Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (25644)	2/4/2008 3:12:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

"...than even endless deficits aren't all that problematic." That, of course, is the Big Government modern Liberal position. Nope. Deficits say nothing about the size of the government. Spending of X with a deficit of Y concerns me more than spending of 2X with a deficit of 1/2Y, or spending of 3X with no deficit. Also note that "endless deficits", doesn't necessarily mean "endless large deficits", or even "endless moderately sized deficits". To some extent deficit spending helps increase the size of government (if you have constant income but you also borrow, you spend more than if you didn't borrow), but OTOH tax cuts, even if they cause deficits don't increase the size of government. In any case I am posting about the direct, or intrinsic, or almost inevitable results of deficits, and in that context the total level of spending is not a directly dependent variable.