Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
This is where your logic fails you, and you do this every single time. Supply-side economics has nothing to do with "paying for programs". Paying is spending, and our friends in Washington prove year after year that revenue is not a consideration where spending is concerned. Hell, most budgets - including Biden's most recent budget - included an expectation of spending more than expected revenue.
You can lie to yourself about Democrats' intellectual honesty on the topic. I've seen no desire on the part of Dems to align spending with forecasted revenue.
|
The issue is how you chose to pay for the expense of running the government our Constitution and Congress created, warts and all. Reduce (or increase) the size of government through a legitimate legislative process to your heart's desire and budget accordingly with a committal to the markets that you'll pay the bills for the government you created.
You do it either through tax revenue and/or debt. And Art Laffer basically said that you can increase (the necessary) revenue by cutting taxes whereas real world experience in the Reagan, Dubya and Trump administrations proves otherwise. And this creates the deficits you rail incessantly against. History has shown pretty clearly that our deficit/debt performs better under Democratic administrations. Have you ever considered that "voodoo economics" may be a flawed, discredited concept, indeed just a clever marketing ploy to
"reduce government to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" while giving tax breaks to wealthy GOP benefactors?
George H.W. Bush was the last prominent Republican to willingly call out this sophistry by his party and it cost him dearly. It has now become GOP catechism notwithstanding its repeated failures.