Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Oxymoron. There is no such thing as unfunded tax cuts. That's like saying "dry water" or "sunny night time". You don't spend money that you didn't get, unless apparently you are the Federal government.
|
Then the natural conclusion to your argument to cut taxes to zero, because none of that would ever be considered spending. If you're dealing with a situation where you're running a balanced budget or surplus, then cutting taxes to the point where it throws you into deficit is damn sure spending.
Quote:
|
This on the other hand is spending, and along with the trillions the Democratic controlled Congress used to bail out the automakers in order to keep those union contributors from loosing their overpaid jobs, banks and other thieves has got us into this hole. Sniveling about someone not paying enough is besides the point.
|
Got it. You hate unions. You hate that middle class Americans enjoy a living wage in safe working environments at a reasonable number of working hours per week. You hate that they've banded together, bargaining collectively so that they might have a bit of leverage against the deep pockets of the corporations and their armies of lawyers.
Quote:
|
Well wrong on both counts.
|
You offer zero evidence of it. A return to the Clinton era tax rates solves most of the deficit over the next 4 years. It solves 40% of it over the next 20. You can see the numbers in black and white.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html
Meanwhile, you offer no evidence of your position except "nuh uh!" or to immediately dismiss anything counter to your worldview as "biased trash." Of course you never point out the perceived flaws in the facts presented, but you just dismiss it with a wave of your hand as "biased trash." That's intellectually lazy and a sign of a closed mind. And that means is that the argument can never be advanced because you've decided you've won from the outset. Whatever. Done here. This is like pee-peeing in the wind.