Trump Talk™

When the new stuff goes into effect, both/all parties in a shitstorm will be topic banned temporarily or until the RP&R reset.

Don't talk ***about Pink Floyd.

In this case, I wouldn't be banned because I did not reply to this shitstorm. I properly reported Flavin just like I was supposed to.

Source

Hands down, the most overrated band of all time.

Not even saying "bad", just "overrated", and they'll hold that crown forever now that people finally figured out that U2 sucks.

They will figure that out when Apple stops putting U2 on iPhones.

You are an Apple person and you prefer cake to pie, so.. *shrugs*

Also, Dave Matthews Band sucks.

On this, there is consensus.

All American Music sucks

/throws down the gauntlet.jpg

Pink Floyd is not overrated the Beatles are overrated !

I'm replying g to Altima as he clearly supports the wall idea...

And I replied to you.

Also pointing out that Trump is not "fiscally conservative."

Hell, other than Ryan, I don't think we have a "fiscally conservative" politician anymore.

I'm not even sure Paul Ryan is as fiscally conservative as he makes himself out to be.

I mean, something has to give no matter how tightly you strap that buckle around your waist.

To be fiscally conservative doesn't mean that you have to kill all spending.

Pretty much don't spend beyond your means.

If you have $100 for the week, you don't spend $200 that same week.

That's part of the issue. Saving money to live within your means can also be costly in other areas. Around here, a monthly buss pass surpasses gas costs *and* monthly insurance payments, by nearly 2 fold (this is from a to and work/necessary shopping viewpoint). But it's a perceived budgeted saving. Secondly, there are unexpected costs that can go above and beyond your 100 dollars a week limit, that *have* to be taken care of, or the damage from waiting, can cause even more spending down the road. There needs to be a budgeted contingency, and how much you can comfortably go over, without going for broke.

Now, talking about luxuries, I see where he stands, but that's really the only point he has that would make him fiscally conservative, but that comes with proper budgeting on what luxuries you can afford, rather than what is deemed necessary, and is more for a household budget, than a municipal, state, or federal budget.

The alliteration is real.

That's what rainy-day funds in government is supposed to be about.

Texas does a really good job at maintaining and keeping the rainy day fund...funded.

Although, it also does hurt some budgets to maintain it. Such as our Education Fund.

It also depends on what is considered a luxury. The US Defense Budget is a prime example of that. Some things there could be considered a luxury to some, but necessary for others. R&D is also a prime example too.

R&D is something in the middle, as I consider it to be a necessary luxury. It's necessary given what it does to stimulate industry and innovation, but also a luxury because of what those industries and innovations end up being used for.

As far as education is concerned, and I have voiced this many times, it's often the first thing cut while being "fiscally conservative", and ends up being a much greater cost down the road as history can attest to. But here in also lies another issue I've also voiced at the same time - there are local and state education boards that incorrectly earmark those funds, and students, and many of the good teachers, suffer from not having it. A lot of the time school boards will earmark what funding they get for cosmetic updates over necessary upgrades, so they can pull in parents to enroll their child as a student. School programs and afterschool programs also suffer as well because of this.

It depends on what is being researched. I don't think giving Swedish massages to rabbits as an appropriate use of R&D funds, especially if the premise of said funds is to see the effects of healing to humans. I mean, if you are going to do something like that, do it to humans and pretend you are actually studying.

It all depends on results. If we can get the same results (either exact or close enough) with less funding, wouldn't it be smarter to fund less and get those same results?

Then that rises the question on the use of said funds. But that's a different topic all together.

Such as football stadiums? Then again, most of those are bond-paid.

The Bond-paid stadiums are technically privately owned, rather than government paid. However, I'm not talking about facilities themselves, but the actual programs, and fair use of funds to actually fund the basic equipment or tools to help people find ways of succeeding.

I do agree, at least to some extent, that if we can get the same results with less money, we should aim for that, but that is rarely the case. My argument isn't necessarily for an overflow of money being dumped into education, but primarily to stop cutting funding to education, and within education, stop the cuts to actual core studies, such as literature, history, math, and science. These are the areas that get the most cuts.

Either way, we should be aiming for better results, rather than "close enough" to the same results, as it ends up lowering the over-all results each year. "Well, it was close enough to last year's results, we can give them less money again" but that leads to other increased costs of needing to provide upgrading for fresh out of school adults who would no longer have the desired results for employers to hire them. It also means paying out of pocket, the money they don't have, or relying on the government for assistance for loans they can't afford to pay back, and ultimately default on. This is where the increased costs to the system come from. It also means far less skilled or educated workers ready to be hired.

Obviously, volunteering is a potential solution, but that doesn't put money in their pockets when they need it. And volunteering is only viable when you have some kind of savings to rely on between jobs, so that you don't become rusty with your skills between employment.

Stadiums still require the school budget to maintain, repair, and supply. Also, bond payments are made by the school budget itself (generally).

Bonds just help build it faster.

That depends on the situation at hand. I think we need a better investigation on education funds instead of just blanket cuts that we get in local/state level budgets. If a program isn't working, cut it. But don't cut the fund itself just because.

Again, something that needs to be investigated. You can't just throw money at the problem and expect it to fix itself.

Those are exactly the points that I am making. Sometimes, in order to be fiscally conservative, you have to look at spending a little extra now, to save big in the long run. Or see it as properly investing in the future. But it's not always about spending more now to save big later. As you said, these things have to be investigated, and not every city, region, or state will have the same problems with funding, or spending habits.

You have to look at what the issues are, and open a discussion for viable solutions. If one region offers say, as a sport, and none of the students in that region have an interest in it, or there are no sports teams or scholarships for that sport to post-secondary, cut it. Use those funds within other sports programs offered instead. Find a way to get better results for those programs. However, the current solution is to keep that money flowing, by cutting funding to other educational departments.

That's the whole point in having the budget to begin with.

Sticking to that budget is what defines being "fiscally conservative."

are you two almost finished!? save a little convo for your second date!

the thread is called Trump Talk™ not two jackasses argue about school budget cuts

And being conservative in your fiscal matters means knowing what to spend your money on. Even if it sometimes goes over budget. (which is why there should be a separate contingency budget that goes outside your usual budget)

With your $100 a week analogy. Some times you won't spend all 100 a week, sometimes you'll only spend 70 dollars. Any excess from that week should go into your contingency budget - This is something I was taught in my math class when we studied household budgets and banking. Again, this line of thinking is mostly for household budgeting, and doesn't really reflect on municipal, state, or federal budgeting, though I suppose in simplest theory they kind of do.

So, I suppose I should ask, for your analogy, is your 100 dollars a week budget only for luxuries, or does it include necessities? (Another thing I was taught was to separate the two, as necessities were considered money already spent from any income you had, and what was left over was the actual budget)

Seriously, if there's one place it's completely inappropriate to talk about actual fiscal policy, it's a Trump thread

How dare you call Bloodrose a jackass!

Them's fighting words, buttercakes.

Let's take this to RP&R.

>.> now, now, he only called me a jackass, not a liberal.

and I thought it was "them's fighting words, lambchops"

Edit: as much as I peek in from time to time, I'd rather avoid the clusterfuck that is RPR.

Sounds like a really bad version of Papst Blue Ribbon in verbal form.

Nik is my buttercake. Because Cake > Pie.

That's odd. I report people for what Flavin just did and I am the one that gets banned.. Hmmm.