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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
For the Win!