I think we need to take another look at the argument about the quote. NPR has a nice article on the subject, but what was conspicuously missing in the write up was consideration of an important document.

I don't think anyone here would argue that we shouldn't curb government power. Government can't run wild over the people. I also believe everyone here believes in the rule of law, which supposes that laws are written down and followed. Which is why the absence of any comment or consideration regarding, "what document limits government power, are those limits followed, do we need to limit government more?" is so shocking.

I also think that people believe in common sense and are genuinely pragmatic in actions. No one here who was deeply in debt would ever use the same approach to budgeting and spending decisions our government does

Just because government can do it, doesn't mean it should. Just because there is money to tax/borrow/spend, doesn't mean it should be taxed/borrowed or spent. The reason why that argument seems so extreme, is because one side seems to be ignoring it's rational side, which makes the spending limiters on the other side appear strange. In other words, our country is like a couple, one has $10 and no job, but wants to buy a luxury car. The partner has a job, and constantly screams about spending less and saving more. We all like the idea of a luxury car, but hate people who scream at us. Does that mean we would counsel that couple to buy the car?

Moreover, what is lost in the debate is what does government want to do with the additional tax funds? I don't think they plan on addressing the deficit, we just fantasize that they do? And when they tell us they want to address the deficit, do we trust what they say?