Originally Posted by
wibblefox
I think it's really short sighted to interpret the tax cuts as money disappearing, this is money that Americans will hold on to themselves. These are policies that a lot of people believe in, so it's kind of dishonest to just look at the final figure and say "omg Hillary is lower!!1" when that money is still in the economy at all percentiles.
This is a weird, but creative strawman. I'm impressed you could make it sound like I'm talking about something so so much different than I actually am.
First, my point was that his skills as an economist aren't quite up to par compared to his er... skills as a businessman. I think soaring government debt proves that, except in exemplary situations (where the country has bigger problems - i.e. huge recessions). Nowhere did I even imply that the money was disappearing...?
Second, I actually agree with what you said, mostly. Deficits can be useful and helpful when used in particular ways during the right time in the business cycle. However, accumulated debt is a different story. There's no good reason to believe that getting to a point where the debt to gdp ratio is 143% is a good trade-off for unnecessary economic stimulus.