Quote:Well, you , Kotite and I did, anyway. ChiefJag had something of substance to say also, but StroudCrowd went radio silent, and jj just popped in with his occasional inanity. Ironically enough, didn't see anything at all from Jaguar Warrior who made the comment you replied to, even though he was kind enough to link the original stuff from Trump where I got my info on his tax plans. Still nothing at all from them about Trump being less fiscally conservative than Clinton.

 

What do you want to know?

 

Trump's plan requires 3.5-4% economic growth along with budgetary cuts to keep a balanced budget. If he doesn't achieve the required economic growth despite lowering corporate taxes, regulation, and trade balancing, then obviously the budget will remain unbalanced and debt spending will increase because there will not be enough tax revenue.

 

His opponents plan to raise corporate taxes, increase regulation, and implement TPP hinges on the economy remaining at 2% growth. If it does, then she will have a much easier time balancing the budget than Trump would. If economic growth falls to 0-1% then there will not be enough tax revenue to balance the budget.

 

By your definition, Hillary can be considered more "fiscally conservative" because her plan doesn't require the amount of speculation that Trump's does. It is more "fiscally conservative" to expect the economy to remain at 2%, rather than expect it to double to 4%. In your opinion, It is more "fiscally conservative" to balance the budget with high taxes on the status quo economy than to lower taxes, grow the economy, and use the new tax revenue to balance the budget.

---