From: The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <>
Subject: Re: $1.1 trillion deficit... discuss
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id x97mr715273ioi.120.1518102618755;
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:10:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id m17mr43563otf.11.1518102618677; Thu,
08 Feb 2018 07:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 07:10:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=Le5dZgoAAABd6rCXyeArNxw5XqzfoFCo
References: <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: $1.1 trillion deficit... discuss
From: "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:10:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 17
X-Received-Bytes: 2186
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1493962889
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> I know that the Republican dogma is traditionally anti-Keynesian, but that previously didn’t
mean cutting taxes and increasing government spending when the economy is already in danger of
> So now we have a consistent pattern of Democratic Presidents inheriting large deficits and cutting
them dramatically over their terms followed by Republican Presidents immediately blowing those
deficits back up.  
> As a squishy fiscal conservative, this just raises so much cognitive dissonance in me, I would
love to know how others are processing this.

Not well - I'm okayish w/ the tax cuts - esp on the corporate side - but the spending increase bums
me out.

As I've often said - and will continue to - we don't need to "cut" - just freeze spending and let
the economy catch up.