growth, along with several other key indicators, are factored into any projections put forth by the CBO and Tax Policy Center. Further, are you now espousing their plan and defending it? Are you trying to say that their plan is possible as long as growth is strong enough? Don't lump Obama in with Ryan. Obama didn't propose cutting taxes so we could increase revenue. sounds stupid even typing it.
Umm.. I didn't even say anything about Obama's plan other than they both include assumptions. Only stupid people assume to know and do not ask questions.
I never said that the economy wouldn't have some good years. I said that the Republicans think that they can eliminate the deficit by reducing taxes enough that it would broaden the tax base so much that it would close the deficit altogether and that it is mathematically impossible. You pointed out that the deficit was reduced from 04-07 but why didn't that trend continue? It can't be because Obama took office because that didn't happen until 2009. If there theory was correct then that trend should have continued until we had no deficit but it didn't and it never has. You can keep firing off these one-liners all day, Pride, but if you are not going to produce anything of substance then I really need to get back to work for a while.
Spending and the recession...... The post also states a 39% spending increase... This isn't their plan and you have cited no such plan. Their plan consists of much more than tax cuts. SO yea, get your ass back to work b/c you are making shit up.
I used your boy Ryan's budget and showed it to you as clear as day. If you can't comprehend that, or you wish not to, that is your business. I'm done with you on this argument. You are just trying to keep the argument going but you have done nothing to rebut what I've said or prove me wrong with facts. You take snippets from this and snippets from that to try and create a cohesive argument but it just continually makes you look like an amateur. Have a nice day Pride. If you come up with anything substantive let us know. Otherwise, let someone else have a shot at knocking my claim.
On the contrary, I find democrats tend to use adjustments for GDP and inflation to make certain numbers tell the narrative they want. This is what occurred with the Clinton "surplus" even though he ran a deficit in fact. Granted, republicans do it too. It's politics. Yes I did. The deficit hit a plateau, at least according to your chart. It is mathematically feasible. It's politically treacherous. If I can cut my spending to suit my income, there's no reason to exempt government from the same belt-tightening. How does the CBO have any idea whatsoever what kind of budget is going to be in the works in those 10 years? Do you think previous CBOs projected we'd be having trillion dollar yearly deficits now? Then Mobius is ill-informed. Again, depending on where you are on the Laffer curve, reducing taxes will either decrease or increase revenue. If you're on the hump, decreasing taxes will decrease revenue. If you're before the hump, decreasing taxes will still decrease revenue. But if you're after the hump, decreasing taxes will increase revenue. Wrong. Republicans believe in low taxes, but I don't think a single one of them believe that we can't balance the budget without cutting spending. Significantly.
Sorry, the Bush administration proved that Republicans do not practice what they preach. No one wants to return to that.
This is complete and total bullshit and I proved it to you in a long thread recently. Clinton ran three budget surpluses and it is undeniable. Not even the republicans deny this. Their methodology is open and very clear to anyone that bother to actually read it.
Except Obama who doubled down on Bush's bad policies, by extending the tax breaks and doubling and tripiling the budget deficits Bush ran.
