Deficit approaching intolerable levels?

This is a view from the left:

From: Bloggingstocks.com:

Economic conservatives, market absolutists, and the like argue that the annual budget deficit and national debt are approaching intolerable levels. In truth, what they're arguing against is a needed government intervention and New Deal-type spending required to jump-start the U.S. economy -- even if it means the economy will plunge into a deeper recession without the stimulus. It seems some economic conservatives would rather see the nation's economy suffer, than to violate one their flawed economic theories.

That's why some in the economic conservative camp are harping about the budget deficit, but their argument is philosophically thin. In truth, although a nation should not run a deficit during an expansion, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noted, deficits are necessary during a recession, in order to create demand when few other forces in the economy will.

Further, the national debt remains serviceable, provided the U.S. economy returns to a sustainable growth track, as a result of the likely increasing government revenue that will accompany that recovery. After the recovery is in place, Krugman adds, the federal government can then act to balance its budget -- and pay-down the national debt -- by cutting spending and/or raising taxes.

Why would economic conservatives continue to publicize blatantly false claims like 'an unserviceable budget deficit' and 'the ineffectiveness of government spending'? It's required by their political base -- primarily wealthy and upper-income Americans -- whose lives remain relatively unharmed by the recession: whether the recession is mild or deep, their lives are relatively unscathed. They certainly won't sustain the massive life disruption of people losing their jobs and homes. And if one isn't harmed, what's the need for fiscal stimulus?

Hence, it's for the above interest group reasons, not sound economics, that economic conservatives today continue to attempt to distort -- via a half-truth -- the historical record, in an attempt to invalidate fiscal stimulus as an engine of growth: they argue that World War II, not the policies of FDR, ended the Great Depression. But World War II involved massive government spending and wholesale federal government organization of the U.S. economy. In other worlds, federal government spending for World War II was an amped-up version of the New Deal, proving that, if anything, the mid-1930s portion of the New Deal (when FDR mistakenly tried to balance the budget) was too small.

Actually I don't think the response is defense of free markets as much as a true concern about the building deficit. We do not know that the stimulus purposed will work. Its now looking like all the past stimulus did nothing at all. The one thing we do know is that we will need to pay for it. They say after the crisis passes we can pay for it by increasing taxes...again higher taxes will just slow the economy. Spending and the associated debt is going to be a major strain on our future.

The other issue you are seeing from the Conservatives is that the proposed bail out contains a huge amount of pork that will not stimulate the economy or create jobs. Its just an excuse to push major spending mostly on liberal programs.