US continues to go backward...

[CowboyJD]

I mean, I don't think I've ever seen you personally attack someone unless it was in self defense. But the instantly assuming someone believes something or you know anything about someone from a message board is pretty lame. That's JMO of course.

Well, when anyone ape/advances the exact same arguments as a particular person (for example....your (to paraphrase) meaningless semantics about closeness to the border and how long in the country an alien has been here response earlier this week) on very serious issues....I think it is very fair to point that out.

If you advance, nearly verbatim, Trumpian responses long and often enough, at some point it's not unreasonable to point that out and suggest that maybe you're becoming or are Trumpian.

That's JMO as well and I'm speaking in a general "you" sense rather than a specific one.

 

[Bowers3]

If anyone wants to actually physically personally attack @Rob B., DM me. I've got a group together.

 

[CowboyJD]

@JTOSU Now you are being disingenuous. Never let an opportunity go to waste, right?

mislead, misdirect, mischaracterize.

 

[CowboyJD]

If anyone wants to actually physically personally attack @Rob B., DM me. I've got a group together.

He's a pretty big ole fella.....you're gonna need plenty of help.

 

[CowboyJD]

You think I actually have time to interrupt my posting to read anything else any other posters put up?

Not at all. I don't even know how that would be possible. Keep grinding broseph.

I agree that the level of @Polds4OSU posting to be highly unusual and a bit weird. I think, at some point, he tacitly admitted the account was more than one person.

I've also seen disclaimers that when he posts he's not particularly vouching for the accuracy of the posts or endorsing them particularly even his own opinion. I don't read all of them and when I have read inaccuracies in them, I've pointed it out. Sometimes he's just removed them, sometimes he doesn't.

I'm not a big fan of his "just putting it out there" for discussion style, but that's because I want to know what other posters actually think, believe, support. I'm also just not a fan of the degradation of discourse that comes with soundbite social media, but that's the world we all unfortunately find ourselves in.

I'm not gonna get myself wrapped around the axel over it though. I scan and move along. Life's too short.

 

[JTOSU]

taxes is more important to JT than balancing a budget.

@JTOSU Now you are being disingenuous. Never let an opportunity go to waste, right?

I am only parroting your actions.
I only have about a 1/3rd of your posts, but I post much more about need and desire for balancing the budget than you. A quick search of posts in the last month shows multiple posts from me about that issue and none from you.

Look I get it — lowering taxes, balancing the budget, and finding solutions to our national debt issue are top issues for me and not so much so for you and others. But making up fake stuff about how other posters feel and prioritize political items is just weak.

 

[GratefulPoke]

I am only parroting your actions.
I only have about a 1/3rd of your posts, but I post much more about need and desire for balancing the budget than you. A quick search of posts in the last month shows multiple posts from me about that issue and none from you.

Look I get it — lowering taxes, balancing the budget, and finding solutions to our national debt issue are top issues for me and not so much so for you and others. But making up fake stuff about how other posters feel and prioritize political items is just weak.

You are only parroting yourself. In many debates you get into on here, when you start to lose them, your go to is to deny, deflect or to be disingenuous. Its a decision you make--you could handle it differently. I would encourage you to get better arguments, admit fault from time to time, or maybe reconsider a position or two, but that isn't something you have demonstrated you are capable of or interested in doing.

Lower taxes =/= fiscal responsibility. Especially with the national debt where it is now.

We need to close tax loopholes and lower expenditures to pay down the debt before we can cut taxes.

I also share this concern. Cuts to budget need to be paired with keeping revenue similar or even removal of tax cuts to pay down the debt.

That being said, our deficit spending may be required since we are the reserve currency of the world. If we dont deficit spend, a strong dollar could crush the other world economies, per the Triffin Dilemma.

I have posted a good amount about the importance of a balanced budget both on here and especially on OP. We even have had an exchange or two on the topic.

The point I made is in line with your posts on here. You can take issue with the characterization, but it is accurate per your posting history. Instead of attacking the point I made, there is an easy way to clear the air on this topic. Do you agree that:
1) A balanced budget is one of the more important national political issues of our time.
2) Our national debt of $36T is unsustainable and puts us at risk of insolvency.
3) To balance a budget, you have to match taxes collected with federal expenditures.
4) In light of the above and also considering that we are over $36T in the hole, cutting taxes is not a serious proposal and a secondary consideration at best right now?

If so, I will admit I misread your position on here. If not, my read was correct.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

I agree that the level of @Polds4OSU posting to be highly unusual and a bit weird. I think, at some point, he tacitly admitted the account was more than one person.

I've also seen disclaimers that when he posts he's not particularly vouching for the accuracy of the posts or endorsing them particularly even his own opinion. I don't read all of them and when I have read inaccuracies in them, I've pointed it out. Sometimes he's just removed them, sometimes he doesn't.

I'm not a big fan of his "just putting it out there" for discussion style, but that's because I want to know what other posters actually think, believe, support. I'm also just not a fan of the degradation of discourse that comes with soundbite social media, but that's the world we all unfortunately find ourselves in.

I'm not gonna get myself wrapped around the axel over it though. I scan and move along. Life's too short.

I get your perspective. Mine is a bit different. I’ve never had Facebook and quit X and Threads over a yr ago. I do scan Bluesky maybe once per week and I only have the Gram for family and OSU sports. So I appreciate the Polds posts bc I can get straight to the info and not have to read through toxicity. The posts are what they are. Read them skip them or continue to grind your panties deeper into your crack. Continue to complain about them only shows which option you chose (and I don’t take JD’s post above as a complaint). JMO

 

[JTOSU]

You are only parroting yourself. In many debates you get into on here, when you start to lose them, your go to is to deny, deflect or to be disingenuous. Its a decision you make--you could handle it differently. I would encourage you to get better arguments, admit fault from time to time, or maybe reconsider a position or two, but that isn't something you have demonstrated you are capable of or interested in doing.


I have posted a good amount about the importance of a balanced budget both on here and especially on OP. We even have had an exchange or two on the topic.

The point I made is in line with your posts on here. You can take issue with the characterization, but it is accurate per your posting history. Instead of attacking the point I made, there is an easy way to clear the air on this topic. Do you agree that:
1) A balanced budget is one of the more important national political issues of our time.
2) Our national debt of $36T is unsustainable and puts us at risk of insolvency.
3) To balance a budget, you have to match taxes collected with federal expenditures.
4) In light of the above and also considering that we are over $36T in the hole, cutting taxes is not a serious proposal and a secondary consideration at best right now?

If so, I will admit I misread your position on here. If not, my read was correct.

Hmmm. Your top three points are answered with my historical posts below, but here are some thoughts.
1) Yes, I’ve said multiple times importance of balanced budget
2) Yes, you are parroting me about $36T not sustainable. Glad you agree with me.
3) Yes, incoming funds need to match outgoing funds for a balanced budget.
4) No, you can absolutely cut taxes and cut spending and still balance the budget. If we could have maintained spending levels of pre-covid (2019) we would have not only have a balanced budget last year, but a budget surplus.

Below are results from a quick search of my posting history
April 23rd: “They might have a case if they raised taxes and passed a budget that was balanced. But they are just going to raise taxes and keep spending increases. No thanks.”

April 17th: “Yes, I admit I don’t get anywhere close to the outrage that many on here show about things. I am passionate about lower taxes, balanced budget, public education, personal freedoms, and social security solvency”

Feb 25th: “It’s stupid and just continues to increase the debt. They (GOP members that voted for this) shouldn’t celebrate just because they lowered the growth rate of the deficit. That is a poor metric when we are at $37T of debt.”

Feb 3rd: “I don’t have blinders and realize we have A LOT of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. I get national debt is a bigger issue for me than for you, but $36T is meaningful and burdens our future. Although I am extremely dubious that Trump will take debt reduction seriously (witness his apparent approval with additional spending)”

Dec 24th: “ National debt is probably my #1 national issue.”

Dec 21st: “I stated I support tax cuts AND spending cuts. I have never stated otherwise. Did you read my post yesterday —- national debt is a top issue for me.”

Nov 22nd” “I am frustrated that SS and National Debt remain a looming issue, but hardly any politicians are serious about fixing”

Jul 24th: “The issue of our national debt should not be a R or D issue. IMO, this is the greatest threat to the US, but as this article points out…also a global problem. Neither Trump nor Biden even talk about this.”

 

[CowboyJD]

You are only parroting yourself. In many debates you get into on here, when you start to lose them, your go to is to deny, deflect or to be disingenuous. Its a decision you make--you could handle it differently. I would encourage you to get better arguments, admit fault from time to time, or maybe reconsider a position or two, but that isn't something you have demonstrated you are capable of or interested in doing.


I have posted a good amount about the importance of a balanced budget both on here and especially on OP. We even have had an exchange or two on the topic.

The point I made is in line with your posts on here. You can take issue with the characterization, but it is accurate per your posting history. Instead of attacking the point I made, there is an easy way to clear the air on this topic. Do you agree that:
1) A balanced budget is one of the more important national political issues of our time.
2) Our national debt of $36T is unsustainable and puts us at risk of insolvency.
3) To balance a budget, you have to match taxes collected with federal expenditures.
4) In light of the above and also considering that we are over $36T in the hole, cutting taxes is not a serious proposal and a secondary consideration at best right now?

If so, I will admit I misread your position on here. If not, my read was correct.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes. Though to decrease the debt load, federal revenue must exceed, not match, federal expenditures.
4. Absolutely.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Hmmm. Your top three points are answered with my historical posts below, but here are some thoughts.
1) Yes, I’ve said multiple times importance of balanced budget
2) Yes, you are parroting me about $36T not sustainable. Glad you agree with me.
3) Yes, incoming funds need to match outgoing funds for a balanced budget.
4) No, you can absolutely cut taxes and cut spending and still balance the budget. If we could have maintained spending levels of pre-covid (2019) we would have not only have a balanced budget last year, but a budget surplus.

Below are results from a quick search of my posting history
April 23rd: “They might have a case if they raised taxes and passed a budget that was balanced. But they are just going to raise taxes and keep spending increases. No thanks.”

April 17th: “Yes, I admit I don’t get anywhere close to the outrage that many on here show about things. I am passionate about lower taxes, balanced budget, public education, personal freedoms, and social security solvency”

Feb 25th: “It’s stupid and just continues to increase the debt. They (GOP members that voted for this) shouldn’t celebrate just because they lowered the growth rate of the deficit. That is a poor metric when we are at $37T of debt.”

Feb 3rd: “I don’t have blinders and realize we have A LOT of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. I get national debt is a bigger issue for me than for you, but $36T is meaningful and burdens our future. Although I am extremely dubious that Trump will take debt reduction seriously (witness his apparent approval with additional spending)”

Dec 24th: “ National debt is probably my #1 national issue.”

Dec 21st: “I stated I support tax cuts AND spending cuts. I have never stated otherwise. Did you read my post yesterday —- national debt is a top issue for me.”

Nov 22nd” “I am frustrated that SS and National Debt remain a looming issue, but hardly any politicians are serious about fixing”

Jul 24th: “The issue of our national debt should not be a R or D issue. IMO, this is the greatest threat to the US, but as this article points out…also a global problem. Neither Trump nor Biden even talk about this.”

I appreciate your response and sharing of examples. They are exactly what I was referencing, however. If the national debt is the greatest threat to the US as you state, but you are unwilling to acknowledge #4, that is an irresponsible position IMO.

My analogy you took issue with fits perfectly.

 

[JTOSU]

If so, I will admit I misread your position on here. If not, my read was correct.

Unsurprisingly you can’t admit you are wrong.

Some are so accepting of politicians that they cannot understand we have a spending problem.
We need more financial literacy.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Unsurprisingly you can’t admit you are wrong. Every time.

Some are so accepting of politicians that they cannot understand we have a spending problem.
We need more financial literacy.

JT, your alternative definition for #4 isnt even factually correct either. The highest amount of revenue the US govt has collected in a year was in 2024 to the tune of $4.9T. Do you know what portion of our expenditures were mandatory in 2024, plus intrest payments? It was $5.0 trillion.

In 2019, mantatory spending plus interest was only $3.1T. We are never going back to that spending level due to 1) our aging demographics 2) our debt load 3) inflation (it affects the govt too). This is completely ignoring discretionary spending mind you.

2019 US govt data (source)
2024 US govt data (source)

You are wrong. Just own it and move on.

 

[Rob B.]

If anyone wants to actually physically personally attack @Rob B., DM me. I've got a group together.

I've seen your "group"

 

[steross]

@JTOSU Now you are being disingenuous. Never let an opportunity go to waste, right?

Wait, GP, what in the world are you talking about? JT, Disingenuous? No way! This is the guy that @Rob B. needed to white knight.

Look I get it — lowering taxes, balancing the budget, and finding solutions to our national debt issue are top issues for me and not so much so for you and others.

I get national debt is a bigger issue for me than for you

Some are so accepting of politicians that they cannot understand we have a spending problem.

 

[JTOSU]

Wait, GP, what in the world are you talking about? JT, Disingenuous?

So will you admit we have a spending problem?

 

[Rob B.]

So will you admit we have a spending problem?

 

[steross]

So will you admit we have a spending problem?

Again?

 

[steross]

$1000 bucks for you to show me where I said spending wasn't a problem.
$500 bucks to me if I can show you where I said it was.

2:1 odds. You got to take that one, right????

 

[Rob B.]

$1000 bucks for you to show me where I said spending wasn't a problem.
$500 bucks to me if I can show you where I said it was.

2:1 odds. You got to take that one, right????