deficit, is disingenuous.

[Flash]

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.

The post said to link to some conservatives who railed against the tax cut. Whether they voted for it is irrelevant (and hypocritical).

[Flash]

OK, you found one guy who is not an elected official.

No one else, though.

The post requested conservatives criticizing the tax cut, not elected officials. You detract from the issue with irrelevant posts.

[Flash]

The question was; where is the Conservative criticism of deficits?

The answer is nowhere.

So not mentioning the deficit doesn't really mean you are railing against it, does it?

Conservatives screeching about the deficit now, in absence of mentioning the tax cuts that created the massive deficit, is disingenuous.

Sure, it is hypocritical, but you keep detracting from the issue of conservatives criticizing the tax cuts. I listed several links of conservatives critical of the tax cuts, and your only responses were: "deficit was only mentioned once," the conservative was not an elected official," "he voted for the tax cut, and other comments which did not refute that the links were to conservatives who criticized the tax cut and deficit.

[Flash]

Criticism of the deficit would be stapling a teabag to your face and screaming about it in the faces of elected officials.

That is dumb.

[LV426]

The post said to link to some conservatives who railed against the tax cut. Whether they voted for it is irrelevant (and hypocritical).

All you've been able to do is link to one "Conservative" WaPo columnist.

No one else railed against the tax cut.

And it's not significant that these clowns support tax cuts that expand deficits while at the same time posturing over the size of the deficits their tax cuts caused?

[LV426]

The post requested conservatives criticizing the tax cut, not elected officials. You detract from the issue with irrelevant posts.

CsnservativeS, PLURAL, not one Conservative columnist.

[LV426]

Sure, it is hypocritical, but you keep detracting from the issue of conservatives criticizing the tax cuts.

ONE Conservative columnist does not equal many.

It does not create an environment where there is significant Conservative opposition to the central fundamental policy of their belief system.

So far, the only Conservative you've managed to find that opposed the tax cut was Samuelson. That's it. No one else.

I listed several links of conservatives critical of the tax cuts

No, you listed ONE.

A couple of the other links didn't even mention the deficit, and one of the links talked about how the deficit is "ripe for discussion", which is not a criticism of tax cuts or a criticism of the deficit.

So you're stretching to try and rig Conservative opposition to their key fundamental piece of legislation, only turning up one columnist who opposed the tax cut. Just one. No one else.

and your only responses were: "deficit was only mentioned once,"

And what was the context in which the deficit was mentioned once? In the context of it being "ripe for discussion". That's not the same thing as criticism nor does it translate to opposition to the tax cut, which is Conservative orthodoxy and dogma. So you left that context out to try and make a bad faith argument that Conservatives rail against deficits when only one link you posted actually has anything tangentially related to the deficits.

the conservative was not an elected official,"

Exactly. Conservatives kinda say one thing, but then do another.

"he voted for the tax cut,

The tax cut expanded the deficit.

Everyone knew that would happen because cutting taxes over the last 40 years always results in either a decline in revenues, or a massive economic bubble.

So Paul says he's opposed to deficits, but votes for a tax cut that expands the deficit.

So in that case, is Paul being genuine or not when he says one thing, but does another?

which did not refute that the links were to conservatives who criticized the tax cut and deficit.

Only ONE of your links had any criticism of the tax cut.

The rest of them didn't make mention of criticizing the deficits, only made mention that they existed and that Conservatives caused them to happen because of their tax cuts.

So no, Flash, there weren't and aren't myriad Conservatives opposed to the tax cut that caused the deficits, and there never were.

[LV426]

That is dumb.

Well, it's what Conservatives did 10 years ago.

So they set that bar for themselves.

Is it stupid to hold people to the standard they established?

Or is it stupid to make allowances, excuses, and bad faith defenses of people you know are fucking guilty of hypocrisy?

[Flash]

Well, it's what Conservatives did 10 years ago.

So they set that bar for themselves.

Is it stupid to hold people to the standard they established?

Or is it stupid to make allowances, excuses, and bad faith defenses of people you know are fucking guilty of hypocrisy?

It was stupid then also. You make it look like a lot of conservatives stapled bags to their faces.

All of your comments are bad faith because you are deflecting from the original issue of finding links to conservatives who criticized the deficits. I posted several links and you have completely ignored the main issue by talking about tea bags, not holding public office, only mentioning debt once, and other irrelevant diversions without acknowledging the conservatives who are critical of the debt.