Did you or did you not say that? (You did and it is a flat out falsehood.)
Supply side does not involve ANY deficit spending because tax cuts pay for themselves in growth (in the 80s it was 40% MORE revenue after the cuts). Spending is entirely separate from revenue---a point you seem incapable of grasping. In the 20s, tax cuts were neutral---but we had surpluses because spending FELL.
Did you or did you not say "we are in our fourth decade of SUPPLY SIDE SPENDING. . ." You did and it's flat out wrong---supply side does not involve ANY spending. It is about investment. Then, rather than admit you don't know the slightest thing about supply side theory, you called names and tried to dodge.
Did you or did you not say that supply side "was supposed to be temporary"? You did and it's flat wrong. Supply side cuts are to be permanent and EVEN adjusted further downward as the economy grows. The investment side was NEVER temporary, and if you had ever listened to Art Laffer's lectures you would know that.
The fact that you are completely ignorant of supply side theory is one thing, but to blatantly lie and say you did not say what your post clearly said tells us volumes about your character---or lack thereof. I even gave you an out to say your language was imprecise, but you were too venal or stupid to take it.
Oh look another festival of lies from the liar. You’re lying about what I said AGAIN. You’re just a no good filthy lying bag of feces. I will not be reading anymore of your pathetic bags of lies, so you might as well stop.
Here’s what I said
While pure theoretical supply side is about tax cuts, in practice since Reagan got elected it’s included massive spending.
It shows that EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE in your post 150 is a FILTHY DISGUSTING PATHETIC WORTHLESS LIE. And the fact that you continue proves that you’re a worthless human being. Be gone filth.