it's actually a small responsive government fix, tax cuts are just a benefit of slicing down government to its Constitutional purpose.
All tax cuts do is raise fees for consumers. Like what happened in Kansas; they cut taxes, which cut tax revenue, which resulted in a deficit, which had to be closed because of Kansas' BBA, which resulted in spending cuts to education, which forced the Kansas State Board of Regents to raise tuition, which forced students to borrow more, which burdened them with more debt, which delays them starting a family and/or buying a house, which harms the economy.
Without people using their houses as ATMs during Bush, his economic growth looks pretty shitty, doesn't it?
And unfunded liabilities, a 43% tax increase and NO cuts to spending like Illinois just did is based on "sound general principles"?
Conservatives screech constantly about "unfunded liabilities", but lack any sort of context for those liabilities. You say there's an unfunded liability...well, over how many years? Because those benefits are paid out over a period of 10, 20, 50 years, not all at once. You cannot possibly know what tax revenue figures will look like that far in advance. You can't even know what those figures look like 1 year in advance! So you assume that the growth in revenues remains constant at its current level and doesn't increase, even if GDP grows? I mean, come on. This is just pathetic and desperate.
Conservatives screech constantly about "unfunded liabilities", but lack any sort of context for those liabilities. You say there's an unfunded liability...well, over how many years?
There are people called actuaries and accountants who use actual math to come up with the projected shortfalls.
So you assume that the growth in revenues remains constant at its current level and doesn't increase, even if GDP grows?
No, stupid static assumptions would be what a liberal uses.
That's why liberal projections are always so laughably bad.