In reality you have no idea what would have happened because you’re waving away 20+ years of other decisions that could have been made by Congress and the President.

I'm not. I think you still don't quite understand the argument. The whole idea of the Laffer curve isn't that other decisions might result in tax revenues increasing. The theory is that the tax cuts themselves have a stimulus effect that is so large that it offsets the reduction in revenue.

*looks around*
Did somebody make that argument? Didn’t read one.

Exactly. I just copied the phrasing that you used - substituting "spending choices" for "tax cuts." To illustrate that your rhetoric doesn't match the arguments that other people are making. No one made that argument, either.

Regardless of whether conservatives like it or not, we're not cutting spending. We're just not. Nearly all federal spending - 90% of it - is on programs that are extremely popular. We're not cutting Social Security, we're not cutting Medicare, we're not cutting veteran's benefits, we're not going to refuse to service the national debt, and we're not cutting the military. This is the lesson of Trump - one that the GOP refused to listen to for the longest time. And we're not cutting Medicaid by very much.

So federal spending is going to be 22-23% of GDP. It just is. It's not going to come down. The programs that the American people - not just liberals but the American people writ large - want the federal government to provide are going to cost about that much money. If you want to get our fiscal house in order, the only option is to get tax collections up to around 19-20% of GDP.

I don't think you need to worry about austerity. Between cutting Social Security and raising taxes more towards 2001 levels, the electorate will choose the latter. The GOP has been telling them for years that they don't have to choose, and that's led to where we are now. When the rubber hits the road, it will stop.