Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
...taming deficits is less important than spurring growth.
|
You shouldn't hide behind a Politico story, especially one that doesn't even come close to substantiating your ignorant posts.
Saying that "taming deficits is (temporarily) less important than spurring growth" is not even close to saying "deficits don't matter". The former implies they still matter, but should not be prioritized ahead of another, more urgent goal. If you disagreed with Reagan's priorities, you are entitled to say so. You are NOT entitled to completely misrepresent his views or the views of the people in his administration.
Did you find the person yet who said "any time you cut taxes, the cut pays for itself"? Like patient grasshoppers, we're still waiting. Was it Ferris Bueller? If you can't find any such quote, we can trust you to retract your claim, right?
Every President before and after Reagan, when confronted with either a recession or the exigencies of wartime, embraced the idea that taming deficits must sometimes be deemed of secondary importance. FDR's deficits pulled us out of the Great Depression and won WW2. Reagan's deficits pulled us out of the 1981 recession and won the Cold War. Moreover, as I pointed out already, Reagan's deficits enabled Clinton's surpluses - by making room for a "peace dividend" in the decade after Ronnie left office.
Now tell us, in your own words. everything we need to know about "the whole of when to cut taxes". In your post #865, you claimed to understand that subject better than the rest of us.
I know you are eager to educate everyone here. So go ahead... the floor is yours. We're waiting and hanging on every word!