Remy

Remy: Caring Again

With a Democrat about to re-occupy the White House, a Republican congressman rediscovers his commitment to fiscal restraint.

|

HD Download

After helping rack up trillions in spending while in power, a GOP congressman dusts off his old policy positions.

The federal budget deficit was a record $3.1 trillion in fiscal year 2020, a three-fold increase over 2019. President Trump was able to accomplish that with help from Republicans in Congress, who stopped paying even lip service to fiscal austerity after Obama left office. With a Democrat about to return to the White House, expect GOP lawmakers to remember that—as it turns out—deficits do matter.

Written and performed by Remy; music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom; video produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg.

Image credits:
Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

LYRICS:

I left that Tea Party quicker than a poisoned Russian opposition leader
When my party took back the White House and I became a cheerleader

For the same trillion dollar deficits that for years I said we needed to end
Guess who's about to start caring again?

Cuz like a guy who's found himself addicted to Uber Eats
It seems we're giving way too much money to the Chinese

Isn't that the same spending contained in bills that you recently penned?
Yeah but there's actually a consistent ideological difference—

I'm about to start caring again

You'll hear me wail you'll hear me scoff
You'll see me faint you'll hear me talk
'bout how this spending's needing to go
While for the past four years I didn't care
our fiscal policy looked like a Mr. Beast video

Cuz when a president gets switched
Us politicians get the itch
To just defend our team well and so

I'm about to start caring
About to start swearing

It's not a red herring—the debt needs repairing

I'm hereby declaring I'm about to start caring again

NEXT: You Asked, We Told: The Reason Roundtable Fields Your Questions

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More anti Republican left wing Reason propaganda posing as libertarianism.

    1. Instead of advocating for fiscal responsibility, Reason mocks Republicans who oppose multi trillion dollar federal spending bills to bail out broke Democrat states being pushed by Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, other Dems and left wing media outlets.

      1. That’s cute, pretending Republicans care about deficits. Good party trick.

        1. The Republicans torpedoed a $4 trillion spending bill just a couple of months ago. Right before an election. With every excuse in the world to go ahead with it.

          1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do….. USA ONLINE JOBS

        2. I know right?
          That’s why I believe Trump and McConnell were just being mean when they kept cutting Pelosi and Schumer’s proposals in half or even by three quarters.
          They didn’t actually care.

          1. I get paid 75 bucks each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 14k/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how. USA ONLINE JOBS

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..work92/7 online

        3. Some don’t. Specifically the RINO Congressional republicans. The average republican voter does. Democrats don’t.

          1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…….. Visit Here

      2. Are you out of your fucking mind? Criticizing hypocrisy is a bad thing?

        1. Depends. Prioritizing the criticizing of hypocrisy above the ends of achieving reduced spending is, by it’s own precepts, a bad thing.

          If you reject Republicans when they oppose spending because they’re Republicans, yes. You don’t magically become anti-spending just because you fixed your own little libertarian tin star to your chest.

          1. “If you reject Republicans when they oppose spending because they’re Republicans, yes.”

            No, we reject Republicans because they only oppose spending when they’re not in power. They aren’t anti-deficit, they’re just anti-Democrat. You’ve gotten it exactly backwards… Republicans reject spending only during Democratic administrations because they oppose Democrats.

            1. So your preference is the Democratic party who only rejects spending increases when it can cause further damage from a lockdown to hurt the current president.

              Got it.

              1. Yep. It’s just laughable to ever hear a democrat talk like they aren’t for spending far more money than any republican ever would.

            2. You’ve gotten it exactly backwards…

              No, I’ve got it perfectly straight and you say so yourself.

              we reject Republicans because they only oppose spending when they’re not in power. They aren’t anti-deficit, they’re just anti-Democrat.

              It’s the even less sensible opposite/permutation of “making the good the enemy of the great”. You’re making the good (or just ~50% OK) your enemy because it doesn’t oppose something worse hard enough or for the right reason.

              Maybe I’m being a little too abstract: it’s like calling Dominos and Papa John’s and saying you want a pizza. Papa John’s says, they don’t deliver and Dominos shows up 45 min. later with half a pizza. Regardless of why they delivered half a pizza or were trying just trying to undercut Papa Johns, if you reject half a pizza in favor of no pizza for whatever reason, it’s pretty clear that you don’t want pizza.

              The insistence otherwise is an insistence that I agree with your feelings or mental cartwheels rather than your actions. It would make an apt Monty Python sketch if you weren’t so serious/earnest.

      3. Because those same Republicans spent 2016-2019 supporting massive spending increases being pushed by Trump.

        Same thing happened under Bush Jr, all of a sudden when the Rs controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, suddenly spending was great, opposition to deficits vanished, and support for reducing the long term debt vanished.

        1. I dunno… Reagan wasn’t shy about that either. And while taxes are a dirty word around here, at least raising taxes to cover expenditures is responsible. Remember “Read my lips! No new taxes!?” You have to give Bush Sr some cred for raising them anyway and losing his second term for it.

          I was hoping we’d reduce corporate welfare under Biden by reducing oil subsidies but with the Senate still under McConnel, that’s unlikely to happen.

          1. There are little to no oil subsidies existing today. “Corporate Oil Subsidies” are actually depreciation rules that benefit small drilling operations and following Think Tank recommendations to fix them will lead to consolidation in large corporations.

            I analyzed these “Subsidies” in this comment thread:
            https://reason.com/2020/10/23/is-bidens-oil-transition-debate-claim-really-a-big-statement/#comment-8540693

            1. And, as always, the “subsidies” always ignore the fact that they’re a small fraction of the tens if not hundreds of billions paid out by petroleum producers and their customers in the form of fuel and other taxes at the federal and state level(s). The Fedgov takes $40B annually in fuel taxes from petroleum manufacturers for having the audacity to have customers and when it gives $5B back, it’s a “subsidy”.

          2. “at least raising taxes to cover expenditures is responsible.”

            Maybe, maybe not. The Democrats rarely actually propose tax increases that would be sufficient to pay for their proposed spending increases.

            Raising taxes by X while increasing spending by 2X is not fiscally responsible.

        2. And Democrats always call for massing spending increases. What do you think you are accomplishing here?

          1. Maybe I can get a few people to wake up and realize that, at least on fiscal issues, US politics is Coke vs Pepsi.

            1. More like Diet Coke versus double corn syrup jumbo coke.

        3. Republican Senator Rand Paul and Republican Rep Thomas Massie have opposed virtually every spending bill (because the bills are fiscally irresponsible).

          But according to Reason, ALL Republicans are now scum simply because some RINOs who endorsed the massive covid spending bills (that were being pushed by Pelosi, Schumer, and left wing media outlets) now oppose additional spending bills being pushed by left wing Democrats.

      4. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about gko this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do….. Just Click Here

      5. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back efu and I have earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do……. Visit Here

    2. You could refute the point instead of bitching for no reason.

      Face it- Rs don’t care and never have. They’ve only used it as a weapon against a Dem in power.
      The fact you buy it just tells everyone how stupid you are.

      1. I think they care. But they are weak.

        Government budgets are the One Ring. You know they are bad, and need to be kept at bay, but when you are wielding them, it corrupts your soul.

        It is easy to talk about reducing the budget until you are faced with reducing your own budget.

        1. The main problem with spending is actually the budget assumption rules, namely baseline budgeting. The government assumes 3% growth before they even start negotiating the new years budget. The spending is institutional.

          1. The real problem with government spending is it’s Other People’s Money. And if there’s not enough of that the Fed prints more and someone lese will pay that back later.

    3. Or you otherwise known as GOOD JOURNALISM.

      It’s true, it’s objectively true.

    4. Calling out fiscal hypocrisy is leftwing?

    5. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back bvd and I have earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do …….. Visit Here

  2. Another gem, Remy.

  3. Is there a point to fiscal restraint anymore?
    Is it even possible for $23.3 trillion to be paid off?

    Just let the money printing machine go brrrrr until it breaks. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

    1. Is it even possible for $23.3 trillion to be paid off?
      With the enormous revenues of the federal government it would be very easy if they would cut spending.

      1. I don’t think our party approves of cutting spending unless it’s to the police, senpai.

        1. Did you just assume my political gender?

          1. WTF is political gender?

        2. Obama just came out and asked folks to stop saying “defund the police” because that’s not even what they’ve been really advocating for (except the anarchists…the anarchists mean it when they say that. 😛 )

          “Defunding” the police is just another way of saying shift spending (and maybe increase spending) on social services that reduce the need for police to address issues they’re not equipped or trained to handle. If you said it this way: “Let’s only have the police respond to situations that require the application of government force and not mental health issues or domestic disagreements” the police would probably agree. Send a social worker to a domestic and send a mental health worker to the dude off his meds. And that means less need for as many officers but more need for social workers. Not sure that would end up being a reduction in spending…probably not, actually.

          1. “Defunding” the police is just another way of saying shift spending (and maybe increase spending) on social services

            No. “Defund the Police” is a far left slogan than means exactly what it says but that has been co-opted by the corporate Democratic Party and repurposed to support their own program, which you yourself admit is the exact opposite of “defunding” anything.

            If you want it to mean something different, use different words.

        3. Or cuts to defense. Don’t forget that.

    2. The WW II debt as a percentage of GDP was higher than this, but not by much, and possibly this COVID-excuse debt pushed it over. But yes, the debt could be paid down, it would just take decades. Suppose they ran a $1T surplus every year (ha ha!), that would be 23 years, plus whatever interest accrued in the meantime. 25-30 years.

      That will never happen. And Biden will find a ton of Green New Deal ways to spend money. Hopefully the GOP Senate will block most of it.

      1. That will never happen. And Biden will find a ton of Green New Deal ways to spend money. Hopefully the GOP Senate will block most of it.

        And, again/moreover, this ignores the alphabet-soup, layer-cake casserole-souffle. Even if they don’t spend more money on GND schemes, we’ll discover that the lockdowns had a disparate impact on blue states and that it will cost the DOE more money to get those states’ educators(‘ pensions) back on track.

      2. the U.S charge other countries for our help thats how we were able to pay off our debt

      3. We had much higher taxes on the wealthy after WWII. Republicans have dramatically cut taxes overall (but increased mine under Trump) but not reduced spending. It’s like quitting your high-paying job and picking up hourly work but not moving out of your expensive house with the big mortgage payment.

        We need to raise taxes and cut spending. It’s too late to think we can just cut spending alone.

        1. We had much higher taxes on the wealthy after WWII. Republicans have dramatically cut taxes overall

          And what impact has that had on revenue?

        2. Now show the percentage of the population that paid those taxes. We also had much higher tax writeoffs for the wealthy. If you were an honest broker you’d look at tax revenue as a percentage of the GDP instead of pushing ignorant talking points.

        3. It’s too late to think we can just cut spending alone.

          I don’t want a bigger debt any more than you do, but when is the impending doom going to hit? Cutting Medicare and SS spending and doing nothing else would eliminate the debt entirely within 15 yrs.

        4. No we did not. Marginal tax rates were sky high, but there were so many easy deductions that effective rates were no higher than today.

      4. The trick is to freeze the budget.

        I agree that it will take forever to dig out of the debt. But the first step when you are in a hole is to stop digging. Every year it is getting harder and harder for the US to change over its debt, because eventually you run out of institutions who need it.

        If you freeze the budget so that each year our economic growth powers lower deficits and eventually a surplus, then as the debt gets paid down, at least we know that we aren’t looking for NEW holders of debt.

    3. That’s 27.3 trillion for you. Check the debt clock.

    4. Lets follow the Magic Money Theory and let the Treasury print it!

  4. Before the pandemic we were forecasting a trillion dollar deficit for FY 2020. How any conservative can be ok with that is just baffling. I’m not upset that Republicans now want to exercise fiscal responsibility – I’m upset that they stop every time a Republican is in the White House.
    We’ll never cut spending until we raise taxes and force EVERYONE to pay for our government. Only then will people care.

    1. Those evil Republicans secretly controlling congress and only cutting its spending bills by 75%

      1. And getting rid of the sequester they fought so hard to get passed under Obama.

      2. And yet spending increased and deficits skyrocketed…Trump was able to double the deficit projection for 2020 (forecast from 2016)…must be a new style conservative – one who spends like a progressive buts whose speeple still believe he’s a conservative

        1. Yes, because it’s the president who spends and not congre… oh wait.

    2. No, raising taxes will not pay down the debt. They would just raise spending.

      The only way to pay down the debt is to reduce spending. Whether paid for by taxes, borrowing, or inflation, spending itself is the evil.

      1. Uh…what?!

        Taxes are income. You cannot pay down debt without income. If you think we should cut spending to the point where we can also pay down the debt, you must be ready to cut things like defense spending in half or eliminate corporate welfare for oil companies. But do you really think Republicans will do that? They always want to cut education, healthcare, and infrastructure projects which are small beans compared to the military.

        Meanwhile, the 2017 Republican tax cuts are responsible for the massive increase in the deficit. No matter how many “trickle down” stories they tell, the economy didn’t make up for the tax cut and the deficit grew massively. You need both tax increases and spending cuts. And most of the spending cuts will mean lost jobs.

        1. Uh…what?!

          Here it is again:

          No, raising taxes will not pay down the debt. They would just raise spending.

          Which part of this did you not understand?

        2. “They always want to cut education, healthcare, and infrastructure projects which are small beans compared to the military.”

          How dumb are you? It’s not that hard to look up government expenditures.

          Cutting all military spending would decrease government spending by 20%.

          50% of government expenditures are social security and medicare. And that not discretionary.

        3. It’s NOT Either/Or. Cuts across the board, baby! Cuts across the board!

      2. I’m not talking about paying the debt down – Hell, let’s just try to operate one year where spending = revenue

    3. 5 trillion dollars (annual budget) divided by 250 million taxpayers = $20K each. Here’s your tax bill.

      1. Yep…nobody cares until you give them a bill.

  5. Sure yeah republicans don’t care much about deficits. Democrats care even less. 2020 was an odd year but even discounting that my major concern was how little attention was paid to debt and deficits. It’s a failing of our system. With congressional term limits and a balanced budget amendment we might have had a shot. But at this point the promised future spending is easily about $200 trillion. With democrats in control that will balloon worse. Even so that issue is dead and nobody cares except to score political points. Better to let it crash and start over.

    Also fuck all democrats to hell. Corrupt assholes.

    1. I don’t think term limits would help since there would be no incentive to do what is needed to stay in office but then again its worth a try

      1. Also I have a feeling that just gives the political machines more power in deciding who to back.

      2. term limits would be counterproductive. if Congressmen can’t stay in office, they have to hand out even bigger payoffs so they can line up lobbyist gigs for when their terms are over

    2. Except for the inconvenient fact that the years in which there are major deficit reductions since the 1980s have all be years with Democrat presidents and either an all Democrat or mixed political control of Congress.

      https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

      While corruption happens, I don’t think that’s the real problem here. The real problem, IMHO, is that Republican voters can be told things that are patently false like “trickle down economics” and they’ll believe it. They’re easily misled by party propaganda. So much so that some of them don’t think the Trump administration was corrupt for the way it used the Trump hotel and Trump golf properties as means to generate illegal income for the Trump Organization. Or that the 2017 inauguration funding was laundered through “contractors” that were also employees of the new administration.

      But those damned Democrats… corrupt to the core… amirite?!

      1. “The real problem, IMHO, is that Republican voters can be told things that are patently false like “trickle down economics” and they’ll believe it.”

        Lol. Says someone who just parachuted into a libertarian site parroting Democrat talking points like, “Oil Subsidies!!”

        And just so you can update your copy pasta, “Trickle down economics” was never uttered by a Republican to their constituents. It was a joke term coined back in the 1930s and then resurrected by Democrats to try and defame deregulation and lowering taxes. So the people just lapping up what they are told can count YOU among them.

        1. yeah I think the Republican term for it was “voodoo economics”, if you consider George HW Bush a Republican….

      2. Trickle down economics is not only patently true, it’s the moral high ground. You can’t just steal what you want, greedy socialists.

        The real problem is Republicans don’t cut government spending when times are good.

  6. Hahaha, nice one, Remy.

  7. Meanwhile, we’re all hoping the Republicans win in Georgia specifically because it really will mean more fiscal restraint, and the only reason Pelosi is considering the senate Republicans’ $560 billion deal (much of it offset from other spending programs) is because Republicans aren’t willing to consider the $3.5 trillion stimulus deal she passed through the House.

    1. and if they the republicans get a deal now then there will be less incentive for the dems to go for another bailout next year. what am i saying of course they will go for another since thats what they do and they will claim the evil republicans didn’t make the last one big enough

    2. Spending controls during an economic emergency may not be wise. Large numbers of economists, a good number of whom are generally anti-spending, are coming out in favor of COVID-related stimulus spending. When you look at how various nations recovered from the Great Recession in 2008, the ones that spent more on recovery got their economies moving faster and recovered faster. Countries that relied on austerity measures did worse. Tax revenues from businesses who fail and close due to COVID shutdowns aren’t even zero–they’re negative because those business owners will be writing off losses and declaring bankruptcy. Tax revenues from businesses who receive enough assistance to keep going until the economy reopens will start paying taxes again much quicker. New businesses aren’t often in the black for years after opening so they aren’t going to be a good source of new revenue for quite some time.

      $3.5 trillion is a lot. But maybe not as big a number as the potential economic contraction from massive business failures. (or massive deaths from COVID if we didn’t implement some amount of pandemic safety measures–that would also have a cost.)

      Further, the large increase in people who acquired new “pre-existing conditions” from surviving COVID will have additional impacts on Federal spending for programs like disability and Medicaid/Medicare.

      This type of situation is exactly what government is around for and why it’s given the power to spend. Hobbling that is just shooting ourselves in the foot over an ideological principle out of alignment with reality.

      1. “Spending controls during an economic emergency may not be wise.”

        Holding the line on spending and cutting taxes is probably the only way to cut spending in any meaningful way.

        Earlier this week, I linked to a post that showed almost a million county workers have been laid off over the course of the pandemic–because of declining tax revenue from sales taxes, etc. That’s what it looks like when the government gets smaller. I’m a libertarian. I want the government to get smaller.

        The idea that the government will ever become so flush with cash that it decides to cut spending is ridiculous. The only time they will ever cut spending is when they run out of revenue. Refusing to bail out the states, for instance, gives them no other option but to cut spending. As a fiscal conservative, yeah, cutting spending is a good thing, and if that’s too hard, we should cut taxes.

        1. I will note that just freezing spending, as Rand Paul has proposed numerous times, would do the trick- if we could keep to it. The biggest problem with the Sequester was that it was engineered to cause a cut. Everyone who voted for it knew that they could sell its repeal to the masses because no one wants to talk about cutting funding.

      2. yeah, but when does government ever cut spending when times are good?

        Krugman blasts the “austerity” alarm whenever anyone thinks about scaling back the growth rate of spending a bit.

      3. If you want to prevent business failures, quit shutting down businesses.

  8. Democrats under a same-party President propose more spending.
    Democrats under an oppositional President propose more spending.
    Republicans under a same-party President propose more spending.
    Republicans under an oppositional President care about deficits.

    Reason Libertarians: Both sides!

    It’s really getting to the point that it seems like Reason/Libertarians don’t really care about spending either. All three sides!

    1. It’s almost like Republican opposition to spending is purely political and has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

      1. It’s almost like Republican opposition to spending is purely political and has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

        It’s not almost like that. It’s exactly like that. Maybe that wasn’t clear when I laid it out in the first four points.

        My mechanic, the local grocer, etc. doesn’t have my prioritized list of interests as their personally held principles either, especially with regard to spending. We manage to find common ground. The question(s) is/are, would you rather do business with the people who at least care nominally and selectively/oppositionally or the ones who don’t care at all? Do you care about fiscal responsibility before or after you’ve won the hypocrisy war against Republicans?

    2. You’re doing the same thing by not looking at the actual deficits ran by each party when they have the executive. Democrat deficits are actually smaller, and by quite a bit. Trump’s total contribution to the debt in 4 years will be greater than Obama’s was in 8 years, for instance.

      I want to believe them, I really do. I used to. But the numbers don’t lie. GOP are only fiscally conservative in rhetoric.

      1. Trump’s total contribution to the debt in 4 years will be greater than Obama’s was in 8 years, for instance
        You know that’s a lie. Trumps contribution to the debt in his first 4 years in office was significantly less than Obama’s contribution to the debt in Obama’s first 4 years in office. And Obama’s contribution to the debt in his first 4 years in office was an order of magnitude larger than Bush’s contribution to the debt for his entire presidency.

          1. Yes, it’s Trump’s fault, not Pelosi’s congress. Just like even though Obama was restrained by a Republican congress, he gets the credit for not spending as much as he wanted.

            1. If Trump has no agency in the budget, why do we get government shut downs and stand offs over the budget?

              Trump initiates the budget process. Trump signs them. He often makes demands before he signs them. His writing is on it just like Pelosi’s.

            2. I like how you guys try to side step the whole misconception and subsequent revelation that republicans contribute more to the debt than Democrats, though.

              1. They don’t. You’re such a disingenuous weasel. Most of this is e result of KungFlu, and a democrat controlled House. However there certainly are big spending republican politicians. And they need to go too, just like the democrats.

      2. First, the narrowing of fiscal responsibility strictly to Presidencies is illusory narrow or misleading. It’s like saying the maintenance costs to my mechanic were higher with the Ford than the BMW when I rolled maintenance into the purchase of the BMW. Obama spent more years under an oppositional Congress than Trump. Moreover, we’re still paying out on debt FDR’s programs accumulate well after FDR died.

        All of that aside (or not as it actually bolsters what I’m saying a bit), that’s still no reason not to side with Republicans when they’re calling for fiscal restraint.

        1. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about gko this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do….. Just Click Here

        2. There most certainly is reason to oppose hypocritical budget hawkism.

          By trying to reduce spending when Democrats have control, but then contributing more to deficits when they are in control than Democrats do, the GOP is not reducing spending, they are changing what is being spent on. And what does the GOP like to spend on? Military. Military. Corporate subsidies. Grift. A useless border wall. MRAPS for cops.

          If I had my druthers, I’d take neither, but since I don’t, I’d rather have inefficient social programs than a new joint strike fighter variant that no one actually wants.

          1. There most certainly is reason to oppose hypocritical budget hawkism.

            By trying to reduce spending when Democrats have control, but then contributing more to deficits when they are in control than Democrats do, the GOP is not reducing spending, they are changing what is being spent on. And what does the GOP like to spend on? Military. Military. Corporate subsidies. Grift. A useless border wall. MRAPS for cops.

            OK, so what the money is being spent on is more important than the fact that is being spent.

            Keep fighting that hipocrisy war. You’ll win eventually.

            1. It’s not about more important or less important. The total debt matters, and it also matters what we spend money on.

              Just as your account balance and your spending habits matter.

              1. It’s not about more important or less important. The total debt matters, and it also matters what we spend money on.

                You aren’t even consistent within two sentences and you’re deriding Republicans for being inconsistent across terms.

                How much have you shaved off the debt by complaining about Republican hypocrisy?

                1. What is inconsistent about saying both the amount and item that money is spent on matter?

                  Suddenly I, a private citizen, am responsible for GOP spending habits?

                  Again, I can not follow your arguments.

                  1. What is inconsistent about saying both the amount and item that money is spent on matter?

                    Again, I can not follow your arguments.

                    I know. I said you were inconsistent across two sentences and you asked how you were inconsistent within the one. The most basic of counting and grammar are, apparently not your strong suit. I’ll do what I can:

                    At bottom line, what no matter in economics. Only how much.

        3. That’s not to say I would rather have Democrats be given a blank check, either. I would like the GOP to oppose spending all the time. if they were to commit to certain budgetary constraints for this next president’s term and the next GOP president, I would be very pleased.

          1. I would like the GOP to oppose spending all the time.

            I’m no saint or svengali, but I’ve never heard anyone say “Thanks for pointing out my hipocrisy, I’ll adjust my behavior to be less hipocritical from now on.” Doubly or even triply so when you point out the hipocrisy of them switching to the behavior you want them to exhibit.

            1. I don’t understand your position here. The GOP won’t accept criticism, so…we should not criticize them?

              1. The point is that they are going to be saying what we want. So we should say, “Yes do that more!”

                You on the other hand will spend the next 2 years saying, “I know they are demanding what they want, but I’m going to undermine their position at every opportunity!”

                Put it this way: If they admit that they were hypocritical and join the Dems in a massive funding package, are you going to be happy? Even though the debt goes up?

                1. It’s like Norm McDonald’s joke about his friend saying the worst thing about the Bill Cosby allegations was the hypocrisy.

                2. Because the GOP does not need encouragement or praise for knee jerk opposition to everything proposed by someone with a (d) by their name.

                  But they apparently need quite a lot of something to get them to act logically or philosophically consistent.

              2. You’ve got to be pretty dense to exhibit less fundamental understanding of the carrot and stick model than your average mule.

                1. Then tell me, oh wise one. How do we carefully talk to snowflakes, lest we upset them?

                  1. Who are snowflakes? The people who cut budgets because bad ideas are stupid?

        4. And we should have a balanced budget requirement again.

          The hocus pocus, algebra-defying math that some “conservatives” use to justify cutting taxes but increasing spending is irrational.

          1. it’s not hocus pocus. revenues went up after the Trump tax cuts, until state governors shut everything down in the virus panic.

            1. The algebraic hocus pocus I’m referring to is the tendency among republicans to ignore the other side of the deficit equation, the revenues side. Jesse, soldiermedic and others have argued very forcefully that taxes should be cut as much as possible, no matter what the government actually spends. They call this “fiscal conservatism”, but I disagree.

      3. The problem with democrats isn’t so much the deficit for a given year per se, but that they want to create new gigantic entitlement programs (i.e., mandatory spending) that, once enacted, will probably never be repealed no matter how much they wreck.

        1. I understand that, and Obamacare definitely supports that case.

          But the GOP still out-deficits democrats, and by a pretty wide margin. And the things they spend the money on are just as offensive, if not more, even if they are packaged in smaller increments.

          1. C.F. Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind.

            1. don’t forget the War on Terra

      4. Poor Stolen Valor still thinks the President is sole designer of the budget.

        1. I don’t, but you know that.

          So why did Trump shut down the government or threaten to do so all those times?

          And more to be more germane, why have we not heard a peep about debt or deficits when Trump and the rest of the club want to rack up a Tril or 2 in deficit?

    3. Not that I think the Dems are good on spending but they did stop Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure spending from passing. It wasn’t for fiscal reasons but a way to fight Trump but either way the outcome was good.

  9. hey Remy now do wars.

    1. Trump juxtaposed defense spending and section 230 protections with a veto. It is and has been pretty apparent that ENB et al. would rather keep section 230 than cut defense spending. Or, at least, when faced with that choice, find themselves in a moral quandry. Almost like they do it strictly for political reasons or something.

      If it weren’t for the principles that Reason suddenly discovers when a team or even just a person they don’t like wins an election, they’d have no principles at all.

      Trade wars aren’t winnable and cancel culture is stupid, but no amount of money or guiding principle can’t be sacrificed in the war on hipocrisy.

      1. What did Crisy the hippo do to you?

        1. I clearly spelled it with only one ‘p’, not two, does that mean I win? Or do I have to force you to pay for a spellchecker for me first?

        2. >>Crisy the hippo

          the Monster Who Ate New Jersey?

      1. sweet gracias. (and well done Remy)

  10. Now do democrats who want to raise taxes during high unemployment, no matter how un-keynesian that is.

    1. Or who forget to pay off debts when the economy is booming. ‘Flexible’ Keynesianism.

  11. I’m still trying to decide which of these is the #1 most glaring hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance of the current GoP/Trump sycophants:

    1) Melania’s “Be Best” campaign against online bullying, as compared to her husband’s conduct online
    2) Republicans being the party of/ having the reputation of “fiscal responsibility” while spending literally the most ever while they controlled all three branches
    3) Literally everything about evangelicals supporting Trump despite his absolutely blatant flaunting of all behaviors that are patently un-Christian
    4) believing that the best spokesperson/champion against “coastal elites” is a guy that was born rich in Manhattan
    5) getting angry about NFL players “disrespecting the flag” while flying a Confederate flag on your house/truck, or having various forms of alternate flags that all violate the flag code like Blue stripes etc.
    6) Roger Stone complaining about a “two-tiered justice system” while a) literally walking free after his buddy pardoned him and b) demanding that the AG prosecute people for essentially not just accepting the “fake election” lies wholesale
    7) the party of “family values” and “we need Christ in school” supporting a thrice married reality start who bangs porn stars while his wife is pregnant
    8) Every single hire is the “best ever” until they tell Trump he shouldn’t do illegal shit then they immediately become the “worst ever”
    9) Lindsey Graham
    10) People complaining about “Hollyweird” when the Secretary of the Treasury is LITERALLY the executive producer on DOZENS of hit movies, Scott Baio quotes get airtime, and the President was literally a reality TV star.

    I guess trolling is now a form of governance.

    1. … or a form of top 10 lists.

    2. Now do Biden.

      1. Now actually respond to criticisms of Trump with defenses of the listed items. Or admit that you can’t. Maybe try “Hillary’s emails” again 😉

        1. >>Melania’s “Be Best” campaign against online bullying, as compared to her husband’s conduct online

          they’re both lovely. where’s the dissonance?

        2. 1) Didn’t affect me.
          2) Unsurprised.
          3) Didn’t affect me.
          4) William Jennings Bryan is dead.
          5) Steelers are 11-0, I don’t give a fuck what flag you have, the flag code is not law.
          6) Tell it to Frank Rich.
          7) Not all R’s are socons.
          8) Didn’t affect me.
          9) Lindsey Graham did the greatest impression of the opening statement in “And Justice For All” during the Kavanaugh hearings.
          10) Hollywood’s leading voices are far left, if not outright communists. They are deserving of criticism, and the fact that Trump had his own show doesn’t change that.

          1. “Didn’t affect me” and “Unsurprised” are not really refutations, are they?

            1. What makes you think they’re worthy of refutation?

            2. #3 – claims authority over evangelicalism with zero credibility or substance. Gonna need some bona fides otherwise it is beyond hypocrisy.

              Also conflates support for a presidency with agreement or support for the person. Which is silly and fallacious.

              Not that you are capable of recognizing or understanding either.

          2. 5) Steelers are 11-0, I don’t give a fuck what flag you have, the flag code is not law.

            I’m a bit of a stickler for flag code and flying other flags or flying black-and-white flags with blue stripes is not, itself, an infraction. And I say that as someone who thinks people flying the blue-stripe flags are absolute tools.

            Most of these are like saying Trump’s a hypocrite because he wipes with his left hand. Number 9 isn’t even a complete thought. Graham’s existence is evidence of Trump’s hypocrisy? Haha, you suck because you can’t refute my incomplete thought!

            1. 9 was in reference to Lindsey graham literally calling Trum a pathological liar before his election win in 2016 then becoming a complete and utter devotee later.

              As for the flag code I didn’t mean to red herring myself but my real point in 5) there is the people who “care” about the American flag shouting about “disrespect” while literally flying the Confederate flag, the literal enemy of the official USA. There is a reason the Army banned it on bases, and it is not a trivial reason.

              And sorry, these are not “like saying Trump’s a hypocrite because he wipes with his left hand.” They’re actual examples. Feel free to actually refute one, if you can.

              1. 9 was in reference to Lindsey graham Kamala Harris literally calling Trum a pathological liar before his election win in 2016 Biden an racist during the primaries then becoming a complete and utter devotee later.

                Refute that.

              2. Feel free to actually refute one, if you can.

                Maybe you haven’t been reading my posts elsewhere in the thread. What fabulous prizes does one win for winning the hypocrisy contest? Moral superiority? Does that moral superiority come with less debt? Because evidence would suggest that the moral superiority game is just as much a mott-and-bailey for fiscal responsiblity as the TPD, even as far as the moral superiority game the root cause and the TPD is simply the facade.

    3. Excellent work Mr. Jomo.

      That’s the kind of deep progressive thinking I often read in my favorite listicles at Huffpo or Salon.

      7)the party of “family values” and “we need Christ in school” supporting a thrice married reality start who bangs porn stars while his wife is pregnant

      You obviously read a lot of twitter and reddit atheism posts. Such a fountain of wisdom. I tip my fedora to you.

      1. >>Salon

        *that’s* where Boehm should write. couldn’t put my finger on it gracias.

      2. If you get offended about someone pointing out blatant hypocrisy from your most beloved politicians, you might want to have a read:

        http://cultresearch.org/help/characteristics-associated-with-cults/

      3. So help me out here guy. Is your problem with my list the fact that it’s a list?

        Do you have anything to add? Perhaps a refutation of anything above? No? Not even gonna throw out a “Benghazi!” or whatever? Is it that you dispute it (if so have at it) or you simply don’t care?

        And no I don’t read a lot of either of those….most of the Tweets I read are directly from the mouth of Trump himself, and I’ve never been on reddit/atheism.

        Even if I had, would that change anything about the items I discussed?

        You can be religious all you want. But when your party cites it every election cycle as a reason to trust them, or to hate the other guy, or pass a certain law….

        …you may not want to go all in on the most vile person to ever hold the office.

        Just a lil’ pro tip there.

        1. p.s. I personally am not atheist per se, I definitely believe there is something better than humans out there somewhere, but I am not religious.

  12. Well at least with a Democrat back in the White House we won’t have to hear about homelessness any more.

    1. Oh, and also it’s funny as fuck to hear all these posters whining because suddenly they don’t think Remy is funny any more. Lighten up, Francis, stop being a whiny little baby.

    2. Nor will we hear about the wage gap or growing inequality.

      Well, we will hear about it in the abstract as the usual suspects claim that their new social program is justified due to inequality. But ever since income inequality started dropping during the Trump presidency, the left has been curiously silent about it.

      1. income inequality started dropping during the Trump presidency

        Except in CA where it’s worse than ever. Damned Republicans!

      2. The rising stock market will again become absolute proof that the economy is better for everyone everywhere.

        Just like the Obama years.

        1. Even though it is nothing more than the Fed Reserve adding zeros.

  13. The relative of my Classmate procures $530 each hour on the net. He has been out of tough work for 5 months, however a month inside the past his paycheck became $ 18468, really chipping away at the net for multiple hours. examine extra in this website online, go to the residence tab of this web website online for additional diffused factors … Here is More information.

  14. Out. Fucking. Standing.

    20 more Remy videos, and maybe I’ll donate to the webathon.

      1. Lived outside of the city during the days of the steel curtain.

        1. Nice time to be a Steelers fan. Pirates?

          1. Never much of a baseball guy, but I did see a few games at Three Rivers. Didn’t get to see Clemente, but did see Willie Stargell and Dave Parker play.

  15. Remember when Trump came into office with control of congress and managed to actually *increase* spending over the Obama years? What an incredible failure Trump was overall

    1. No. Can you help, senpai.

    2. >>control of congress

      saying shit like that in a place like this is a tell.

  16. Being a deficit hawk only when a -D is in power isn’t being a deficit hawk, it’s just being a douchebag.

    But hey, Reason readers are easily duped rubes, so, uh, have at.

    1. Being a deficit hawk only when a -D is in power isn’t being a deficit hawk, it’s just being a douchebag.

      Calling people douchebags because they’re only deficit hawks when a D is in power isn’t being a principled deficit hawk, it’s just being a douchebag.

  17. Remember when Remy and reason used to make fun of democrats…….well now we make fun of those few Republicans who complained every time Trump spent like a democrat.

    Trump was a populist republican, not a principled conservative, amazing how confused some people are on this reality.

    A Remy video making fun of all the ballot irregularities would have been way more appropriate and fun to watch.

    1. Examples of ‘principled conservatives’ currently in office?

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back ngt and I have earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do……. Visit Here

      2. Most GOP Governors, County Execs and Mayors are fiscally conservative.

    2. The video makes fun of Republicans that complained about spending under Obama but not under Trump. It didn’t make fun of the few that complained when Trump spent like a Democrat. It helps if you watch the video.

  18. If Democrats wanted to pass yet more obscene upward transfers of wealth, Republicans would find peace and harmony with them. And libertarians. Stealing our money and giving it to oil CEOs is the sole function of government for these people, and you provide the intellectual cover for their looting.

    How convenient that the GOP base not only believes every last lie they tell about fiscal responsibility, they’ve been made so fucking stupid and sheeplike they would probably let Mitch McConnell steal directly from their wallet as long as he flashed his Team R membership card.

    Republicans explode deficits and ruin economies because they are only there for one job, and if you think that’s to own the libs or make you free, you’re a goddamn retard.

  19. Printing money has always been a temporary solution to the problem, handing over the hot potato to the next one in charge. As long as you can produce sustainable growth to match your debt, fine, but I fail to see this under the current administration.

  20. Remy is more funny when he lumps democrats and republicans into “the government” and makes fun of them.

    Acting like republicans are some problem that is the top priority that needs fixing is stupid.

Please to post comments