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.

You would need a lot more research that (I don't believe has been done) on how often you really need to adjust your thyroid. As cdrugde mentions, thyroid testing is done infrequently - on the order of months. To have an implantable system that fired off that infrequently is probably not really worth it. Dogma is that thyroid hormones don't change that much - at least a clinically noticeable values.

Most of the thyroid replacement research these days seems to be around the issue of 'minor' thyroid hormones, mostly T3. Even with this issue, we don't have good data. And T3 is produced at about 10% of the rate of T4 (the traditional thyroid hormone) so it isn't some scarce little molecule.

But if you really look closely at how much we know about things like this, it's pretty disappointing. This sort of research is slow and very expensive. Given that thyroid pills are pennies and that people do 'pretty well' on that treatment, the impetus to improve things is small.

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.

If you perform enough miracles enough times when THEIR decisions have caused (predictable) problems they will start to believe that THEY are the ones performing miracles.

At which point the problems will pile on.

Be ready to leave before that point. If there are certifications, collect them and keep them current.

Try to interview at least once every quarter. Even if you do not intend to leave your job.

AC's are leaving?

Excellent!

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

You mean they've gimped GIMP?

AIDS, Hepatitis, GC, Herpes - Mac users can get all sorts of infections. It's really scary sometimes.

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.

$650 is "sensibly priced" for a gaming card? That's almost double the cost of a current-gen console and you still have to buy the rest of the computer.

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.