Maybe it's time for tea? All kidding aside in the limited time I have spent here I have noticed that there are some very smart conservatives here. I'm guessing there may be a rebuttal or two yet that I will have to think about before responding.
Hmmm... Well Johnny DooWop seems to be convinced that your link to the site "Tax Foundation", made it very clear that cutting spending, all whilst lowering taxes boosts economic indexes was wrong. Except that the site didn't say that, know why? Because no one knows for sure, know why no one knows for sure? Coz there are WAY too many intangibles involved to effectively model, and measure economic indexes. Even the best modeled indexes like the CPI, as an example are results based; they are not indicative of factor based models.
In lay terms, all the indexes available that I'm aware of are not predictive, they are reflective, and they ONLY reflect what data is input into them. Does any of it equal economic understanding, unique to the conditions present in complex economies like that if the USA, and the globe? Not a chance! However, consider this.
Game theory suggests that sacrifices are intuitively arrived at, given certain circumstances, and they are predictable in almost all situations where they purport to return a result that improves the players position prior to the sacrifice being made. If I'm a tax paying individual, or as large as a corporation, the theory holds true. When you have more to sacrifice, it holds consistent that, the player tends to lean towards improving their position by making calculated moves.
In a nut-shell, and analogous to economies, when we have more money in our pockets, whether individual, or corporations, the inclination to spend our surplus, or even the perception of surplus to the furtherance of our position, is a logical axiom. Governments that tax, are a hindrance to this theory, in that, Governments are not players in the game; they are the game board, or the framework within which the players are to make their moves.
Tim-