# 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:** 5
**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 8, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/81 "2011-03-08T18:12:14Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/82 "2011-03-08T18:29:33Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/83 "2011-03-08T18:31:07Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > No I haven’t because that’s nothing but hyperbolic bollocks and you know it. Hyperbollocks? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/84 "2011-03-08T18:48:51Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > :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. ---
**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 10, 2011, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/85 "2011-03-10T07:50:52Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/86 "2011-03-10T08:08:34Z")
Hyper-inflationary? Prestidigitation? Phenomenology? ---
**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 10, 2011, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/87 "2011-03-10T08:49:20Z")
Sweatysnugglebunnies? ---
**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 10, 2011, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/88 "2011-03-10T09:36:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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!”_ ---
**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 10, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/89 "2011-03-10T13:58:43Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/90 "2011-03-10T14:15:24Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > “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. ---
**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 10, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/91 "2011-03-10T18:36:45Z")
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. ---
**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 10, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/92 "2011-03-10T19:56:46Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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! 😃 ) 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.” 😃 ---
**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 10, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/93 "2011-03-10T20:27:22Z")
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. ---
**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 10, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/94 "2011-03-10T21:20:08Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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. ---
**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 10, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/95 "2011-03-10T21:23:58Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/96 "2011-03-11T01:29:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/97 "2011-03-11T01:45:27Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**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 11, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/98 "2011-03-11T03:04:58Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > 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. ---
**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 11, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/99 "2011-03-11T03:32:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. ---
**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 11, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645/100 "2011-03-11T03:46:47Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deficit-spending-is-awesome-no-wait-its-dung-from-the-anus-of-satan/573645.md?page=6)