Must be doing great since it made massive cuts in spending like you wanted. Canada on the other hand must be doing terrible since it didn't.

2000 and 2001 in constant dollars and, more importantly 1996 to 2001 in percentage of GDP.

You can easily find this data in wikipedia. The fact that you haven't proves that you care about defending ideology rather than what actually happens in real life.

And if GWB had not implemented the "revenue increasing" tax cuts the debt would have been completely wiped out in a few short years. You don't have to believe me, Alan Greenspan said exactly this when he begged congress to implement tax cuts.

That's what sore losers say when proven wrong by a non-partisan organization.

There's a law of Internet discussions by which the person who first uses the word "lie" is the almost always the one doing so:

From factcheck.org:

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

MS? As best as I know Google was the first company I ever heard doing this back in 2005 or so.

Exactly. A big government/high taxes state that is doing so well that is paying off their debts. Just like the USA under Clinton. Then what happened under budget cuts&tax cuts during Bush Jr presidency? back to record deficits.

Just look at the data: tax cuts with budget cuts have never worked, anywhere.

Seriously, are GOPers collected from a special ed school? Just read down to the paragraph where "opposed" is in bold and you have your answer.

Greece is running a primary surplus right now. So try again.

Spain and Ireland were running large surpluses when the crisis hit. Reality is that being in the doldrums had little to do with large/small state and all to do with a good/bad banking system.

Says you. Meanwhile here, in the real world big state countries like Canada, France and Germany seem to sustain their debts without problems.

Yes creditors asked for a smaller state. What else is news? Yet their interest rates are extremely low, which shows that at the end of the day said creditors are happy with the status quo.

Except that we aren't bringing any more money... minor little detail you left out in your post.

While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.

This should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention to economic data rather than GOP talking points.

p.s. In fact this was a surprise to myself and many other economists. They had guesstimated the peak of the Laffer curve around a top marginal rate of 40-60%, now all evidence suggests is around 75%.

p.p.s. I'm opposed to a marginal rate of 75%, but not because lowering it would mean increased revenues: facts show that it doesn't.

In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state.

To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below.

So what you say might sound very logic and obvious to you, but is contrary to the facts. I.e. the quintessential definition of truthiness: it ought to be right because it sounds right, facts be damned.

Not if it is accompanied with tax cuts. Pay attention.

Spending cuts and tax cuts worked well? Sorry but you are wrong. Spending cuts and minor tax increases have outperformed the former every where.

Except that it hasn't worked anywhere, anyplace. But yeah, aside from that it works.

You have no idea if I support government expenditures or not. I.e. "statist". I'm just pointing out that your figures are flawed, and since you are loosing that argument you try to shift it into ascribing views to me that are not even part of the conversation.

It's clear you lost, you know you lost and you are trying to shift the target by claiming I'm a statist. Thanks for participating. Next!

If you don't understand why the third column is the right one to use in the link you provided, you shouldn't be discussing economic matters in public.

No wonder they are small business owners:

1) they hate employees!

2) The key to growing your two bit operation is hiring people smarter than you and let them do their thing.

3) Given that they are not willing to pay a decent wage, is it any wonder that the only thing they manage t hire are headaches?