4 ms·

Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution. Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to ch

by 67726e 10y ago

Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution. Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Bury your head in the sand, man. We're not looking at reasonable folks. It's just one side trying to piss on the other.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Thank you Captain Obvious. Can you also shed light on some deep mysteries like the colour of the sky, if water is wet, and where bears poop?
    - 67726e 10y ago
      Do you have something constructive to add?
      - astrodust 10y ago
        I need answers man. What's the hold up?
- doktrin 10y ago
  > That's a straw man of a budget hawk. Real budget hawks are more reasonable. Is this an ironic no-true-scotsman?
nikdaheratik 10y ago
I think the term "budget hawk" has been misapplied so much that it's essentially meaningless. Libertarians seem to want a Federal government as it maybe existed 100 years ago. Right wing Republicans aren't necessarily interested in lower spending or deficits, but claim "deficit spending" as a problem when the tax levels are higher than they like, or when the spending levels for programs they don't like are too high. Everything else is okay. There are a few people who actually care about running a government that isn't running in the red for eternity, but that's not really what they campaign on or they wouldn't get elected, in my opinion.