I thought what was at issue was whether or not it is better in particular instances to cut particular spending items or cut particular taxes.

we have. you lost.

-The Laffer Curve is an interesting intellectual construction with little practical value. Any “neo-con” who wants to base tax policy on the absurd idea that they can apply economic calculation to anti-economic institutions is (at best) misguided.

-I don’t know of anyone who, all other things being equal, has a great love of government debt. If the government folks are debt there are some different ways that the government folks can do to get out.

1) Reducing Spending
2) Raising Taxes
3) Sovereign Default
4) Debt Repudiation [similar to 3]

So which method or combination of methods is the best for the cases at hand?

It seems as though we are asking whether or not we ought to raise taxes or cut spending first in these cases. I think this would depend on whether or not the spending is worth the taxes necessary to sustain it.
Cutting out the Invasion of Syracuse… I mean the Occupation of Iraq might moot a lot of the disputes about repealing tax cuts versus lowering other present spending. Additionally, other military spending could be reduced if we decided that a massive aggression-oriented military wasn’t necessary. It might not even be necessary to cut into popular conservative government programs like social security, medicaid, and welfare.

her point was that everyone save art laffer and larry kudlow knows that the laffer curve is absurd.

and your “logic” needs some serious work. it’s always “you either need to believe x or y” yet it’s all false choices and straw men. what is it you think you’re doing here?

are we in for another “i win” post? you don’t even know what game is being played.

I don’t dispute that President Bush’s “economists” have said exactly what you say they have. My laughter was in response to the idea that you would attempt to use the views of Bush’s “economists” as evidence to support your argument.

And censorship. Media censorship happens when you tell the media they can’t distribute the news they want to. If the government tells them to distribute the conventions when they wouldn’t have done so otherwise, the government necessarily must force them to not distribute what they would have instead. Censorship.

If the laffer curve is “voodoo”, I assume you advocate a 100% tax rate, right?

I’m not sure if that’s the funniest or the stupidest thing anybody has ever posted in our comments section. Either this guy has no idea what the laffer curve is, or he thinks nobody here does.

“That even the president’s own economists…”[1,000 lines of hahahah omitted]

That’s probably the best way to dismiss inconvenient facts that make the position you espoused look really, really silly. If you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, I’ll bet you $100 that I can back up my claim that President Bush’s own economists have certified that tax cuts decrease revenue, and not increase it, that they do not stimulate the economy enough to even pay for themselves. If you’re not, then why don’t you just crawl away and stop embarrassing yourself around here?

…since the post that my comment was eaten on advocates media censorship.

Advocates media censorship? I’d love to see you try to back that one up.

“That even the president’s own economists…”[1,000 lines of hahahah omitted]

I’m familiar with your hungry spam filter here at 1115; I’ve been its victim before. The censorship thing was intended as a sort of joke since the post that my comment was eaten on advocates media censorship.