Deficit spending is awesome! No wait, it's dung from the anus of Satan.

[HMS Irruncible]

I thought about putting this in GQ, but realistically, this is going to turn into a GD.

Up until this point in history, the centerpiece of the Reagan hero legend is that he used deficit spending to fix the economy, defeat communism, etc. Even the Republican former acting president of the United States said (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm) that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

At this moment, of course, deficits do matter, now that a Democrat is president. In fact, deficit spending has now become evil incarnate. We have to balance the budget NOW because, you know, deficits are bad. In 2011 I mean, not in 1981.

Of course, you and I already know the real reason behind this paradox. If you help a poor black single mother treat her child for pneumonia, that's bad deficit spending. If you run up a giant deficit paying for battleships that the Navy never requested, that's good deficit spending.

I'm just wondering how the conservatives are reconciling this whole situation among themselves... how they manage to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the greatest virtue of their greatest hero also being the greatest sin of their greatest antagonist.

[jtgain]

D or R, deficits are bad if they go on forever and ever. If you need to accomplish a particular task like combat the Great Depression, fight WWII, defeat communism, or stave off the economic crisis of 2008, then temporary deficits are fine, even laudable.

The problem is when a situation is in place where your continuing and ongoing expenses will outweigh your projected revenue into the foreseeable future. That's a problem that faces us now and I don't care who did what before, we need to make some serious choices now.

[Heyoka13]

Asefetida?

What does asefetida have to do with overspending?



;)

[jtgain]

Missed edit window: And the poor black (why does that matter) single mother who can't pay to treat her kid for pneumonia: That isn't a debate on whether the kid should just crawl off somewhere and die or not. It is a debate on the fundamental purpose of government.

Left-leaners would like to see a government program to pay for that treatment.

Right-leaners believe in the old-fashioned system where first her family would help pay. Failing that her neighbors would help pay. Failing that her church or other charitable organizations would help pay.

That's the debate. Nobody wants to let the kid die like the left seems to imply.

[GIGObuster]

"It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber".

[John Mace]

Up until this point in history, the centerpiece of the Reagan hero legend is that he used deficit spending to fix the economy, defeat communism, etc. Even the Republican former acting president of the United States said (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm) that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Do you mind if ask for a better cite that this was "the centerpiece" of anything? I mean, something a little more than someone thinks they heard Cheney say it.

[etv78]

"It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber".

:D For the Win!

[Nathan E. Zephyr]

At this moment, of course, deficits do matter, now that a Democrat is president. In fact, deficit spending has now become evil incarnate. We have to balance the budget NOW because, you know, deficits are bad. In 2011 I mean, not in 1981.
You're forgetting that the obstructionist Republicans care nothing about Keynesian Economics, or fixing the economy, or anything else besides feathering their own nests with taxpayer money raped from the middle & lower class in the glorious name of God.

[China Guy]

I don't necessarily think this is true but it also would not surprise me if the back room power brokers on the right are thinking "if we cut back the stimulous spending, there will be more unemployed, housing will continue to be depressed, jobs tight, and then come election time people will vote out those useless Dems that can't create jobs."

On the other hand, "let's help fix the economy right now, put some programs in place to help homeowners, do somereal Keynesian spending (instead of the feds making up only part of the local and state shortfalls). It's the right thing to do for the economy, unemployed and America, and we're sure voters will take that into consideration when they go to the pulls and vote in an overwhelming Republican wave."

[SmartAlecCat]

Right-leaners believe in the old-fashioned system where first her family would help pay. Failing that her neighbors would help pay. Failing that her church or other charitable organizations would help pay.

Failing that....

[foolsguinea]

When I was a kid, I was told that the Democrats were for deficits & the Republicans were against it. But by 1990, the GOP decided that they were for tax cuts more.

It doesn't matter, Keynesianism is impossible in a democracy, & all democratic governments will go into the red until they hit a crisis. They will then do something unlovely like default, hyper-inflate, be conquered, turn servile to "private" creditor elites, or... I don't know.

The masses are just too stupid to run a government.

[Rand Rover]

You simply are misunderstanding the fiscal conservative position. Fiscal conservatives care about the absolute size of government, and they want to limit its activities to only those things they believe are necessary for a government to do. Whether spending in any given year is deficit spending or not is a separate issue. A fiscal conservative could be fine with deficit spending if necessary for the military but not fine with it if it is to support social programs, and there's nothing hypocritical about that (because in the second case it's just the spending they don't like, not the fact that it is deficit spending).

[China Guy]

Rand, I think that's a crock. Fiscal conservatives are generally (sweeping with a broad brush) a bunch of crying ninnies. They are all for things like public schooling when they or their kids are in school, and want to cut their property taxes and eliminate schools when their kids are out of school. Most fiscal conservatives are freeloaders in that they only want to pay for the service they get right now, but also expect to have a good infrastructure, educated workforce, access to good insurance all in place.

If fiscal conservatives were in charge, then every road would be a toll road, schools would all be tuition based, if you live in the boonies you just won't have mail/airports and probably also not have running water, sewer connect or any kind of real health care on dirt roads. Throw in the gold standard and get rid of the banking system. There would be no need for a police force because fiscal conservative vigilantes would administer all the justice needed. Sheesh, you wouldn't need a military because there would be no foreign policy or projection, and armed militias would turn back any would be invaders in a New York Stock Broker second.

And it's just a funny coincidence how fiscal conservatives come out of the woodwork when there's a black democratic party president as opposed to a Republican.

[Rand Rover]

Looks like you just want to rail against fiscal conservatives (or, really, lots of different people with different views that you are lumping together under the banner of "fiscal conservatives"). The Pit is down the hall, second door on the left--that's the forum for idiotic screeds.

[loshan]

That's the debate. Nobody wants to let the kid die like the left seems to imply.

Bullshit. That's exactly what they want. They don't care. Black, white or otherwise, it's just another stupid, no-money, low-life with a jar full of change on a convenience store counter.

Now....if it's a member in good-standing of THEIR church, it's a tragedy. :rolleyes:

[gonzomax]

Do you mind if ask for a better cite that this was "the centerpiece" of anything? I mean, something a little more than someone thinks they heard Cheney say it.

Paul O'niel said Cheney made the statement. that is how Bush/Cheney governed you know.
Clinton fixed the Repub mess by ending the deficits. They do matter to Dems.
Bush handed Obama a mess that took a lot of spending to try and fix. He does have plans on dealing with deficits. Bush had none. Regan was the same as Bush.

[furt]

Bullshit. That's exactly what they want. They don't care. Black, white or otherwise, it's just another stupid, no-money, low-life with a jar full of change on a convenience store counter.

Now....if it's a member in good-standing of THEIR church, it's a tragedy. :rolleyes:
Fuck no. We don't let people in our churches unless they're millionaires.

Personally, whenever I see someone who isn't rich, I punch them in the face, just for the fun of it. If they're non-white, I do it twice. And if they're poor, black and gay? Well, then I just murder them and rape their children.

[loshan]

...And if they're poor, black and gay? Well, then I just murder them and rape their children.

Well, good for you. At least you are standing up for your beliefs.

[septimus]

Fuck no. We don't let people in our churches unless they're millionaires.

Personally, whenever I see someone who isn't rich, I punch them in the face, just for the fun of it. If they're non-white, I do it twice. And if they're poor, black and gay? Well, then I just murder them and rape their children.

I mentioned recently in another thread that right-wing posts often seem like self-parody.

For that reason, deliberate self-parody by these bitter souls seems to stretch the definition of humour.

[AlienVessels]

Deficit spending is no worse than using credit cards. Used intelligently, it does the job by providing goods and services when you need them, i.e. when times are bad.

Now you would think that those fiscal conservatives would be all about government setting up rainy day funds that mirror those which thrify "right thinking" individuals set up to be "self-reliant" JUST for those occasions. But no, they get to have their cake and eat it too.

And regarding their humor - I've seen their Becks, Coulters and Limbaughs. Where are their Colberts and Stewarts? Where are the heartfelt laughs? All I see is "har, har, pwned the libs again" and Church Ladyish "aren't we special" predatory leers.

[Saint Cad]

The problem is not that the federal government pays for some things, but is expected to pay for everything. Look at education. The Feds have no jurisdiction over education except as it violates the Constitution. So they can enforce anti-discrimination laws but in general something like NCLB would violate the 10th Amendment if it were mandated. But it gets around that with the legilation through pursestrings allowed under South Dakota v. Dole. But my question is, why are the Feds paying for education? Why not leave it up to the states and locals? Is it:
1) It is just expected? Have we kept the New Deal mentality that Big Daddy Fed will take care of everything by throwing $ at it?
2) Is it impossible for the Feds to get out? Is education now so expensive (and if so is that the Feds fault?) that the system would collapse if they didn't fund it?

Now add UHC (again of questionable Constitutionality if SD v. Dole doesn't exist). Why is there the expectation that the Feds need to pay for it?

[etv78]

The problem is not that the federal government pays for some things, but is expected to pay for everything. Look at education. The Feds have no jurisdiction over education except as it violates the Constitution. So they can enforce anti-discrimination laws but in general something like NCLB would violate the 10th Amendment if it were mandated. But it gets around that with the legilation through pursestrings allowed under South Dakota v. Dole. But my question is, why are the Feds paying for education? Why not leave it up to the states and locals? Is it:
1) It is just expected? Have we kept the New Deal mentality that Big Daddy Fed will take care of everything by throwing $ at it?
2) Is it impossible for the Feds to get out? Is education now so expensive (and if so is that the Feds fault?) that the system would collapse if they didn't fund it?

Now add UHC (again of questionable Constitutionality if SD v. Dole doesn't exist). Why is there the expectation that the Feds need to pay for it?

UM, because people in Mississippi and Connecticut should have as near equal access to quality education and health care! :rolleyes:

[tomndebb]

Cosmic Relief, the place for rants is the BBQ Pit. This topic is certainly fodder for a Great Debate, but you set the tone and poisoned the well and I have no intention of spending hours seeing has gotten out of line in this thread.

Off to The BBQ Pit. (If you want to open a Great Debate on the topic, feel free, but do it with a lot less emotional baggage the next time.

[ /Moderating ]

[HMS Irruncible]

You simply are misunderstanding the fiscal conservative position. Fiscal conservatives care about the absolute size of government, and they want to limit its activities to only those things they believe are necessary for a government to do. Whether spending in any given year is deficit spending or not is a separate issue. A fiscal conservative could be fine with deficit spending if necessary for the military but not fine with it if it is to support social programs, and there's nothing hypocritical about that (because in the second case it's just the spending they don't like, not the fact that it is deficit spending).
If you shrink the government down to a thimble that costs a trillion dollars and can only be financed by borrowing, but that's OK because it happens to be a weaponized thimble that can destroy ICBM's, I fail to see what's fiscally conservative about that.

[HMS Irruncible]

Missed edit window: And the poor black (why does that matter) single mother who can't pay to treat her kid for pneumonia: That isn't a debate on whether the kid should just crawl off somewhere and die or not. It is a debate on the fundamental purpose of government.
The Republicans are using deficit hysteria to ram through indiscriminate spending cuts. It's true that their rationale to keep this or ditch that is colored by their perspective of what government ought to be doing. But the overriding justification right now is "OMG the deficit is a horrendous beast about to eat us all, so you will now sit down and start cutting stuff that's important to you (not us)."

I just sincerely want to know how this relates to the Reagan myth. For years they told us his deficits didn't matter and in fact were a form of genius because they helped end the recession and win the Cold War. In fact deficit spending was such a brilliant solution for the last recession and war that that George W. Bush simply copied it. Republicans only found their sense of horror over deficits after Obama became president. Now that a Democrat is president, of course, they tell us of course that deficits are no solution for a recession.

Of course, if we need an explanation for that, we need look no farther bald-faced hypocrisy. That's not what I'm curious about. My curiousity is about the status of the Reagan myth now. If we all agree that deficits are fiscally irresponsible and a threat to the country, doesn't that mean Reagan was a colossal fuckup. If not, why not? Or is the current drumbeat of deficit horror nothing more than a dogwhistle for the proper role of government, which in turn is a dogwhistle for tossing meat to the rich and scraps to the poor?

[Saint Cad]

UM, because people in Mississippi and Connecticut should have as near equal access to quality education and health care! :rolleyes:

First question: And that can only be done through the Feds paying for it? If we want to put education under the Federal jurisdiction, why not change the Constitution or pass laws requiring the states to follow certain procedures and hope for an activist Judge. If the Feds can't just pass a law standardizing education or health care, then why should they be allowed to do it using tax and spend?

Second question: So we throw the enumerated rights and state responsibilites out of the Constitution and rewrite it as "The Federal government pays for everything"? Or is the Constitution (despite all of its fault) only to be followed when convienient?

Third question: Why do people from each state have to have the same of everything? If California taxpayers decide to spend more in state and local taxes to have a better educational system and Arizona's attitude is "Fuck it." then isn't that the residents' perogative AND doesn't it let you choose whether you wan't to pay more for a better education when picking a state to live in?

Fourth question: There's only one way to have quality education and UHC? Because that's exactly what you get when the Feds pay for it. Every state now has to educate in the NCLB style and give health care that corresponds to Obamacare?

[Rand Rover]

If you shrink the government down to a thimble that costs a trillion dollars and can only be financed by borrowing, but that's OK because it happens to be a weaponized thimble that can destroy ICBM's, I fail to see what's fiscally conservative about that.
What? Look, you don't understand what fiscal conservatives believe. But I'm hear to tell you. Ask and I'll answer. Keep posting stuff like this and I'll assume you wisj to remain ignorant.

[HMS Irruncible]

What? Look, you don't understand what fiscal conservatives believe. But I'm hear to tell you. Ask and I'll answer. Keep posting stuff like this and I'll assume you wisj to remain ignorant.
If I'm understanding you correctly, it's essentially the doctrine of being stingy in financing things the government has no business doing? Have I got that about right or would you like to fine-tune it a bit before I point out the obvious hypocrisy?

[Rand Rover]

When considering a new government program, fiscal conservatives generally think in terms of "is this something the government should do, or should it be left to the private sector?". Fiscal liberals generally think in terms of whether the government program would advance their social goals--they aren't concerned about the "proper areas" for the government to act.

That's really it. FC's have a list (which varies from person to person) of what they think it's proper for the government to do, and FLs don't--they don't even ask the question that would make it necessary to generate such a list.

I await with bated breath your undoubtedly stunning and original observation about the obvious hypocrisy of the fiscal conservative position. Thanking you in advance.

[etv78]

UM, because people in Mississippi and Connecticut should have as near equal access to quality education and health care! :rolleyes:

Cad-You DO understand that people from Mississippi and Connecticut are EQUALLY American, right? :dubious: And people will eventually have to interact with people from all over the country (and world, possibly) and should be on as equal a footing as practical.

[Chessic Sense]

Rand, I think that's a crock. Fiscal conservatives are generally (sweeping with a broad brush) a bunch of crying ninnies. They are all for things like public schooling when they or their kids are in school, and want to cut their property taxes and eliminate schools when their kids are out of school. Most fiscal conservatives are freeloaders in that they only want to pay for the service they get right now, but also expect to have a good infrastructure, educated workforce, access to good insurance all in place.

If fiscal conservatives were in charge, then every road would be a toll road, schools would all be tuition based, if you live in the boonies you just won't have mail/airports and probably also not have running water, sewer connect or any kind of real health care on dirt roads. Throw in the gold standard and get rid of the banking system. There would be no need for a police force because fiscal conservative vigilantes would administer all the justice needed. Sheesh, you wouldn't need a military because there would be no foreign policy or projection, and armed militias would turn back any would be invaders in a New York Stock Broker second.

And it's just a funny coincidence how fiscal conservatives come out of the woodwork when there's a black democratic party president as opposed to a Republican.

Sure, if you assume that roads, police forces, and militaries aren't the domain of the Federal government. Most fiscal conservatives, including me, think that they are. So your assertion is ridiculous. But at least you knew and admitted that with your "broad brush" comment.

But that needn't be mentioned. You automatically lose the thread for using the "black president" defense.

Bullshit. That's exactly what they want. They don't care. Black, white or otherwise, it's just another stupid, no-money, low-life with a jar full of change on a convenience store counter.

Which is it? Do we want it, or do we not care? You can't have both. Personally, I don't care. More accurately, I reserve the right not to care. I still may care if your kid is dying and you can't pay to heal them. But I don't have to.


Cad-You DO understand that people from Mississippi and Connecticut are EQUALLY American, right? :dubious: And people will eventually have to interact with people from all over the country (and world, possibly) and should be on as equal a footing as practical.

Why? Does their status of "American" mean that they have to have the same income? Housing? Political views?

Then why do they have to have the same education and health care? You seem to be one of those people that think "fair" means "same".

[Vinyl Turnip]

Yeah, we don't require everyone to wear the same color socks... why should they be FORCED to have access to breathable air and safe drinking water? You just want us all to be a bunch of faceless clones!

[Robot Arm]

What? Look, you don't understand what fiscal conservatives believe.But you know all about what fiscal liberals believe, don't you.

Fiscal liberals generally think in terms of whether the government program would advance their social goals--they aren't concerned about the "proper areas" for the government to act.

That's really it. FC's have a list (which varies from person to person) of what they think it's proper for the government to do, and FLs don't--they don't even ask the question that would make it necessary to generate such a list.
You don't want people stating, or mis-stating, your positition? That's fine. I think you owe them the same in return.

[Rand Rover]

But you know all about what fiscal liberals believe, don't you.


You don't want people stating, or mis-stating, your positition? That's fine. I think you owe them the same in return.

OK, so what do fiscal liberals believe? If you believe I have mis-stated their position, why don't you have a crack at it?

[Shagnasty]

I was going to write something long to counter the statements above but it isn't necessary. Fuck all your your hypothetical examples. True fiscal conservatives like myself believe that habitual deficit spending is bad because it is building up debt that has to be paid back and will eventually lead to either full collapse of the economy in the worst case or interest payments that drag down the economy at some point whether it is while you are alive or your kids are. There is no need to break out fancy charts and economic theory to justify the nuances. The fact remains, if you spend more than you make individually or collectively, you will pay for it at some point.

This is a case where common sense can outperform the most educated person in the world if you don't keep the argument at its most basic level. I don't want to hear about inner city black kids with rare illnesses or schoolchildren propping up expensive government programs on their own just because they exist. They will get their treatments and education one way or another. Some of it will be subpar but that may be what it takes. The U.S. already invests a huge amount of money in education comapred to other countries with questionable results. I love the military and its technology but it is massive overkill at this point. Chop everywhere you can and still maintain reasonable defense. Baby boomers are the ones that screwed much of this stuff on their own. They need to suffer in retirement just like everyone else does.

What needs to be done is to look at every single line item and prioritize about what is most important and what isn't. If it isn't that important, chop! If you saw you were about to be homeless in the future unless you made changes, there are probably things you could learn to live without and not make a big impact on your life. The best time to do that is before men in suits come knocking on your door because that is when things get really painful. That is called life and being an adult.

It is time to face facts. The world isn't a giant Ponzi scheme and I hope the U.S. comes to that realization faster than most. If you start cutting off infected fingers now, the rest of the hand may be able to be saved. The one thing that has impressed me about Obama lately is he seems to be open to cutting popular programs that aren't a pressing need.

[AlienVessels]

When considering a new government program, fiscal conservatives generally think in terms of "is this something the government should do, or should it be left to the private sector?". Fiscal liberals generally think in terms of whether the government program would advance their social goals--they aren't concerned about the "proper areas" for the government to act.


The market should serve society. We form societies because pooling resources works better in some cases and people individually following their own interests is not an optimal strategy for the group.

The government should be involved in societal needs where market competition does not result in more efficient delivery of goods and services. So where there is essentially no market competition and company(ies) have effective monopolies and pricing is static, it might be a legitimate area for government involvement.

In areas where demand is relatively inflexible, say like medical care, where you have to deal with the question "what portion of your resources are you willing to spend to save your life", it is in our collective interest not to have one industry own our lives.

"Proper Areas" begs the question.

[Rand Rover]

The market should serve society. We form societies because pooling resources works better in some cases and people individually following their own interests is not an optimal strategy for the group.

The government should be involved in societal needs where market competition does not result in more efficient delivery of goods and services. So where there is essentially no market competition and company(ies) have effective monopolies and pricing is static, it might be a legitimate area for government involvement.

In areas where demand is relatively inflexible, say like medical care, where you have to deal with the question "what portion of your resources are you willing to spend to save your life", it is in our collective interest not to have one industry own our lives.
Off-topic idiotic screed ignored.

"Proper Areas" begs the question.
Of course it does. My post didn't address what I (or any other fiscal conservative) thinks those "proper areas" are. But the point is that fiscal conservatives ask the question "is this an area the government should be involved in" whereas fiscal liberals simply do not ask that question. Different fiscal conservatives of course have different ideas of what the proper areas for government involvement are.

[bugme]

Democrats hate democracy unless they can control it.

[Robot Arm]

But the point is that fiscal conservatives ask the question "is this an area the government should be involved in" whereas fiscal liberals simply do not ask that question.Well, there you go again.

Bolding mine.

[Rand Rover]

Well, there you go again.

Bolding mine.
I guess that snipping at my heels is all you are capable of. Maybe you could phone a friend to explain how I've got it all wrong since you appear unsuited for the task.

[Robot Arm]

I guess that snipping at my heels is all you are capable of. Maybe you could phone a friend to explain how I've got it all wrong since you appear unsuited for the task.I came into this thread after it had already been going for a little while. I've made no particular claims; not taken a side in the debate. I'm not here to explain what fiscal liberals (if, indeed, there are such people) think.

I'm still allowed to critique your points, or more specifically, your tactics. You take umbrage when someone else wishes to categorize fiscal conservatives. I can understand why. For you to then lay out, in your very next post, what fiscal liberal do and how they think is a bullshit tactic. I'm the friend who's here trying to explain that to you.

[Chefguy]

I came into this thread after it had already been going for a little while. I've made no particular claims; not taken a side in the debate. I'm not here to explain what fiscal liberals (if, indeed, there are such people) think.

I'm still allowed to critique your points, or more specifically, your tactics. You take umbrage when someone else wishes to categorize fiscal conservatives. I can understand why. For you to then lay out, in your very next post, what fiscal liberal do and how they think is a bullshit tactic. I'm the friend who's here trying to explain that to you.

Arguing with him is like jerking off with barbed wire: feels great when you quit.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Missed edit window: And the poor black (why does that matter) single mother who can't pay to treat her kid for pneumonia: That isn't a debate on whether the kid should just crawl off somewhere and die or not. It is a debate on the fundamental purpose of government.

Left-leaners would like to see a government program to pay for that treatment.

Right-leaners believe in the old-fashioned system where first her family would help pay. Failing that her neighbors would help pay. Failing that her church or other charitable organizations would help pay.

That's the debate. Nobody wants to let the kid die like the left seems to imply.

In the case of the poor urban mothers, you might as well say I don't give a shit how the kid get treated for pneumonia.

I don't know how it is where you live but in large cities, the only people that poor people know are other poor people. They don't have a network of middle class family members that can chip in, her neighbors all live in the projects with her and unless they are catholic, the church does not serve as a vehicle for redistributing wealth.

When you take that sort of attitude, you aren't saying I want the child to die, you are merely saying you don't give a shit.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The masses are just too stupid to run a government.

Its better than the alternative.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You simply are misunderstanding the fiscal conservative position. Fiscal conservatives care about the absolute size of government, and they want to limit its activities to only those things they believe are necessary for a government to do. Whether spending in any given year is deficit spending or not is a separate issue. A fiscal conservative could be fine with deficit spending if necessary for the military but not fine with it if it is to support social programs, and there's nothing hypocritical about that (because in the second case it's just the spending they don't like, not the fact that it is deficit spending).

So a fiscal conservative is different than being fiscally conservative?

[Damuri Ajashi]

OK, so what do fiscal liberals believe? If you believe I have mis-stated their position, why don't you have a crack at it?

What the fuck is a fiscal liberal? I have never heard the term before.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

At this moment, of course, deficits do matter, now that a Democrat is president. In fact, deficit spending has now become evil incarnate. We have to balance the budget NOW because, you know, deficits are bad. In 2011 I mean, not in 1981.

Well, in 2011 deficits DO matter more than in 1981-1989, when the total debt was ~40% of GDP. Now the debt is a bit higher (around 96% of GDP) and climbing rapidly due to the deficit, for which there is plenty of blame to go around.

The deficit was a big issue under Bush, it will be for the remainder of Obama's administration, and it will be under the next President's administration.

The real irony of the situation is that we have to run deficits even under the best of circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin%27s_dilemma). There will come a day that we will find ourselves owing so much money that we're simply unable to pay it back, and at $1+ trillion per annum it would seem that the time is coming much faster than before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png) (note the last 2 years). But that's for the politicians to decide. All I can do is deal with the consequences of their decisions.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

"It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber".

It's a clever quip, and I do somewhat agree with the sentiment, but throwing money at schools hasn't exactly been the answer either. I suppose that's a matter for another thread, so I'll stop there.

[septimus]

... True fiscal conservatives like myself believe that habitual deficit spending is bad because it is building up debt that has to be paid back and will eventually lead to either full collapse of the economy in the worst case or interest payments that drag down the economy at some point whether it is while you are alive or your kids are....

Good idea! Am I correct to think that you "true fiscal conservatives" approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?

Yes? Great news!! :smack: I think you're the first "true fiscal conservative" we've seen here. I'm sure you prefer Presidents who reduce debt to those who increase it, but the "false fiscal conservatives" don't. That's why some thought "fiscal conservative" was a synonym of "hypocrite."

And since you agree with that, I'm sure you know the deficit reduction under Clinton began with the 1993 budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993) which passed Congress without a single Republican vote, rather than, as "false fiscal conservatives" often say, due to the unrelenting efforts of American patriots like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

Finally, because of your detailed analogy with a family's budget, I've no doubt you understand that when laid-off from a job, it's appropriate to run a short-term deficit, spending the surplus one wisely saved and perhaps even building up debt to pay for the car repairs and training you may need to look for a new job. If so, congratulations! You understand Keynesian, a word that is anathema to the "false fiscal conservatives."

[AlienVessels]

Off-topic idiotic screed ignored.

Of course it does. My post didn't address what I (or any other fiscal conservative) thinks those "proper areas" are. But the point is that fiscal conservatives ask the question "is this an area the government should be involved in" whereas fiscal liberals simply do not ask that question. Different fiscal conservatives of course have different ideas of what the proper areas for government involvement are.

Off topic? I replied to your comment about "proper areas" with what I think government should do.

The list of things government should do is not finite. As the needs of society change, the responsibilities of government should change.

Your terminology doesn't even make sense because you're using terms that obscure your real intent.

You hide behind the term fiscal conservatism because the truth is, you want a system that impacts you as minimally as possible. Of course, you can't say that because it's not easy to argue that the other side wants to be impacted as much as possible. So you pretend it's about keeping government to a minimum when it's really all about minimizing the hit to you.

You even acknowledge that different positions have different views of what government should be involved in and yet you think you have the ability to claim the net result of this support for "small"government among all these positions would still be small.

It's as absurd as the poll results saying that people hate the Congress but love their congresscritter, or think that cuts in government expenses should be the way to balance the budget, but that none of the government programs should be cut - just find the deficit fix in the "waste".

[Ogre]

The market should serve society. We form societies because pooling resources works better in some cases and people individually following their own interests is not an optimal strategy for the group.

The government should be involved in societal needs where market competition does not result in more efficient delivery of goods and services. So where there is essentially no market competition and company(ies) have effective monopolies and pricing is static, it might be a legitimate area for government involvement.

In areas where demand is relatively inflexible, say like medical care, where you have to deal with the question "what portion of your resources are you willing to spend to save your life", it is in our collective interest not to have one industry own our lives.

Off-topic idiotic screed ignored.This is your entire problem. I find it absolutely incredible that you think that was off-topic to the discussion as it has evolved. It's just mind-boggling.

You live in a society, Rand. You are not a lone wolf barbarian of the Hill People, bravely defending your personal rights. You're just a crank and a misanthrope who doesn't think he owes anything to society.

And you are dead, dead wrong.

[Czarcasm]

It's a clever quip, and I do somewhat agree with the sentiment, but throwing money at schools hasn't exactly been the answer either. I suppose that's a matter for another thread, so I'll stop there.On the other hand, nobody has ever attacked another country with an over-budgeted school.

Just my contribution to the pile of sucky analogies. :D

[Zeriel]

Of course it does. My post didn't address what I (or any other fiscal conservative) thinks those "proper areas" are. But the point is that fiscal conservatives ask the question "is this an area the government should be involved in" whereas fiscal liberals simply do not ask that question. Different fiscal conservatives of course have different ideas of what the proper areas for government involvement are.

By that definition, no one is a fiscal liberal--I have yet to meet even the most pie-in-the-sky patchouli-smelling hippie who didn't have SOME concept for what the government should and should not be allowed to do.

[Rand Rover]

This is your entire problem. I find it absolutely incredible that you think that was off-topic to the discussion as it has evolved. It's just mind-boggling.

You live in a society, Rand. You are not a lone wolf barbarian of the Hill People, bravely defending your personal rights. You're just a crank and a misanthrope who doesn't think he owes anything to society.

And you are dead, dead wrong.
This thread is about why fiscal conservatives are hypocrites on the subject of deficit spending, with the OP taking the affirmative and me the negative. However, the OP appears to have given up.

Right now I don't really feel like hashing out the same tired points that you and most others here have already closed your minds to, but if the OP continues to abndon this thread I may change my mind and decide to fight this same old ignorance once again.

[China Guy]

So a fiscal conservative is different than being fiscally conservative?Yep. The term used to sucker punch me too.

"Fiscal Conservative" is essentially about small government and that the free market is more efficient than government. Sam Stone can weigh in much more eloquently than I about the basic beliefs.

"Fiscally Conservative" would be more along the lines of accounting balance. Eg, if you're going to spend more (say on the invasion and nation building of Iraq) then you also need to raise taxes/redirect spending from elsewhere to pay for it (instead of putting it off balance sheet and pretending that the trillions in deficit spending that caused somehow were not part of the budget equation).

The two terms are generally not synonmous. But don't let me put words in the mouths of Fiscal Conservatives since I am in the Fiscally Conservative Camp.

Rand Rover - the key point is that while Fiscal Conservatives may theoretically be for all sorts of responsible things that reasonable minds can agree on, in practice Fiscal Conservatives at least at the national level don't have a good track record. As Cosmic Relief pointed out upthread: "true fiscal conservatives" approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?"

[Gangster Octopus]

The OP is confusing Ronald Reagan the former President with Ronald Reagan the GOP wet dream fantasy.

[Shodan]

As Cosmic Relief pointed out upthread: "true fiscal conservatives" approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?"How is the debt to GDP ratio performing under Obama, and how should that affect how we regard his Presidency?

Regards,
Shodan

[AlienVessels]

How is the debt to GDP ratio performing under Obama, and how should that affect how we regard his Presidency?


In the context of the other presidencies mentioned, that question is best asked after Obama completes his second term factoring in the state of the union after it was handed to him.

[China Guy]

How is the debt to GDP ratio performing under Obama, and how should that affect how we regard his Presidency?

Regards,
ShodanThat's a fair question. And if one is fiscally conservative, the answer is probably not as bad as it should be (eg, Keynesian stimulous should be much greater thus blowing out the debt to GDP ratio further).

But rather than cherry pick on benchmarks, how about sharing a couple of benchmarks that "fiscal conservatives" think are a good standard and then we can look at them across Presidencies.

[septimus]

One thing so lovable about right-wing idiots: If you prove them wrong, they just change the subject. :D

As Cosmic Relief ( :confused: ) pointed out upthread: "true fiscal conservatives" approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?"How is the debt to GDP ratio performing under Obama, and how should that affect how we regard his Presidency?

Learn to crawl before you try to walk, Ten-Kyu. Prove you know how to click a URL, read a table, report back which of the seven named Presidents decreased the relative debt and which didn't.

If you demonstrate you can do that much successfully, then we'll try to teach you a little about Keynesianism.

[Rand Rover]

Yep. The term used to sucker punch me too.

"Fiscal Conservative" is essentially about small government and that the free market is more efficient than government. Sam Stone can weigh in much more eloquently than I about the basic beliefs.

"Fiscally Conservative" would be more along the lines of accounting balance. Eg, if you're going to spend more (say on the invasion and nation building of Iraq) then you also need to raise taxes/redirect spending from elsewhere to pay for it (instead of putting it off balance sheet and pretending that the trillions in deficit spending that caused somehow were not part of the budget equation).

The two terms are generally not synonmous. But don't let me put words in the mouths of Fiscal Conservatives since I am in the Fiscally Conservative Camp.

Well, language is a funny thing. What you call "being Fiscally Conservative" I more often see called "being fiscally responsible." And on this board at least, it's most often used in the context of a misunderstanding of the fiscal conservative position (born of the fact that fiscal liberals just simply have no way of asking the questions asked by fiscal conservatives). I've really never heard anyone say they are only into fiscal responsibility.

It also often comes up in strawman-type arguments, where someone will say that of course fiscal conservatives are full of shit because Reagan ran deficits. Or, for another example of the misunderstanding/strawman, look at the OP of this very thread.

[mbetter]

This thread is about why fiscal conservatives are hypocrites on the subject of deficit spending, with the OP taking the affirmative and me the negative. However, the OP appears to have given up.

Right now I don't really feel like hashing out the same tired points that you and most others here have already closed your minds to, but if the OP continues to abndon this thread I may change my mind and decide to fight this same old ignorance once again.

I find the bolded somewhat hard to believe.

[HMS Irruncible]

When considering a new government program, fiscal conservatives generally think in terms of "is this something the government should do, or should it be left to the private sector?".
It's a nothing but a self-serving piece of sophistry that assigns the virtue of fiscal responsibility to the decision not to pay for things you don't like. Everything else is a bunch of sophistry. One only needs to look at what happens to the state of national finances under the reign of "fiscal conservatives" to see that it bears no resemblance to financial responsibility. By this definition any liberal who opposed the grossly wasteful and unnecessary war in Iraq is a staunch fiscal conservative.

[China Guy]

Well, language is a funny thing. What you call "being Fiscally Conservative" I more often see called "being fiscally responsible." And on this board at least, it's most often used in the context of a misunderstanding of the fiscal conservative position (born of the fact that fiscal liberals just simply have no way of asking the questions asked by fiscal conservatives). I've really never heard anyone say they are only into fiscal responsibility.

It also often comes up in strawman-type arguments, where someone will say that of course fiscal conservatives are full of shit because Reagan ran deficits. Or, for another example of the misunderstanding/strawman, look at the OP of this very thread.Opps, brain fart, yes I meant to say "fiscally responsible."

Why do you say you've never heard anyone say they are only into fiscal responsibility? Seems pretty common.

For your second paragraph, can you highlight which Presidents you consider to be fiscal conservatives?

[HMS Irruncible]

This thread is about why fiscal conservatives are hypocrites on the subject of deficit spending, with the OP taking the affirmative and me the negative.
Wrong. I want to know why the champions of Reaganite Keynesianism (or at least the party of the same) are now offering jeremiads on the horrors of deficit spending.

However, the OP appears to have given up.
Just as a general guideline, people with real lives and responsibilities sometimes spend 24 hours away from message boards. But I will say I'm only interested in contesting the OP I wrote and not your strawman characterization of it.

[Rand Rover]

Wrong. I want to know why the champions of Reaganite Keynesianism (or at least the party of the same) are now offering jeremiads on the horrors of deficit spending.

And your theory appears to be that some people are OK with deficit spending as long as it's for the military but not OK with it as long as it's for social programs. And I explained to you why that very well could be the case, and specifically is the case for me: I think the government should have a military and should have only very limited social programs, and I'm not really automatically bothered by deficit spending in the abstract. So, I'd be totally fine with deficit spending for the military and not fine with deficit spending for social programs, and there's no contradiction or hypocrisy there--that position is just a natural result of my beliefs on the issues of the military, social programs, and deficit spending.

You promised to hoist me on my own petard, but so far I remain quite unhoisted.

[Rand Rover]

Opps, brain fart, yes I meant to say "fiscally responsible."

Why do you say you've never heard anyone say they are only into fiscal responsibility? Seems pretty common.


You've really heard people say something like this: "I'm OK with the government spending x% of GDP as long as it takes in x% of GDP in the exact year the spending occurs, and the foregoing holds true for all values of x 1 to 100 inclusive."?

If you have, your experience differs from mine. I've only seen the whole "fiscal responsibility" thing used as a misunderstanding/strawman of the fiscal conservative position. YMMV.

[Baboonanza]

And your theory appears to be that some people are OK with deficit spending as long as it's for the military but not OK with it as long as it's for social programs. And I explained to you why that very well could be the case, and specifically is the case for me: I think the government should have a military and should have only very limited social programs, and I don't really care about deficit spending in the abstract. So, I'd be totally fine with deficit spending for the military and not fine with deficit spending for social programs, and there's no contradiction or hypocrisy there.

You promised to hoist me on my own petard, but so far I remain quite unhoisted.
And I think that if the U.S. companies want invade other countries to further their business interests then they should pay for it themselves. And if they can't pay for it then they should ask their relatives, or their neighbors or their church. A government by the people, for the people, should be focused on social welfare and improving the lot of it's citizens, not killing brown people.

Does that mean I get to call myself a Fiscal Conservative? As stated elsewhere you won't find an educated person in the country who can't name something they don't think the government should be doing, so unless there is something more subtle to your definition (like, it's only conservative when it's what I like) then it's a pretty meaningless definition.

[Rand Rover]

And I think that if the U.S. companies want invade other countries to further their business interests then they should pay for it themselves. And if they can't pay for it then they should ask their relatives, or their neighbors or their church. A government by the people, for the people, should be focused on social welfare and improving the lot of it's citizens, not killing brown people.

Idiotic screed ignored.
Does that mean I get to call myself a Fiscal Conservative? As stated elsewhere you won't find an educated person in the country who can't name something they don't think the government should be doing, so unless there is something more subtle to your definition (like, it's only conservative when it's what I like) then it's a pretty meaningless definition.
You can call yourself whatever you want.

As I've said, I think fiscal conservatives ask "is this an area the government should be involved in." I agree that even for fiscal liberals, there are certain things they don't want the government to do, but I don't think fiscal liberals ask that question. I think they ask "would the government doing this further my ideas about social justice etc."

Also, in reading some people's reactions to my definition, I think people are confusing (or I'm not effectively communicating) the difference between (i) the areas in which the government acts and (ii) the specific things the government does. I think everyone (i.e., all fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals) agree that the government should make and enforce criminal laws--that's one of the basic areas the government should be involved in, really just the most basic thing a government does. So, when deciding what those criminal laws should be, something more than fiscal conservatism v. fiscal liberalism is obviously needed. Stated another way, there's been no harm done to my definition of fiscal conservatism just because fiscal liberals don't want the government to use warrantless wiretaps or engage in enhanced interrogation techniques or whatever.

Let's use Obamacare as an example. Fiscal conservatives would ask "is Obamacare something the government should be doing," and different fiscal conservatives would reach different results. But fiscal liberals ask "would Obamacare advance my ideas of social justice"--they don't have a conception of what areas the government should and should not be involved in, so they simply don't ask the same question that fiscal conservatives do.

[gonzomax]

Why doesn't a fiscal conservative ask if another health system would help business. If he sees that he had to compete with companies that do not fold health care into the price of their products, why wouldn't he say we have to change our system like theirs to make more money?
A fiscal conservative would be behind a health care system that allows them to compete better. They also would back a system that provides better care cheaper, which the rest of the world has shown is achievable.

[Rand Rover]

Why doesn't a fiscal conservative ask if another health system would help business. If he sees that he had to compete with companies that do not fold health care into the price of their products, why wouldn't he say we have to change our system like theirs to make more money?
A fiscal conservative would be behind a health care system that allows them to compete better. They also would back a system that provides better care cheaper, which the rest of the world has shown is achievable.

[don't respond to gonzo rule off]

Because fiscal conservatives are not all about money. Their goal is not to make as much money as possible. You have created a strawman out of fiscal conservatives.

[/drtgro]

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Idiotic screed ignored.

You can call yourself whatever you want.

As I've said, I think fiscal conservatives ask "is this an area the government should be involved in." I agree that even for fiscal liberals, there are certain things they don't want the government to do, but I don't think fiscal liberals ask that question. I think they ask "would the government doing this further my ideas about social justice etc."

Also, in reading some people's reactions to my definition, I think people are confusing (or I'm not effectively communicating) the difference between (i) the areas in which the government acts and (ii) the specific things the government does. I think everyone (i.e., all fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals) agree that the government should make and enforce criminal laws--that's one of the basic areas the government should be involved in, really just the most basic thing a government does. So, when deciding what those criminal laws should be, something more than fiscal conservatism v. fiscal liberalism is obviously needed. Stated another way, there's been no harm done to my definition of fiscal conservatism just because fiscal liberals don't want the government to use warrantless wiretaps or engage in enhanced interrogation techniques or whatever.

Let's use Obamacare as an example. Fiscal conservatives would ask "is Obamacare something the government should be doing," and different fiscal conservatives would reach different results. But fiscal liberals ask "would Obamacare advance my ideas of social justice"--they don't have a conception of what areas the government should and should not be involved in, so they simply don't ask the same question that fiscal conservatives do.Idiotic screed ignored. :D

Seriously, if you think that Baboonanza's post about the cost of protecting the business interests of the US abroad with military might is idiotic, then I don't think you're aware of how many protections our government provides people like you, and me.

[China Guy]

You've really heard people say something like this: "I'm OK with the government spending x% of GDP as long as it takes in x% of GDP in the exact year the spending occurs, and the foregoing holds true for all values of x 1 to 100 inclusive."?No I haven't because that's nothing but hyperbolic bollocks and you know it.

To be fiscally responsible, in good times the government would pay down debt and set up a rainy day fund. When times call for Keynsian stimulous, a responsible fiscal adult would not demand to cut spending. Fiscal responsibility does not include prosecuting wars and hiding the cost in off balance sheet transactions. Fiscal responsibility does not include cutting taxes and raising spending. Tax and spend is fiscally responsible as contrasted by cutting taxes and increasing spending.

Now to be fair, I'm not really coming up with examples in the past few decades when the US was running surpluses, paying down debt, establishing a rainy day fund from any party. Happy to be educated if I'm mistaken.

And you have not answered the honest question of what President(s) does a fiscal conservative hold up as good example? Come on, throw out some names and we can debate that.

[China Guy]

Actually, I should have said that "I'm OK with the government spending x% of GDP as long as it takes in x% of GDP in the exact year the spending occurs, and the foregoing holds true for all values of x 1 to 100 inclusive."? sounds pretty much like what a fiscal conservative would say.

Since you've been ranting about strawmen and then setting up a scarecrow army, why don't you start with highlighting what President(s) that you, as a self identified fiscal conservative, view as a good example of fiscal conservatism? We can go from there, thanks.

[septimus]

You simply are misunderstanding the fiscal conservative position. ... A fiscal conservative could be fine with deficit spending if necessary for the military but not fine with it if it is to support social programs, and there's nothing hypocritical about that (because in the second case it's just the spending they don't like, not the fact that it is deficit spending).

You describe your political stance, but do you define "fiscal conservative"? Do other "fiscal conservatives" agree with your definition?

Wiki's article begins

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

Now I do realize Wiki's editors are mostly Marxists who want to take your guns away and force your daughters to have abortions, so I don't regard their definition as authoritative. But it does have the virtue of building on ordinary English. Knowing only "candle" and "wax" I can guess what "candle wax" means without consulting a dictionary. Knowing only "fiscal" and "conservative" I'd guess Wiki's description long before I'd guess Rand Rover's.

I'd ask for comment, but know that the right-wingers in these threads can't deal with facts or logic. You'll keep mute, tail-between-legs, then blurt out the same debunked gibberish next week in another thread.

[Rand Rover]

Since you've been ranting about strawmen and then setting up a scarecrow army, why don't you start with highlighting what President(s) that you, as a self identified fiscal conservative, view as a good example of fiscal conservatism? We can go from there, thanks.
Nah, not really interested. I'm more interested in discussing the idea and policy arguments based on it, not amy particular politician's implementation of the idea.

[Rand Rover]

You describe your political stance, but do you define "fiscal conservative"? Do other "fiscal conservatives" agree with your definition?

Wiki's article begins


Now I do realize Wiki's editors are mostly Marxists who want to take your guns away and force your daughters to have abortions, so I don't regard their definition as authoritative. But it does have the virtue of building on ordinary English. Knowing only "candle" and "wax" I can guess what "candle wax" means without consulting a dictionary. Knowing only "fiscal" and "conservative" I'd guess Wiki's description long before I'd guess Rand Rover's.

I'd ask for comment, but know that the right-wingers in these threads can't deal with facts or logic. You'll keep mute, tail-between-legs, then blurt out the same debunked gibberish next week in another thread.

Look budd, I've explained my beliefs and shown how people who hold my beliefs can unhypocritically have the views expressed in the OP. If you want to call my position "slartibartfastianism," then you go right ahead.

I coulkd link you to any number of "test where you are on the political compass" type sites that use the four dimensions of fiscal conservative/liberal and social conservaticve/liberal, so it's not like I'm making up my use of the term out of whole cloth. But, as I said, that doesn't martter anyway--Ive described what I believe, call it what you will.

[China Guy]

Nah, not really interested. I'm more interested in discussing the idea and policy arguments based on it, not amy particular politician's implementation of the idea.Taking your ball and going home? ]In other words, you got nothin' but a pie in the sky ideological fantasy under the label of "fiscal conservative."

Might as well call up the ghost of Marx and discuss how if Stalin and Mao hadn't corrupted his theory we would be in the global communist paradise already.

[LonesomePolecat]

:D For the Win!This bumper sticker has been around for years. Do you really mean to say you've never heard this before?

[septimus]

I coulkd link you to any number of "test where you are on the political compass" type sites that use the four dimensions of fiscal conservative/liberal and social conservaticve/liberal, so it's not like I'm making up my use of the term out of whole cloth. But, as I said, that doesn't martter anyway--Ive described what I believe, call it what you will.

Three comments and a commendation.
(1) What you speak of is two dimensions, not four. (Unless you argue that we live in 6-D space, the six dimensions being left, right, up, down, in, out. :D )
(2) Those sites are more likely to refer to "economic" rather than "fiscal" conservative, which is not quite the same thing.
(3) It is precisely that those sites distinguish economic and social conservatism that makes your definition of "fiscal conservative" incorrect: you're conflating some of your social philosophy under the "fiscal" umbrella.

Setting (1)-(3) aside, I do applaud your willingness to state what you believe. You are happy with Bush-43's deficit because he spent the money on war. You are presumably displeased with Johnson's surplus: he should have had a larger surplus by spending less fighting poverty. You and I may disagree, but at least you're not a hypocrite.

This is in contrast to the other "fiscal conservatives" who posted in this thread, then could only snark and run away tail-between-legs since the facts make a mockery of their hypocrisy.

[Rand Rover]

Taking your ball and going home? ]In other words, you got nothin' but a pie in the sky ideological fantasy under the label of "fiscal conservative."

Might as well call up the ghost of Marx and discuss how if Stalin and Mao hadn't corrupted his theory we would be in the global communist paradise already.
:rolleyes:

I think it's possible to discuss ideas without discussing people who may hold similar ideas. YMMV of course.

[AlienVessels]

I think it's possible to discuss ideas without discussing people who may hold similar ideas. YMMV of course.

This assertion turns out to be false. You insist when liberal ideas are being discussed on lumping all people that might support said ideas into one monolithic group.

You've said more than once just in this thread:

But the point is that fiscal conservatives ask the question "is this an area the government should be involved in" whereas fiscal liberals simply do not ask that question.

A good rule of thumb is that folks on one side of the spectrum general are not good at characterizing those on the other. What generally comes out is a caricature.

I even gave you a list generator of things government should be involved in and you dismissed it as off topic, even when is was in specific response to an issue you raised.

[Ludovic]

No I haven't because that's nothing but hyperbolic bollocks and you know it.
Hyperbollocks? :D

[elucidator]

:rolleyes:

I think it's possible to discuss ideas without discussing people who may hold similar ideas. YMMV of course.

Of course you can. It is also entirely possible to discuss economic and political abstractions strictly on an ideal plane, without reference to their applications in meatspace. In the instance of discussing "fiscal conservatism", this will allow you to ignore and discount the actual havoc wrought by such persons who claim the title of fiscal conservative, whether they deserve to or not.

Is such a discussion desirable? I suppose so, not having any real objection. If any number of my fellow Dopers want to bore each other to tears discussing philosophical abstractions, sure, what the heck, freak freely, says I. Though such a discussion is probably best mounted in GD, which is more amenable to the "tea and strumpets" form of discourse.

And so long as you remain quarantined in abstraction, all well and good. Its only when you try to nudge a toe over the line and offer your abstractions as prescriptive, when you offer these principles as reliable rules for practical politics....that's a whole 'nother kettle of piranha.

[septimus]

This is in contrast to the other "fiscal conservatives" who posted in this thread, then could only snark and run away tail-between-legs since the facts make a mockery of their hypocrisy.

Just bumping the thread to point out that the right-wing idiots have indeed run away, unable to answer simple questions.

But those who read these threads for entertainment needn't worry. The "fiscal conservative" babblers will be back in a week or two, in another thread, repeating the same debunked gibberish, using the same 6-syllable word they don't even understand, and hoping to get some good snark in before they're called out again.

[elucidator]

Hyper-inflationary? Prestidigitation? Phenomenology?

[Robot Arm]

Sweatysnugglebunnies?

[septimus]

Hyper-inflationary? Prestidigitation? Phenomenology?

This could be fun ... but (to reduce confusion) I meant "fiscal conservatism." As used in the thread, that must be treated as a single compound word since those so self-describing intended a meaning which doesn't follow directly from its two constituent words.

Substituting "6-syllable phrase" wouldn't have provided the proper satiric effect, obviously, since the ignorati have plenty of those. "Duuhh ... it's a no-brainer!"

[Rand Rover]

Just bumping the thread to point out that the right-wing idiots have indeed run away, unable to answer simple questions.

But those who read these threads for entertainment needn't worry. The "fiscal conservative" babblers will be back in a week or two, in another thread, repeating the same debunked gibberish, using the same 6-syllable word they don't even understand, and hoping to get some good snark in before they're called out again.
Please. The story of this thread is that Cosmic Relief got all het up over a strawman he created, I showed how it's a strawman and the two positions he outlined can be held sans hypocrisy, he asked for clarification of my position while promising to show my hypocrisy, I clarified, he ran away like a little bitch. And then the usual idiots claimed victory for their side because they apparently don't understand the narrow topic we are discussing. I didn't respond to several off-topic posts because they were off-topic.

[Chessic Sense]

"Fiscally Conservative" would be more along the lines of accounting balance.

I'd like to go back to this statement, though I realize I'm late to the party and the train has already been wrecked.

I don't concern myself with the accounting balance. It's not about a + or -. For me, it's about just the expenditure side. It's just spending that matters. What we do with taxes on the other end is a completely separate debate. The government should limit its spending to what we require of it, not what we want of it. There are too many things that people want from the government and they can get it by logrolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling) votes. And once a program starts, it will usually exist for all eternity. So when left to the people, the government will always spend beyond its means like a college kid with a credit card.

It's THAT that needs to be curtailed. It's endless spending and growth that needs to be stood against. That's the essence of my fiscal conservatism. Taxes and income have nothing to do with this position, nor do deficits.

[China Guy]

Chessic - I don't mean to put words in your mouth but I find it hard to believe the only thing that is important is "limiting spending to what we require of it." Don't you think part of our current troubles is because fo things like the War in Iraq was not funded and the costs were kept off of the budget? Isn't a lot of the fiscal mess we are in is because of the tendancy to start programs while not looking at how to pay for them? California being a great case in point.

I personally think the answer is to look at both what is funded and how it is funded.

[septimus]

Please. The story of this thread is that Cosmic Relief got all het up over a strawman he created, I showed how it's a strawman and the two positions he outlined can be held sans hypocrisy, he asked for clarification of my position while promising to show my hypocrisy, I clarified, he ran away like a little bitch. And then the usual idiots claimed victory for their side because they apparently don't understand the narrow topic we are discussing. I didn't respond to several off-topic posts because they were off-topic.

You finally explained your position (however wrong! :D ) and I commended you for that. Chessic Sense also seems to agree that social spending is bad, whether paid via deficit or not. I happen to disagree with that, but in any case the thread title asks about "Deficit Spending."

My comment was not directed at you, but at the on-topic hypocrites like Shagnasty and Shodan who posted. They claim to oppose deficits yet support the very same Presidents who cause deficits. I presented them evidence; they ran away tail-between-legs. But I'd bet money they reappear within the month in another thread posting similar bullshit. Those of us who choose to fight ignorance may need to dig out a link again.

I'd feel happier about this if posters of their ilk were allowed to post only in BBQ Pit. We could then simply answer their gibberish in a way reminiscent of British Minister's Questions: "I refer Dishonourable Hypocrites to the answer I gave last week in the BBQ Pit." :D

[Rand Rover]

I'm not claiming you aren't correct, but could you quote a post from Shodan and Shagnasty where they claim simply to oppose deficits (and not to just want smaller government--ie, my view)? Because, as I said, I think people conflate the two positions.

[Robot Arm]

It's THAT that needs to be curtailed. It's endless spending and growth that needs to be stood against. That's the essence of my fiscal conservatism. Taxes and income have nothing to do with this position, nor do deficits.Once we've decided what we require of government, don't you think that the revenue side of the ledger should at least cover those costs? Without that, your brand of fiscal conservatism will eventually bankrupt us.

[septimus]

I'm not claiming you aren't correct, but could you quote a post from Shodan and Shagnasty where they claim simply to oppose deficits (and not to just want smaller government--ie, my view)? Because, as I said, I think people conflate the two positions.

Shagnasty wrote in #35: Fuck all your your hypothetical examples. True fiscal conservatives like myself believe that habitual deficit spending is bad because it is building up debt that has to be paid back and will eventually lead to either full collapse of the economy in the worst case or interest payments that drag down the economy at some point whether it is while you are alive or your kids are. There is no need to break out fancy charts and economic theory to justify the nuances. The fact remains, if you spend more than you make individually or collectively, you will pay for it at some point.

That seems pretty clear. (Though on re-read it seems like silly strawmanism since we all disapprove of habitual deficits.)

I'm afraid I don't study Shodan's posts for content; the only one I saw in this thread could be paraphrased as "I don't know how to read tables and I don't understand Keynesianism." If I implied any of his posts ever have intellectual content worth refuting, I misled.

[jtgain]

Finally, because of your detailed analogy with a family's budget, I've no doubt you understand that when laid-off from a job, it's appropriate to run a short-term deficit, spending the surplus one wisely saved and perhaps even building up debt to pay for the car repairs and training you may need to look for a new job. If so, congratulations! You understand Keynesian, a word that is anathema to the "false fiscal conservatives."

Agreed. But re-read your post and pay special attention to "short-term deficit," "surplus," and "wisely saved."

A better analogy would be to get laid off when your credit cards are already laden with debt, you have no money in the bank, and you continue to live like you did before you got laid off. If you think, "Gee, maybe we should cut out the premium cable until I get another job" then your wife and kids scream to high heavens and threaten to remove your decision making ability unless you agree to keep HBO AND add the Starz package.

And then when you get your job back you continue to put more and more on your credit cards with no intention of ever discontinuing your borrowing and certainly no intention of becoming debt-free.

[HMS Irruncible]

And your theory appears to be that some people are OK with deficit spending as long as it's for the military but not OK with it as long as it's for social programs. And I explained to you why that very well could be the case, and specifically is the case for me: I think the government should have a military and should have only very limited social programs, and I'm not really automatically bothered by deficit spending in the abstract. So, I'd be totally fine with deficit spending for the military and not fine with deficit spending for social programs, and there's no contradiction or hypocrisy there--that position is just a natural result of my beliefs on the issues of the military, social programs, and deficit spending.
Phrase it however you want... when you say fiscally conservative, you only mean conservative with causes you don't like. When it comes to causes you do like, you'll spend whatever it takes even if it means going into debt. There is nothing inherently fiscally conservative about that, except in the sense that it means taking all our fiscal resources and diverting them to ideological conservatives. But that doesn't exactly carry the imprimatur of thrift that you seem to think.

You promised to hoist me on my own petard, but so far I remain quite unhoisted.
You're too dense to be hoisted.

[Rand Rover]

Phrase it however you want... when you say fiscally conservative, you only mean conservative with causes you don't like. When it comes to causes you do like, you'll spend whatever it takes even if it means going into debt.
Well, that's pretty much true. I think the government should only do very limited things, and if it turns out that the government has to spend more money than it takes in that year on those things, then so be it. But you seem to think there's some hypocrisy or something in that position, but there's absolutely not.

There is nothing inherently fiscally conservative about that,
Well, the fiscally conservative thing about it is that I want small government.

except in the sense that it means taking all our fiscal resources and diverting them to ideological conservatives.
What is an "ideological conservative"? Or do you just mean that "conservatives" are ideological?

In any event, I don't want to divert fiscal resources anywhere. I think money should simply go where people freely choose for it to go, except that there are certain things that are so important that it's OK to force people to pay for them even if they don't want to.


You're too dense to be hoisted.
Or you're too dense to hoist. Look, you started this thread with a premise, and I showed how that premise is wrong. You asked for me to clarify my position before you slam-dunked my ass. I clarified away, and you've done nothing but fail all over yourself. I think it's clear who the dense one is here, bub.

[Robot Arm]

Well, that's pretty much true. I think the government should only do very limited things, and if it turns out that the government has to spend more money than it takes in that year on those things, then so be it.So how does your view differ from plain-old, garden-variety conservatism? You want government to do things, and spend money, on some things but not on others. By that definition, everybody in the country is fiscally conservative.

I just think that "fiscally conservative" is a misnomer for the position you're trying to describe. You'd like government to be smaller, except in the areas where it ought to be bigger. That means that you value some policy decisions (whatever they may be) above pure fiscal discipline. The mantle you choose should reflect that higher priority.

[Rand Rover]

So how does your view differ from plain-old, garden-variety conservatism?
If you tell me what "plain-old, garden-variety conservatism" is then I'll tell you how it differs (if it does).
You want government to do things, and spend money, on some things but not on others. By that definition, everybody in the country is fiscally conservative.
I addressed this above. I think there are only certain areas the government should be involved in. Not everyone in the country thinks that. For many people, if they think it would be a good ting for the government to do x, then they would want the government to do x. They wouldn't think "is x one of the proper areas for the government to be involved in?"

I just think that "fiscally conservative" is a misnomer for the position you're trying to describe.
OK, super. Like I said, I described my position, call it what you want. I think "fiscally conservative" is a very good and accepted term for my position.
You'd like government to be smaller, except in the areas where it ought to be bigger.
What? No. To restate again, the bigger/smaller thing relates to the areas I want the government to be involved in, not the amount of government activity that occurs or the amount spent on government.
That means that you value some policy decisions (whatever they may be) above pure fiscal discipline.
That's right. If some country gets all crazy and decides to invade the US, I'm not going to say "well, we took in $x in tax this year, so we can only spend $x to ramp up the military. Too bad if $x isn't enough, we can't run a deficit."


The mantle you choose should reflect that higher priority.
How about "small government advocate"? Does that float your turd?

Look, I think the reason you object to my use of "fiscal conservative" is you are so used to the left's strawman version of someone who just opposes deficits. I think I'm defining the term correctly. I want the fisc to be used for only very limited things, so I'm conservative with the fisc.

[septimus]

Agreed. But re-read your post and pay special attention to "short-term deficit," "surplus," and "wisely saved."

A better analogy would be to get laid off when your credit cards are already laden with debt, you have no money in the bank, and you continue to live like you did before you got laid off.... And then when you get your job back you continue to put more and more on your credit cards with no intention of ever discontinuing your borrowing and certainly no intention of becoming debt-free.

You and I might be in agreement on some of this. I'm afraid we draw opposite political conclusions.

If you want to continue discussion, I'd ask you first to give a clear, correct and unequivocal answer to the question I raised upthread: Am I correct to think that you "true fiscal conservatives" approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?

Go ahead! Be the very first conservative here to cope with facts! It won't hurt.

If you're willing to answer that question, then, to save a round in the dialog, indicate whether you understand the huge deficits of 2009-2011 were appropriate (however misguided the details may have been) to save us from the biggest business confidence crisis in more than 70 years.

If you can do that much, then we can discuss on-going political considerations.

[Robot Arm]

What? No. To restate again, the bigger/smaller thing relates to the areas I want the government to be involved in, not the amount of government activity that occurs or the amount spent on government.So you want government to do more things, but you don't want the part of the government that does those things to get any bigger? Everybody wants government to do some things and not others. Everybody thinks that their priorities are legitimate areas for government to take action. Nobody wants government to spend money just for the sake of spending it.

It's easier to talk in specifics. Many people, largely under the heading of "conservatives", want the federal government to do more to stop illegal immigration. They want a bigger border fence, or more agents patrolling the border, or more inspectors verifying right-to-work documents at their employers. None of that is going to happen for free. Calling themselves "fiscally conservative" would be bullshit, because they're willing to sacrifice fiscal responsibility in favor of something they consider to be a higher priority. If they want to call themselves "anti illegal immigration conservatives" then that's fine.

Several years ago, computer companies started calling themselves "solution providers", which was also bullshit. Every company in the world is a solution provider. If your clothes are dirty, Microsoft can't "provide" a "solution", go to a laundromat. They did it to sound important and popular; appealing to everyone to solve all of their problems. "Fiscally conservative", as you define it, is about the same; generic enough to sound good but empty of any real meaning.

[Zeriel]

Robot Arm, the idea that Rand Rover is trying to get across is that in his book "Fiscal Conservative" means that one has a fixed set of things the government is allowed to do, while a "Fiscal Liberal" has a fixed set of priorities that may be justifiably advanced by government intervention in any arbitrary area. By which standards there are very few true examples of either type out there, and probably more fiscal conservatives than liberals.

I don't think his definition is necessarily correct, but he's been arguing it here for ages. Personally I think the general populace DOES take "Fiscal Conservative" to mean "prefers to spend as little as possible, avoiding deficits where practical" whereas "Fiscal Liberal" means "willing to spend as much as necessary, avoiding deficits as convenient".

By which standards, of course, Clinton was a moderate and Bush Jr. was a Fiscal Liberal, which idea tends to twist some panties (but not typically Rand's, since I understand he's not exactly a Bush fanboy).

[Ludovic]

Many people, largely under the heading of "conservatives", want the federal government to do more to stop illegal immigration. They want a bigger border fence, or more agents patrolling the border, or more inspectors verifying right-to-work documents at their employers.

I don't consider myself a fiscal conservative (although I am, compared to the current GOP, who are in favor of continued massive deficits.) But I would support an increase in immigration control, paid for by stopping the war on drugs. Repurposing drug agents as immigration agents may not be an exact fit but it's as close as you'll reasonably get when you're looking at thousands of layoffs (or more!) in the prison-industrial complex.

[elucidator]

...tends to twist some panties (but not typically Rand's)...
Perhaps you think Rand's panties are a fit subject for discussion on a family Board!

[Robot Arm]

fiscal

1: of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public debt <fiscal policy>

2: of or relating to financial matters


Robot Arm, the idea that Rand Rover is trying to get across is that in his book "Fiscal Conservative" means that one has a fixed set of things the government is allowed to do, while a "Fiscal Liberal" has a fixed set of priorities that may be justifiably advanced by government intervention in any arbitrary area. By which standards there are very few true examples of either type out there, and probably more fiscal conservatives than liberals.If that is Rand's point, it's meaningless. Just saying that you have a list of what's permitted or desired for the government to engage in is pointless. Everybody has such a list. What matters is what's on the list.

But if we somehow accept that position, calling it "fiscally conservative" is bullshit, since the mere existence, or not, of such a list has nothing to do with government revenue or expenses.

It sounds great, though. I'm sure you could get lots of people to hop on the "fiscally conservative" bandwagon and vote you into office, and then spend the country into the poorhouse giving them what they ask for.

[Rand Rover]

Robot Arm, the idea that Rand Rover is trying to get across is that in his book "Fiscal Conservative" means that one has a fixed set of things the government is allowed to do, while a "Fiscal Liberal" has a fixed set of priorities that may be justifiably advanced by government intervention in any arbitrary area. By which standards there are very few true examples of either type out there, and probably more fiscal conservatives than liberals.

I don't think his definition is necessarily correct, but he's been arguing it here for ages. Personally I think the general populace DOES take "Fiscal Conservative" to mean "prefers to spend as little as possible, avoiding deficits where practical" whereas "Fiscal Liberal" means "willing to spend as much as necessary, avoiding deficits as convenient".

By which standards, of course, Clinton was a moderate and Bush Jr. was a Fiscal Liberal, which idea tends to twist some panties (but not typically Rand's, since I understand he's not exactly a Bush fanboy).
Yes. Thank you.

[Rand Rover]

So you want government to do more things, but you don't want the part of the government that does those things to get any bigger? Everybody wants government to do some things and not others. Everybody thinks that their priorities are legitimate areas for government to take action. Nobody wants government to spend money just for the sake of spending it.

It's easier to talk in specifics. Many people, largely under the heading of "conservatives", want the federal government to do more to stop illegal immigration. They want a bigger border fence, or more agents patrolling the border, or more inspectors verifying right-to-work documents at their employers. None of that is going to happen for free. Calling themselves "fiscally conservative" would be bullshit, because they're willing to sacrifice fiscal responsibility in favor of something they consider to be a higher priority. If they want to call themselves "anti illegal immigration conservatives" then that's fine.

Several years ago, computer companies started calling themselves "solution providers", which was also bullshit. Every company in the world is a solution provider. If your clothes are dirty, Microsoft can't "provide" a "solution", go to a laundromat. They did it to sound important and popular; appealing to everyone to solve all of their problems. "Fiscally conservative", as you define it, is about the same; generic enough to sound good but empty of any real meaning.
OK, let's talk specifics. I think the fiscally conservative position on whether to increase enforcement of the rules against illegal immigration is complete silence. That's not an issue that fiscal conservatism addresses. It's like asking what the American Medical Association's position is on coke v. Pepsi.

A better example (recently discussed in another thread) is paid parental leave. I'll copy my post from that thread over here in a bit.

[Robot Arm]

OK, let's talk specifics. I think the fiscally conservative position on whether to increase enforcement of the rules against illegal immigration is complete silence.Is that because enforcement does not need to change, because government should be out of it entirely, or is it simply outside the bounds of what fiscally conservative though addresses? Is there a fiscally conservative position on how much money the government should spend on border enforcement?

That's not an issue that fiscal conservatism addresses. It's like asking what the American Medical Association's position is on coke v. Pepsi.By what rule is it decided which issues fiscal conservatism addresses, and which ones it ignores? When something new comes up, like net neutrality, how does fiscal conservatism know whether to be pro, anti, or to ignore it altogether?

[China Guy]

Robot Arm, the idea that Rand Rover is trying to get across is that in his book "Fiscal Conservative" means that one has a fixed set of things the government is allowed to do, while a "Fiscal Liberal" has a fixed set of priorities that may be justifiably advanced by government intervention in any arbitrary area. By which standards there are very few true examples of either type out there, and probably more fiscal conservatives than liberals.

I don't think his definition is necessarily correct, but he's been arguing it here for ages. Personally I think the general populace DOES take "Fiscal Conservative" to mean "prefers to spend as little as possible, avoiding deficits where practical" whereas "Fiscal Liberal" means "willing to spend as much as necessary, avoiding deficits as convenient".

By which standards, of course, Clinton was a moderate and Bush Jr. was a Fiscal Liberal, which idea tends to twist some panties (but not typically Rand's, since I understand he's not exactly a Bush fanboy).
Fiscal Liberal (alternative spelling Fiscal Librul) appears to be what Fiscal Conservatives call the other side. I have never heard anyone self-identify themselves a fiscal liberal (but maybe just not in my circles).

I think it's pretty meaningless to divide the world into fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals based on the above definitions.

[Rand Rover]

Is that because enforcement does not need to change, because government should be out of it entirely, or is it simply outside the bounds of what fiscally conservative though addresses? Is there a fiscally conservative position on how much money the government should spend on border enforcement?
Just outside the bounds.

By what rule is it decided which issues fiscal conservatism addresses, and which ones it ignores? When something new comes up, like net neutrality, how does fiscal conservatism know whether to be pro, anti, or to ignore it altogether?
Well, just by the rule of what the subject matter of the theory is about. If you ask a weatherman about how to structure a merger of two corporations so that it's tax-free, what do you think he'll say? I would guess he'd say "look buddy, you need to call a tax lawyer." That's the same thing I'm saying here--"you need to consult other ideas for that issue." Fiscal conservatism isn't some mystical theory of everything--it's only about certain things.

I think net neutrality is an issue that is easily handled by fiscal conservatism.

Here's that post from the other thread I discussed earlier:
Sure, I'll try.

I believe that freedom and choice are better than coercion and force. Now, sometimes people choose to harm others, so we have to use force to stop them. And sometimes people choose to not pay for things that benefit everyone, so we force them to pay.

The fact that I like freedom and choice means that I think we should limit the force and coercion to only the bare minimum necessary. It should be used for only those things that are really necessary.

So, now let's talk about paid parental leave. A job is a relationship between two people, and generally those two people set the terms of the relationship (i.e., there is freedom and choice involved). That makes me happy, because I like freedom and choice.

Now, someone comes along and says that there should be a law that requires employers to pay their employees while they don't work for a certain amount of time after they have a kid.

Some people ask "would society be a better place if people had paid parental leave?" and base their feelings about the law on their answer to that question. But I ask "is paid parental leave important enough to justify bringing coercion and force to bear on the freedom and choice exercised by the employer and employee?" And my answer is no--if someone wants paid parental leave, then they can bargain for it. Paid parental leave isn't one of those very few things that it makes sense to use force over (like stopping people from hurting one another or funding a military to protect us from enemies). People who want it can obtain through freedom and choice--there's no need to force others to give it to them.

[Robot Arm]

By what rule is it decided which issues fiscal conservatism addresses, and which ones it ignores? When something new comes up, like net neutrality, how does fiscal conservatism know whether to be pro, anti, or to ignore it altogether?

Well, just by the rule of what the subject matter of the theory is about.Yes, that's what I'm asking you, what is the theory about?

Not since Anne Elk's (Miss) groundbreaking work on the brontosaurus has it been this hard to pry information out of someone.

[Marc Xenos]

Bottom line, how long do you think it REALLY took the rich merchants to just avoid Sherwood Forest altogether and take their business elsewhere? Of COURSE, it's all about minimizing the hit to ME. If the price for me to live in this society is to give up everything I want so others can have it for doing nothing to earn it, then it won't take me long to pack up what I have left and move elsewhere.

When the rich guy walks out of the restaurant with his checkbook, who's gonna pay for the meal that the rest of you ate up?

[jtgain]

You and I might be in agreement on some of this. I'm afraid we draw opposite political conclusions.

If you want to continue discussion, I'd ask you first to give a clear, correct and unequivocal answer to the question I raised upthread:

Go ahead! Be the very first conservative here to cope with facts! It won't hurt.

If you're willing to answer that question, then, to save a round in the dialog, indicate whether you understand the huge deficits of 2009-2011 were appropriate (however misguided the details may have been) to save us from the biggest business confidence crisis in more than 70 years.

If you can do that much, then we can discuss on-going political considerations.

To answer your question: Yes, but. You can't simply point to an economic time, point to the President and assign him all of the blame/praise. Clinton, for example, had a projection of rising deficits in the late 90s. It was a combination of a new GOP congress and a booming technology sector that caused the budget to come near balance. So does he get praise? Sure. Was it all him? No.

With Reagan the same thing. Were the deficits his fault, the Dem House's fault, or a necessity because of the cold war?

The only way you could accurately compare all of the Presidents is if they faced the same policy decisions.

To answer question #2: Yes. Huge deficits were absolutely necessary these past couple of years. I don't think that they needed to be AS large as they were, but they definitely would exist, just like deficits exist in your personal budget when tough times arise.

But Obama's best estimates have trillion dollar plus deficits at the end of this decade after the recovery. That is not acceptable. I don't care what Bush, Reagan, or Clinton did. It is fiscally irresponsible to propose such financial management. If any private person or business did that, they would be universally scorned.

[Zeriel]

Bottom line, how long do you think it REALLY took the rich merchants to just avoid Sherwood Forest altogether and take their business elsewhere? Of COURSE, it's all about minimizing the hit to ME. If the price for me to live in this society is to give up everything I want so others can have it for doing nothing to earn it, then it won't take me long to pack up what I have left and move elsewhere.

When the rich guy walks out of the restaurant with his checkbook, who's gonna pay for the meal that the rest of you ate up?

Balanced, of course, against the fact that (lacking the US's trained labor base and specialized infrastructure, not to mention our gigantic market) the rich guy's profits are significantly lower and his overheads higher anywhere else, unless he's making absolute bottom of the barrel stuff. Or didn't you notice that textiles and plastic junk tend to move to 3rd-World countries, but largely speaking, microprocessors and cars do not, regardless of corporate/upper-bracket taxes.

Fortunately, most rich people are smarter than you, and merely try to sneak some of their money into overseas tax shelters instead of leaving outright when the chips are down :p

[Rand Rover]

Yes, that's what I'm asking you, what is the theory about?

Not since Anne Elk's (Miss) groundbreaking work on the brontosaurus has it been this hard to pry information out of someone.

Here, let me break it down into caveman speak for you: "Small government good, big government bad." The government involving itself in new areas with programs that would be hard to do away with are bad. A temporary increase in spending in an area the government is already involved in to handle a short-term problem is OK.

[AlienVessels]

Here, let me break it down into caveman speak for you: "Small government good, big government bad." The government involving itself in new areas with programs that would be hard to do away with are bad. A temporary increase in spending in an area the government is already involved in to handle a short-term problem is OK.

So if there is a new long term problem that is handled better by pooling resources on a large scale, you'd still rather have it handled on a local level? Even when the individual solutions don't scale?

[Shagnasty]

So if there is a new long term problem that is handled better by pooling resources on a large scale, you'd still rather have it handled on a local level? Even when the individual solutions don't scale?

You are introducing a key restraint into the problem that Rand Over didn't mention. Scaling is a key issue but it is usually best handled locally rather than nationally for the vast majority of issues. Constitutional rights, national defense, monetary policy, and similar issues can be handled nationally but probably not most other things. There is also different levels of 'local.' The individual states would be the key ones but it could be by city or district. Each has their place. Scaling up to a level beyond what is needed to handle localized problems introduces bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of institutional awareness to the individual problems at hand.

[Robot Arm]

You are introducing a key restraint into the problem that Rand Over didn't mention. Scaling is a key issue but it is usually best handled locally rather than nationally for the vast majority of issues. Constitutional rights, national defense, monetary policy, and similar issues can be handled nationally but probably not most other things. There is also different levels of 'local.' The individual states would be the key ones but it could be by city or district. Each has their place. Scaling up to a level beyond what is needed to handle localized problems introduces bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of institutional awareness to the individual problems at hand.So if some state decides to save some money by making the lanes on their highways ten feet wide, you think it's more efficient to do that at the state level? How 'bout food inspections, think we're better off having 50 labs setting 50 different standards for the allowable level of e. coli, rather than just one?

[Robot Arm]

Here, let me break it down into caveman speak for you: "Small government good, big government bad."Yeah, I get that part of your message, I really do. The federal government should leave most issues alone, except for those things that are important enough to justify taking the money by force.

Which still evades the essential question, what things are important enough?

[Shagnasty]

So if some state decides to save some money by making the lanes on their highways ten feet wide, you think it's more efficient to do that at the state level? How 'bout food inspections, think we're better off having 50 labs setting 50 different standards for the allowable level of e. coli, rather than just one?

That is basically the way the U.S. as a whole works now. States set the vast majority of their own highway rules outside of the interstate system and even then, they have some degree of freedom. They just happen to converge on the same types of solutions because it is dumb not to and they work with neighboring governments. I didn't say anything about raw science or the FDA. Harmful levels of e. coli can be handled nationally because meat distributors operate nationally.

The overall point is to keep things at the lowest level of government possible. It isn't good for the federal government to build policies on the types of lifestock you can keep at home because some people live in Manhattan and some live in Montana. It also isn't wise to establish national water conservation policies when some areas are literally swimming in water and some are in a drought.

You are basically arguing against the U.S. as it works now which will take more than a few truckloads of Che Guevara to make much headway on.

[AlienVessels]

You are introducing a key restraint into the problem that Rand Over didn't mention. Scaling is a key issue but it is usually best handled locally rather than nationally for the vast majority of issues. Constitutional rights, national defense, monetary policy, and similar issues can be handled nationally but probably not most other things. There is also different levels of 'local.' The individual states would be the key ones but it could be by city or district. Each has their place. Scaling up to a level beyond what is needed to handle localized problems introduces bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of institutional awareness to the individual problems at hand.

So if I propose a national water distribution program that allows us to maximize arable land around the country with the ability to adapt to climate change, that should be handled at the state level?

How about disease control? Do we leave that up to states or do we define it as a national defense problem?

How do we handle state emergencies that are too big for the affected state to handle? Do we solve the problem ad hoc, leave the state on its own, or is it legitimate to have a national response capability?

And this is the question I never get answered: when you have megacorps with bigger influence and resources than some states, who intervenes when said corps become the monkey on the state's back?

[China Guy]

What do we do about regulating the finance industry? Repealing Glass-Stegal didn't work out too well. I shudder to think how the States individually would have responded to the global economic crisis.

Heck, what about currency? Maybe each State should have it's own currency (in case it is not gold, that is)? And determining citizenship should be a State thing, as well as recognizing the citizenship of other States? Or would this make the US of A look too much like Europe?

[Mr Smashy]

Heck, what about currency? Maybe each State should have it's own currency (in case it is not gold, that is)? And determining citizenship should be a State thing, as well as recognizing the citizenship of other States? Or would this make the US of A look too much like Europe?

Why would you think that a fiscal conservative would say that the Federal government can't establish a national currency? It's in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 under the enumerated powers if you care to look it up.

[Chessic Sense]

Once we've decided what we require of government, don't you think that the revenue side of the ledger should at least cover those costs? Without that, your brand of fiscal conservatism will eventually bankrupt us.

Sure, over the long run, they should balance. So?

It's easier to talk in specifics. Many people, largely under the heading of "conservatives", want the federal government to do more to stop illegal immigration. They want a bigger border fence, or more agents patrolling the border, or more inspectors verifying right-to-work documents at their employers. None of that is going to happen for free. Calling themselves "fiscally conservative" would be bullshit, because they're willing to sacrifice fiscal responsibility in favor of something they consider to be a higher priority. If they want to call themselves "anti illegal immigration conservatives" then that's fine.

But border protection is a direct responsibility of the federal government. That's why it's OK. Simple as that.

[China Guy]

Why would you think that a fiscal conservative would say that the Federal government can't establish a national currency? It's in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 under the enumerated powers if you care to look it up.There are people all over the spectrum calling themselves fiscal conservatives. I'm not sure if those States proposing their own gold backed currencies are led by fiscal conservatives - it's tough to keep track.

Trying to pin down what a "fiscal conservative" broadly can be defined at is difficult for the rest of us. There is the basic tenet of being "for smaller government, and that private sector is more efficient at almost everything than the government sector." But when you try to get to specifics like what President was a good example of a fiscal conservative, or why fiscal conservatives were so shy and quiet during the Bush years, or what is an example where the government should be bigger, or how to prevent another global economic meltdown, there is little substance.

[septimus]

To answer your question: Yes, but....

...
But Obama's best estimates have trillion dollar plus deficits at the end of this decade after the recovery. That is not acceptable. I don't care what Bush, Reagan, or Clinton did. It is fiscally irresponsible to propose such financial management. If any private person or business did that, they would be universally scorned.

No one is an advocate of long-term deficit spending. Obama's scary predictions were made to make clear that structural solutions are needed , and certainly not to suggest that long-term deficits are a solution. (If you don't see yours as an attack-a-strawman argument, I'd be curious where you get your news.)

AFAIK the only politicians advocating that the Federal government pursue suicide as an objective are the lunatic Teabaggers like Congressman Joe Walsh, who wants to shut down government because "this country needs to crash."

Understanding the past is a key to influencing the future. I'm disappointed you were unable to give a less equivocal answer to the question: Which Party was responsible for increasing Federal debt? It was Dick Cheney who said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." It was the Democrats who provided every single affirmative vote on the 1993 budget that led to the surpluses of that decade.

Do we have serious fiscal problems? Definitely yes. Is the solution to save money by laying off even more federal regulators and cutting back on the tsunami warning system? I don't think so. The lunatic right-wing fringe does seem to think so. How about you, jtgain ?

[elucidator]

Only the dumb ones think that. For the smart ones, its just a cynical grab for power.

[Robot Arm]

But border protection is a direct responsibility of the federal government. That's why it's OK. Simple as that.Okay, we're very nearly there. Please complete the following sentence:

"Border protection is a direct responsibility of the federal government because..."

[Shagnasty]

Okay, we're very nearly there. Please complete the following sentence:

"Border protection is a direct responsibility of the federal government because..."

...it is a federal border being enforced.

That is all there is to it.

[Robot Arm]

...it is a federal border being enforced.

That is all there is to it.The national borders are also the borders of the states that run along them, and for that matter, counties.

If things should be handled at the most local level possible, why don't we just leave border enforcement up to the county sheriffs and deputies?

[Rand Rover]

Yeah, I get that part of your message, I really do. The federal government should leave most issues alone, except for those things that are important enough to justify taking the money by force.

Which still evades the essential question, what things are important enough?

The things that really couldn't be done if people weren't forced to do it. A government (and I mean any government, not just the federal government) should only do those things that are necessary for a government to do. In my mind these things include protection from external and internal enemies and providing a basic non-gameable safety net for the poorest citizens. And I'm not too offended by governments being in charge of roads based on the impracticality of all roads being private.

[Rand Rover]

Okay, we're very nearly there. Please complete the following sentence:

"Border protection is a direct responsibility of the federal government because..."

"failing to protect its borders makes the whole idea of a government rather stupid."

Protecting its borders is a necessary thing for a government to do because any government worth the name is charged with protecting its citizens from invaders.

(Now, on immigration policy, I favor extremely secure borders with extremely easy ways for those who aren't criminals or terrorists to settle here and make a life for themselves.)

[sqweels]

The things that really couldn't be done if people weren't forced to do it. A government (and I mean any government, not just the federal government) should only do those things that are necessary for a government to do. In my mind these things include protection from external and internal enemies and providing a basic non-gameable safety net for the poorest citizens. And I'm not too offended by governments being in charge of roads based on the impracticality of all roads being private.
So as you think it through you begin to make exceptions to your hitherto absolutist viewpoint and suddenly your position is not so different from... uh, people who don't necessarily identify as fiscal conservatives.

But of course there are a lot of factors to take into account as move from a basic abstract philosophy to a workable policy. One of my favorites is the birth rate and the implications for fiscal conservatism of the government suppressing family planning.

But the wrinkled old elephant that smells like pee in the room is the question of what to do about the elderly. They appear to be consuming the lion's share of the budget (or the elephant's share, rather). Would fiscal conservatives support, say, sharply curtailing Medicare coverage as retirees get older (read: death panels)? Or is that too nuanced for today's fiscal conservative?

[Zeriel]

Hell, according to Rand's philosophy, the government getting involved in family planning at all is social conservatism, not fiscal. Different animal that just happen to be sharing a doghouse at the moment.

As for Medicare, again, it depends on whether the economies of scale in medical care are worth the government getting involved. Rand would probably say to scrap it.

[AlienVessels]

As for Medicare, again, it depends on whether the economies of scale in medical care are worth the government getting involved. Rand would probably say to scrap it.

Even if they were, the answer would be the same.

All you have to do is imagine wiping the government slate clean and then ask yourself, "what is the minimum I need to pay in to keep myself safe?" Oh and not really put much thought into it so the number stays low.

That's how you get "as much as it takes to keep me safe" fiscal conservatism. Blank check there, "keep your hands off me and out of my pockets" everywhere else.

[Zeriel]

Even if they were, the answer would be the same.

All you have to do is imagine wiping the government slate clean and then ask yourself, "what is the minimum I need to pay in to keep myself safe?" Oh and not really put much thought into it so the number stays low.

That's how you get "as much as it takes to keep me safe" fiscal conservatism. Blank check there, "keep your hands off me and out of my pockets" everywhere else.

I don't think that's necessarily true, either. There's a spectrum of opinions, and the biggest single issue I see with fiscal conservatism is that it's too often cross-pollinated with social conservatism such that the only stuff that gets funded is ideas from the latter.

[AlienVessels]

I don't think that's necessarily true, either. There's a spectrum of opinions, and the biggest single issue I see with fiscal conservatism is that it's too often cross-pollinated with social conservatism such that the only stuff that gets funded is ideas from the latter.

I wasn't painting with a broad brush. I was predicting Rand's position.

[septimus]

As for Medicare, again, it depends on whether the economies of scale in medical care are worth the government getting involved.

:confused: Public health care is a big money-saver, but I don't think economy of scale is the reason.

Many times I've wished people addressing economic questions would just ignore everything they think they know about economics' complexities and instead pretend they're organizing a community on a desert island. You'd want doctors and nurses in your community. Would you consider it productive to also appoint a large number of people whose only function was to deny needed medical care?

[Zeriel]

:confused: Public health care is a big money-saver, but I don't think economy of scale is the reason.

Many times I've wished people addressing economic questions would just ignore everything they think they know about economics' complexities and instead pretend they're organizing a community on a desert island. You'd want doctors and nurses in your community. Would you consider it productive to also appoint a large number of people whose only function was to deny needed medical care?

I don't know, I think economies of scale are one of many reasons. (decreased redundancy is another big one, in addition to what you've said.)

[Rand Rover]

:confused: Public health care is a big money-saver, but I don't think economy of scale is the reason.

Many times I've wished people addressing economic questions would just ignore everything they think they know about economics' complexities and instead pretend they're organizing a community on a desert island. You'd want doctors and nurses in your community. Would you consider it productive to also appoint a large number of people whose only function was to deny needed medical care?
Waitaminute--who are the real-world counterparts to the people who deny needed medical care in your analogy?

[Zeriel]

Waitaminute--who are the real-world counterparts to the people who deny needed medical care in your analogy?

Insurance providers, mostly, who bend over backwards in a proportion of cases to not provide care as agreed upon in the contract. The google search you want is "rescission"--which is touted as an anti-fraud measure, but has been in a number of cases been shown to be, essentially, a way for insurance companies to make false or malicious assertions about ostensibly undisclosed pre-existing conditions in order to deny lawfully obtained coverage.

See http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17, in which insurance company representative specifically assert they won't limit rescission to cases of fraudulently acquired coverage, or here http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/04/05/bisg0409.htm for an example of an insurance company losing a case of this type.

[Rand Rover]

Thanks, but I'd like an answer from septimus before I say anything further. Unlike a lot of folks here, I don't like to assume something and then go off on someone based on my assumption. I just ask a question and wait for an answer.

[septimus]

Waitaminute--who are the real-world counterparts to the people who deny needed medical care in your analogy?

In my ideal world, most of the health insurance industry would be shut down, with most of its employees looking for productive jobs instead. Doctors' and hospital employees also "waste" much time complying with insurance companies' requests.

Paul Krugman has noted that the U.S. spends more per capita on health care than do public-care countries (even when "per capita" is defined to include those who don't have health care) and that much of the money spent on U.S. "health care" is indeed spent to facilitate the denial of health care.

Perhaps someone can present employment figures. How many total employees are there in health industry? Insurance-related administrators for doctors and hospitals? (Another controversial area where simple employee counts might help clarify would be Federal education funding. What are total employee counts of teachers? Of administrators?)

(Please note: my comparison is with ordinary public-care, not with Obamacare which I'm afraid was a big mistake.)

There. I've answered your question. But IIRC, I've posed my own still-unanswered questions in this thread. :dubious:

[Rand Rover]

OK. I like how you say "people should use the desert island analogy more to understand economics" and then completely fail at constructing a desert island analogy.

[septimus]

OK. I like how you say "people should use the desert island analogy more to understand economics" and then completely fail at constructing a desert island analogy.

You write "Waitaminute--who are the real-world counterparts to the people who deny needed medical care in your analogy?"; then I describe real-world as requested; you complain I've dropped the analogy. :smack:

Upthread you misuse "dimension" to mean direction; you've defined your own Humpty-Dumptyism for "fiscal conservative."

Since this is BBQ Pit already, I'll just come out and say it: I don't think you're very bright, Rand Rover.

[Zeriel]

septimus, can you be a little more clear -- you seem to be essentially saying that the mere existence of insurance providers blocks access to care (relative to a public-payer system, anyway). Unless the Krugman cite goes into more depth (which I'd expect, since Krugman is awesome).

[Rand Rover]

Right--your desert island version of the US health care system has doctors, patients, and "people who block access to needed care," and somehow I'm the one who's not too bright.

[Voyager]

septimus, can you be a little more clear -- you seem to be essentially saying that the mere existence of insurance providers blocks access to care (relative to a public-payer system, anyway). Unless the Krugman cite goes into more depth (which I'd expect, since Krugman is awesome).

Without a cite, think of it this way. The executives of insurance companies are responsible to their stockholders, not to their customers. If they can increase their profits by withholding expensive care to their customers, without violating the law or doing to the level that their customers leave, they are obligated to do so. Regulators exist because of this, and regulators are responsible to the people, and thus to the customers. They try to make it more expensive or difficult for insurance companies to withhold care. Regulations proliferate as insurance companies try to get around them. Everyone in this picture is working to fulfill their responsibilities. If we make the people the owners of the insurance system, much of the problem goes away. I work for big companies who are self-insured. Since the insurance companies get their money by a negotiated fee and not directly from premiums, they don't make money denying care, and I seldom have had the problems you often hear about.

As a secondary effect, the increased cost of people running the insurance system at the insurance side and at the doctors side blocks access to care because it increases the cost. I don't know the numbers, but even the smallest offices I go to have a full time insurance person, and bigger ones have a whole department.

[Zeriel]

Without a cite, think of it this way. The executives of insurance companies are responsible to their stockholders, not to their customers. If they can increase their profits by withholding expensive care to their customers, without violating the law or doing to the level that their customers leave, they are obligated to do so. Regulators exist because of this, and regulators are responsible to the people, and thus to the customers. They try to make it more expensive or difficult for insurance companies to withhold care. Regulations proliferate as insurance companies try to get around them. Everyone in this picture is working to fulfill their responsibilities. If we make the people the owners of the insurance system, much of the problem goes away. I work for big companies who are self-insured. Since the insurance companies get their money by a negotiated fee and not directly from premiums, they don't make money denying care, and I seldom have had the problems you often hear about.

As a secondary effect, the increased cost of people running the insurance system at the insurance side and at the doctors side blocks access to care because it increases the cost. I don't know the numbers, but even the smallest offices I go to have a full time insurance person, and bigger ones have a whole department.

Good enough for me--my last question was mostly Socratic anyway since I'm primarily in agreement with you on the issue.

[Rand Rover]

If they can increase their profits by withholding expensive care to their customers, without violating the law or doing to the level that their customers leave, they are obligated to do so.

As a customer, I say thank god for that.

[Voyager]

Good enough for me--my last question was mostly Socratic anyway since I'm primarily in agreement with you on the issue.
I think what drives the right nuts about this issue is that this is a case where the market doesn't work - assuming people dying on the street of untreated diseases is unacceptable to you, that is. The insurance company execs are not rapacious monsters, they are just doing their job. Their job is fundamentally at odds with the public good.

[Voyager]

As a customer, I say thank god for that.

Oh, so if the insurance company rejects payment for an expensive procedure you've had, you don't protest but say "Thank God for the market working?"

[Zeriel]

As a customer, I say thank god for that.

The issue, of course, with the current system is that they DO violate contract law on at least a regular (I have no data as to the frequency, just that I see regular news stories about it) basis.

[Rand Rover]

(I have no data as to the frequency, just that I see regular news stories about it) .
yeah exactly :rolleyes:

[humanafterall]

Fuck no. We don't let people in our churches unless they're millionaires.

Personally, whenever I see someone who isn't rich, I punch them in the face, just for the fun of it. If they're non-white, I do it twice. And if they're poor, black and gay? Well, then I just murder them and rape their children.

Funnily enough, there is a Church of the Almighty Dollar, http://go.to/thechurchofthealmightydollar/ There, you are exploited honestly. They don't delude you with notions of paradise or eternal bliss they believe in honesty through exploitation, and exploitation through honesty.

[Zeriel]

yeah exactly :rolleyes:

Admittedly, hard to get data about contract law settlements if they're not decided in open court.

[Rand Rover]

Admittedly, hard to get data about contract law settlements if they're not decided in open court.

But not hard to make up facts that fit your preconceived notions, apparently.

[Zeriel]

But not hard to make up facts that fit your preconceived notions, apparently.

Are you, by chance, accusing me of making up the news stories about rescission that were breaking all over the place?

[septimus]

Krugman is awesome

Indeed. Any reading this thread who are more interested in self-education than fighting strawmen or listening to the sound of one hand clapping could do worse than read that Nobel laureate, for example two (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11krugman.html) articles (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/opinion/24krugman.html) showing that Republicans oppose efforts to reduce health care costs.

In more than one article, Krugman has claimed that much of the money spent on American health care is spent, in effect, on denying care. I can't find such an article Googling just now but Dopers could do worse than browse Krugman's columns, whether they find that specific claim or not.

I don't recall Krugman claiming insurance industry is inefficient or a drain; that was my claim. I don't think insurance-related paperwork, profits, etc. create much value.

[neuroman]

Good idea! Am I correct to think that you "true fiscal conservatives" approve of the Presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) decreased and disapprove of the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 during whose terms the Debt/GDP ratio increased?
I'm going to wade into this thread because of your utter gall in mentioning LBJ. Regardless of whatever budgets the man may have run at the time, he oversaw the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, which represent an ever-ballooning non-discretionary portion of the U.S. budget, currently above 20%.[1] Mandatory entitlement spending, which has been demographically broken for decades and politically untouchable for just as long, is the heart, brain, and lung cancer in the diseased body that is the U.S.'s finances.

I don't disagree with your main point, however, which is that we cannot inherently trust Republicans (http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/12/can-we-trust-the-gop) simply because they like to portray themselves as fiscally conservative. Reagan jacked up the deficit tremendously. GWB was the biggest fiscal whore in U.S. history until Obama came along and somehow managed to make GWB's dangerously unprincipled spending look good by comparison.


[1]see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

[AlienVessels]

GWB was the biggest fiscal whore in U.S. history until Obama came along and somehow managed to make GWB's dangerously unprincipled spending look good by comparison.


Obama was handed 2 wars and the biggest recession since the Great Depression and his spending is "unprincipled"? His biggest problem is that he chose to try to work with Republicans instead of playing hardball. His healthcare program was just about taken verbatim from the GOP playbook. They rejected it for simple political expediency. Once he started supporting what used to be their ideas, they did a 180.

There's nothing inherently wrong with spending in bad times. It's very common in business to take out loans when times are hard to invest in the business for when things pick up.