Based on the OP, I guess he's fine with it all even if the economy goes nowhere. He can correct me if that's not accurate.

Imo the guy who said "That's a Laffer!" meant that five years was just too short to tell.

Stating They Did Pay For Themselves More or Less

Stating They Did Not Pay For Themselves More or Less

Peer reviewed journal articles about economics are quite a bit different in value than peer reviewed articles by say physicists, chemists, bioligists, and mathematicians. Furthermore I am pretty sure there are peer reviewed journal articles in economics that support the idea of lower taxes being a boost to government revenues are out there.

Totally disagree with the bolded.

Probably. But they're not backed by empirical findings.

Name an issue you disagree with the Republican party on.

I mean, if the work wasn't supported by empirical findings then it wouldn't be "peer-reviewed", or I guess maybe that term would just be pretty meaningless, at least within economic academia.

Friedman is a nobel laureate and the chicago school of econ is legitimate. How the theory is applied is one thing, but it's absolutely a valid theoretical approach to economics.

fyp

If these tax cuts are going to pay for themselves in ten years, then it should be fairly easy for you to show us how the math for that works. Like, tell us the % increase in GDP that offsets the ~$1.5T in lost revenue on the tenth year.

I'm willing to concede that Trump has been good for poker, but he has been terrible for Crazy Eights. Bit of a push imo.

This is actually not true, especially in economics; the amount of purely theoretical work is relatively high. Here's such a (rather infamous) paper on this very topic:

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h...micScoring.pdf

They are napkin theorizing how tax cuts pay for themselves and then leaving all of the empirical work for others. That's standard because mostly there are theorists and there are empiricists, and their training and skills are different. But here's where things go awry:

This is the entire setup for modern anarcho-libertarian-whateverism types:

(A) Here are some equations that just make too much darned sense.
(B) The actual effects are speculative and will be highly-sensitive to some key empirical findings.
(C) Welp, looks like reasonable people can disagree on those findings.

Except, they overwhelmingly don't disagree at all. The final step after ignoring observed reality is to return to (A) and claim victory, because there's really no other way to square that circle.

Lawnmower Man just killing it ITT

Yeah Lawnmower Man doing work. One of the many, many annoying things about ACists/libertarians is how often they namecheck economics or economics 101, but like, you get to elasticity in econ 101. Free market economics academic representation is boosted by literal payola to get colleges to employ right wingers in economics but even with that the mainstream economics position on government spending or tax revenue or environmental regulation is to the left of like, the median Democrat.

Name a few issues and tell me what the Republicam position is. Pretty sure I can find Republicans who disagree with the Republican position that you declare it to be. I'm one person and even if I didn't care about what the Republican Party official position is on anything that doesn't prove a thing, DUCY?

Which economists have the most reliable models? I wants to know what is going to happen to the economy in the next couple of years. Thanks.

I say this over and over and they just never learn.

When you dodge a question like this, everyone knows what your real answer is.

Many Republicans believe comparing Mexicans to cockroaches isn't racist. Your thoughts?

I've never seen you go against them once on any issue on this forum. Seems like you can always be counted on to be bog-standard inline with whatever FoxNews talking points of the day.

What views do you share with Republicans?

Suzzer is absolutely for public union reform and more restrictions on what you can purchase with food assistance. Don’t play gotcha games with people who know more than you.

Pretty sure Suzzer wants fire or at least tar and feather all the teachers.

Modern republicans, or back when Republicans were sane?

In the 70s I might have been a Republican.

Nowadays it's a few things. I am on board with charter schools. I have some problems with public sector unions. I think food stamps could be administered better. I don't agree with straight handouts. I really don't agree with auto-signing people up for stuff like welfare. I think consumer and personal injury lawsuits are a bit out of hand in this country.

That's about it. It's not my fault the modern republican party is bat**** insane.

I am also able to call democrats out on stuff like being in the pockets of big pharma, big banks, etc - as do a ****-ton of the liberals on this forum. When was the last time a Republican on this forum not named Grizy called out Republicans for blatant hypocrisy? Mason can't even say Adelson's name. It's all straight cognitive dissonance.

Democrats are far from perfect, and liberals can be very tribal. But both sides are not equal and opposite right now - not by a long shot. Not one conservative I know, even sober moderates, can admit to themselves that voter ID laws have nothing to do with preventing voter fraud. It's freaky to watch them go into mental contortions when presented with overwhelming evidence.

This is what a cult looks like:

I love the teachers. I think they're heroes and have said that many times. I'm not nuts about my tax dollars paying for boob jobs. I'm really not nuts about my tax dollars paying for sheriffs making $400k/year for life by goosing overtime in their last year.

Having said that - I'm almost to the point where I'm like **** it - maybe public sector unions need to be allowed to abuse the system to save us all from a Trumpian hellscape.