And if you were gonna lie in that way, you'd just say the tax cut-related growth is going to be so bigly yuge that it would generate an additional $7T, or whatever, in revenue to pay for the cuts and balance the budget with a surplus, or at LEAST say that the revenue gains are $4B and be done with it.

WHAT THE **** ISNT IT REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE DOGMA TO BALANCE BUDGETS

JESUS **** UP IS DOWN BLACK IS WHITE

NOW THEYRE ALL NEW KEYNSIANS...................

and while I agree that deficit spending is not bad, the one weird trick trumps "budget" proposes is accounting fraud.

I have been pretty consistent on spending

Only in this administration is "no, I'm really that incompetent at my job" is even remotely a plausible argument.

Well, that's because they won't say that. They'll lie and say they're right about how it works, thereby denying the mistake but not having to own up to it at the same time.

Why would you extend them the benefit of the doubt regarding whether they thought hard about, or understood, or conducted diligence relating to, anything?

My instinct is to never believe mistakes that look good for people claiming it to the untrained eye are just simple mistakes by people that should never be making simple mistakes.

Especially in this type of president's realm; it's almost always just make it look good, don't care how rather than some math error.

In this case, it doesn't really matter but I'm not gonna believe pretty much anything they say or do. They're gonna push the boundaries whenever they can at all times, they dgaf.

But these are people who have spent their entire lives making simple mistakes, that was one of the truly numerous reasons they should never be anywhere near any position or decision of consequence. Seriously, it's a cabal of idiots, that was part of their "appeal."

Lol economic theories

Here's a factual proven theory: it's all rigged BS

Not really saying any of that as the amount that the US can borrow is obviously not unlimited. But it's just as obvious that the US is probably not too close to that limit, given current low interest rates. I have no idea if the US government should borrow more money or less, as you say it is an enormously complicated question. But then the other side of that coin is I think it is appropriate to be skeptical of people saying it is obvious that the US government is currently borrowing too much money.

So yes, I agree that (1) it is only sort of true [but probably interest rates will let us know if we get too far out of line] and (2) it requires management and limiting [and interest rates will be a cue for us to adjust].

So then (3) is a straw man, since of course there is some level of deficit spending that would negatively impact the cost of borrowing for the US government. The question I'm asking is simply, given current interest rates, should the government be borrowing more money right now? As you say, that's an enormously complicated question and at the low low rate of 2.2% I'm not sure that the answer is entirely obvious. Particularly when you compare the US debt to GDP ratios currently found around the world and see that they're pretty much right in the middle of the developed world.

Borrowing to consume sucks

Borrowing to invest is good

Guess which one Trump wants

OK but then isn't this also true:

Taxing to consume sucks

Taxing to invest is good

Once the decision has been made to spend the money, then under a given set of interest rate conditions some taxation/borrowing ratios are probably better than others.

I was saying that to pwnsall. . .

Fun tidbit: Trump apparently wants to "stop" German automakers from selling so many cars in the United States. He called the Germans "bad, very bad" because of their trade surplus.

Tidbit: German automakers have massive manufacturing facilities in the United States that employ "many, very many" Americans, especially in red-state ****holes that hate unions.

So, you know, that's a thing.

He thinks trade deficit is the only trade data that matters.

lol no he couldn't define trade deficit

he probably hears the word deficit and thinks he's losing.

he definitely knows its bad, very bad

"the economist talks to trump about economic policy"

transcript

http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

Rump boasting about a 48% approval rating from literally Rasmussen might be the saddest thing I've ever seen

Looking like Quist is going to lose but very narrowly. GOP is absolutely ****ed in 2018.

Also may lose due to moron libertarian who is getting 5% of the votes.

It's really not over and Quist trading at 4c on predict it has to be massive value . Most of the returns are from early voting (which was 65% of total vote apparently). Could be a little more favorable if peoole were pissed at the body slam.

Good news for democrats either way. If he barely loses and Ossof wins that would just be sick.

His actual answer during a press conference when this pointed out was, well, we probably were overly conservative in other places, so it'll all just balance out. They aren't even trying to hide the fact that the entire thing is a massive accounting fraud.

It's pretty much irrelevant though because obviously the Democrats hate it, and any Republican who isn't a total Trump sycophant is already like bro, cut it out, we aren't hitting indefinite 3% growth with a bunch of aging baby boomers and already likely being somewhere near the tail end of the current business cycle. It can't even be defended with every deplorable's favorite excuse that he's a negotiator and this is just the opening bid, it just has no factual basis in reality and everyone knows it.

I fail to see how it is good news if you lost to a guy who just ****ed up a reporter 24 hours before the vote. Yeah 2/3rd voted before that and all but still.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05...gant-reporter/

lol Rush, these people are nuts

Any support whatsoever from Dems would have won Quist the race

****ing ****heads