# Deficit spending is awesome! No wait, it's dung from the anus of Satan. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 6, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645 "2011-03-06T01:45:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/41 "2011-03-07T04:00:09Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/42 "2011-03-07T05:20:16Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/43 "2011-03-07T05:44:14Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/44 "2011-03-07T05:46:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > The masses are just too stupid to run a government. Its better than the alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/45 "2011-03-07T05:48:05Z")
> [@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). So a fiscal conservative is different than being fiscally conservative? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/46 "2011-03-07T05:53:24Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/47 "2011-03-07T06:02:49Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/48 "2011-03-07T06:04:54Z")
> [@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”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/49 "2011-03-07T06:36:31Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > … 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.” ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/50 "2011-03-07T07:40:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/51 "2011-03-07T15:57:23Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > 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. > [@Rand Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/52 "2011-03-07T16:17:13Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > 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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/53 "2011-03-07T16:35:42Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/54 "2011-03-07T17:14:10Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/55 "2011-03-07T17:48:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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?" ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/56 "2011-03-07T17:59:49Z")
The OP is confusing Ronald Reagan the former President with Ronald Reagan the GOP wet dream fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/57 "2011-03-07T18:15:23Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/58 "2011-03-07T18:43:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/59 "2011-03-07T20:59:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > How is the debt to GDP ratio performing under Obama, and how should that affect how we regard his Presidency? > > Regards, > Shodan That’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. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/60 "2011-03-07T21:37:58Z")
One thing _so_ lovable about right-wing idiots: If you prove them wrong, they just change the subject. 😃 > [@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? 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645.md?page=4)