I would argue that R0bert has hit it right on the head.
It's what we spend the deficit (borrowings) on that matters.
Here's a business example. John borrow 5MAUD to buy rights to search for oil on a large block of land where he's certain there's oil and it will take five years to explore the entire area.
He budgets for a loss (deficit) of 1MAUD each year for four years.
Is he a poor manager for not achieving a surplus?
No, not if he strikes oil in year 5.
It's what we spend the deficit on that matters, far more than the deficit itself.
Now, in the case of this government we can rightly argue the pros and cons of where the money is going.
If we are conservative we might object to social supports.
If we are to the Left, we might object to reduced taxes for the wealthy.
These are the debates worth having. Not just yes or no to a deficit.
I would also posit that the NBN, which will represent big outgoings in the first few years, (thus contributing to a deficit), but will provide an infrastructure that could generate billions over the next couple of decades, is a well spent component of the deficit.
I also think that stimulating the economy during the GFC in '08 so the country didn't go into recession was also money well spent.
My point is that how the deficit is spent is a far more important debate than whether or not we have one.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/maiden-tonys-great-big-tax/story-fn6br25t-1226295921746
This link challenges those talking of the carbon tax.
It again highlights the extremism of Tony Abbott.
He says Labor is the party of tax, but proposes this big new tax.
We are told Conservatives will, once the budget is balanced, and only then, introduce a scheme such as Labors.
In relation to disability.
But, without delay, bring in this scatter brained scheme to help the well of have children.
Both sides, soon, must confront population numbers , not promote endless growth.
And both sides are well aware welfare needs another look.
Abbott intends to use the public purse to reward ,with middle class welfare, those who do not need it as much as others.
I think Current rewards for child birth is already giving very bad results and big screen TV not children are often the wish.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ill-turn-back-every-boat-says-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226249863706
This link too, hardly from the Labor party, highlights an extremist view.
Abbott himself claims a reintroduction of the Howard policy's will work.
If so why this condemning some to death as boats sink, and are sunk deliberately.
Howard did stop the boats.
Australians,a majority,want them stopped .
Abbott can stop them, from opposition, by sitting down and talking.
Yet if not an extreme view, forcing boats to turn around at sea.
Risking our links to Indonesia, Conservatives present a danger to us all.

http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/03/tax-me-tax-me-.html
Barry Spinks/Spindoc in action, not I suspect the only one with hidden links to the party once known as Liberals.
Worth considering, these links all three have some lessons.
As we seemingly head for the election of a Conservative Government, posing as Liberal, have we looked at what we are about to buy.
I note the absence of Shadow Minister here, but maybe not from Menzies house?

If we are conservative we might object to social supports.
Anthonyve,
That is a blatant misconstruing of terms. You are implying that conservatism is about denial.
That is a hypocritical lie.
Conservatism is about being against WASTE !

If we are to the Left, we might object to reduced taxes for the wealthy.
That in turn indicates that the left is a parasitic mentality to go for as much as possible without effort.

I also think that stimulating the economy during the GFC in '08 so the country didn't go into recession was also money well spent.

It certainly doesn't look that way now ! The outfall from that "clever" tactic is huge debt. You think that's great ?

Hi Individual,
First I said, "might" which therefore makes it impossible to be a lie. (It's an English language thing)
Second, if you read a bit of history about conservatism, you will find it has its roots in religious values and stood against change of practically any kind, i.e. conservatism - to conserve, (meaning in this case to preserve the status quo).
This understanding of Conservative roots is not challenged by historians.
Therefore, the idea that conservatism was automatically against waste is a comparatively recent position somewhat amplified by the Tea Partiers in the USA, which has been adopted here in Australia.
There have been periods in British, (from which the Australian Conservative model evolved) and Australian conservative government when it was a high tax/high spend party.
Also in the USA, where taxes were far higher under Reagan than they are now.
Hope that helps with your understanding of the movement you appear to support.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au