let's review: 1. you have repeated, twice, that GDP growth rate after fall 97 was lower than in 93-95 even though the data is right in front of you and I have shown you twice. Once you are shown to be numerically wrong, but you continue to insist, then you are an incredibly stupid liar. 2. You continue to pretend that you can sort out the exact budgetary cost, and impact on GDP, of a tax cut or increase, when every educated economist out there knows that models must be used for that and those various models use assumptions. A case of you being too stupid to know how stupid you are, as you continue to insist that you can do such a thing. 3. You said that the economy peaked at 1 year after the passage of the tax cuts. Again simple reading of the data proves you wrong. indeed, you 'handed my ass' to me
1 we were talking 95-97, you can't seem to follow along even simple concepts 2. I said fall 97, I gave the number without 97, I figure since the numbers show you to be an even larger fool than you already are that you would want to drop this... my bad for overestimating you 3. when you claim that if I give you a tax policy change , then you will give the effect on GDP, that part. It cannot be done without a model, something you are ignorant about. I'm learning that you don't care to think very deeply about things like that, you don't seem to like to think at all.
1. Another round where you completely refuse to point out specific GOP policies. What a surprise. 2. When you added up the GDP growth, you included the entire 97. No need to lie again. 3. So you cannot point out where I used the word 'certainty'? Thought so. Coming from the idiot who didn't knew that cap gains cut were part of the Tax relief bill, I don't expect any better analysis from you. Go back to spouting off more disingenuous claims.
LOL, 'fall 1997'. After you got destroyed by your own idiocy, now you are shifting the goal posts and trying to put words into my mouth. Typical disingenuous Con, can't debate actual numbers so simply make stuff up and debate a strawman.
1. I said they forced clinton to be more fiscally conservative, the entire budget and regulatory process changed 2. I pointed out several times I did it both with and without 97, both cases refute you soundly so why you continue to pound this point is beyond senseless, it's bordering on psychotic. Your attempted misdirection is painfully transparent and weak. 3. When you state that you can tell me what the impact of a tax change is numerical, and you don't give nay qualifications or errors bars, yes that is with certainty. It is painfully obvious you don't know what you are doing. My claims are all substantiated right here in this thread empirically, you have not refuted them. In fact my claims are mostly corrections to your sloppy conclusions and misunderstandings. I did accept my error about exactly when the cap gains cut was, but that does not make your thesis correct. I'm sure you will continue on with your dishonesty however. next round
I clarified, my case was not destroyed, yours was. I in fact was only refuting you. If you have any shred of intellectual honesty... nah forget it.
Yea, you were not destroyed when it was pointed out to you that the capital gains taxes were already part of the the Tax Relief Act. Have some shame, admit when you are wrong.
1. Give me some specific examples and their impact on the economy (using any model) 2. Again, you shouldn't be counting 97 at all and you should be counting the period after 99 which you ignore for some reason. Don't think nobody is noticing your subtle bullshit. 3. This from the idiot who didn't even know what the capital gains tax cut bill was called and wanted me to double count it. None of your claims are substantiated, you are just making stuff up after you were caught in a profound moment of ignorance asking me to DOUBLE COUNT the 97 tax cuts and then didn't know when it started to have an effect on the economy. Try again loser.