Quote: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.

 

Ahh, Jeb's little baby, the 4% growth project. Well, yes, I guess I do consider it more conservative to plan on growth similar to what we have had in the last decadeor two, and to fund expenditures via taxation of existing money, than to hope for economic growth that we haven't since ... when? ... 

Also, not sure it is fiscally conservative to base a lot of the boom on oil prices rising to double what they are now, or depending on the Crain and Crain study for where to make up the shortfalls. I guess my definition of fiscally conservative is that I would prefer our expenditures be funded from revenue that exists, rather than hoping for revenue that historically doesn't exist anywhere near as often. 

---