If only Democrats would just connect the dots.  Do they have to be so stubborn?  There is something they don't accept either it's because Republicans believe in it or they just don't like the free-market system.  What they don't want to recognize is the way to pay for all their crazy programs is through increase revenue.  You may think, sure they know that, how could they not?  Well they may know it as the means to an end but they're strategy in getting revenues is wrong and in the long run at odds in achieving it.



   This is what they don't get.  Revenue increase comes when the economy is doing well.  It's like a business.  If you need more money you don't increase the price of your product, you try to get more people to buy it.  To get more people to buy a product lowering the price is essential, conversely raising prices can lose money.  If government taxes were looked upon in that way it makes sense to lower taxes.  With lower taxes there is more business activity and hence more revenue.  Business grows and so does job growth and therefore more people paying taxes.   All the talk at the time of Reagan's budget deficits after his mammoth tax decreases flied in the face of the fact that revenues doubled.  Spending increased, of course, but as the economy grew the deficit was less and less a percentage of GDP.  Could you imagine if a Democrat were to announce he was going to pay for a whole slew of social programs through the means of supply side economics?  It can be done.  Why they don't jump at the chance is a mystery.



 It could be that they won't acquiesce the arguments of their rivals.  This is likely.  Liberal arguments are like cut and paste nature.  Kind of like group-think.  Ask what about supply-side economics and they'll say it was a failure and make excuses for it's results.  Ask more than one and you'll get same arguments verbatim.  They'll sprinkle this with bad guy companies and crooks as an example of the dangers of capitalism.  Another theory is that economic growth is antithetical to the mission of liberalism.  If people were doing well  what need is there for social programs?  This is a sophisticated view and gives the left more credit than they deserve.  It implies that they do know how economic growth is achieved and are out to sabotage the process then do things to the economy to actually make it worse on purpose.  It is a cynical view of liberals painting them as socialist that want to overthrow capitalism in the long run.  



 It's much more the case that they are in a loop of denial.  Conservative policies are wrong and that's that.  The left may use jujitsu reasoning in explaining it but they do believe it.  Here's a prediction: a Democrat will come along and put the pieces together, use the right kind of economics to grow the economy in order to get social programs funded.  If this were to happen it would mean conservatives would argue not at the mere expense of a certain program but on a deeper level in that what does it do to the individual when the fruits of his labor are taken care of?  In other words is liberty necessary when there is no reward?