Quote from Mav88:
1. You can't have it both ways. Either Republican policy is responsible for 97-2000 or Clinton's policies are not responsible for anything. Republican growth rates are higher, period, depsite what you orinially claimed, and to say that the republican revolution had no impact on 95-97 is nonsense.
2. go learn something about economics and models. Models are not reality, and only as good as the assumptions put into them. The CBO is historically not very accuarte and uses a keynsian model that just failed to predict the effects of stimulus.
3. The maturing argument bolsters the republican case, but you are so hopelessly confused, why explain the obvious. The numbers you are talking about MUST be calculated using models, if you don't understand that much then go back to school.
Still waiting on you to elaborate on these policies you speak of - I clearly mentioned the particular Clinton policy that led to economic improvement while you are talking about a 97 policy without any mention of the pre-97 Republican policy that had an impact on the budget.
2. I stopped taking your 'economics' less seriously when you wanted me to double count the capital gains tax cuts even after I already listed them.
3. Another rant about models, still waiting on the Republican policies that led to the pre-97 growth.
