Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Just using this as an example. There are two ways to look at deficits. If a nation goes into a deficit for long-term good - I would argue that deficit may be worth while. If a nation goes into deficit for short-term gain at a harm to long-term good - I would argue the deficit is not worth while. Aside from the straw-man argument (I never heard anyone say deficits don't matter), why does it seem this subtlety is lost by those who make the kind of argument above?
|
It seems that it is you who can't see the subtlety in the deficits argument.
Because there is no possible argument that says that deficits are good during an expansion and bad during a crisis.
Some people say that deficits are always problematic. Some people say that deficits are never problematic. Some people say that deficits are good during a recession. But there is no position that says that deficits are good during an expansion and bad during a recession.
And that is the position taken by many within fox news. Dick Cheney said, back in 2002, that ""You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter." When Oneill made those statements public, both Oreilly and Hannity defended Cheney. This was december 2002 when there was no recession. Of course, right now they've rediscovered that deficits are always bad.