Anyways, here's the link to a NY Times article that states that tax cuts are crippling the economy.
From the article:
From 2002 to 2011, forgone revenue from the cuts will account for 37 percent of the federal budget’s descent into the red... (emphasis mine)"Forgone revenue"...it will do you well to understand and know that the only way such a term makes sense is if you start with the assumption that the State owns all the money in the first place. That makes "foregone revenue" the money the State could have taken (should have taken from the point of view of the editorial) but didn't grab yet.
But there's a big difference between a dollar lost and a dollar not taken. If you have a dollar and the State takes it, you've lost a dollar.
But, if you have a dollar and the State doesn't take it, the State hasn't lost a dollar in any way shape or form--unless (like the twit who wrote that article) they assume the money was *all* theirs in the first place.
The twit who wrote that article might have chosen to be honest enough to simply say that the government didn't steal enough to pay for a 37% shortfall between revenue and spending (in other words: the State spent money they didn't actually have), but that would be saying something that could be interpreted as "the government spent too much"--and no Statist/interventionist is gonna trot that out when it's spending they want or wanted.
Question to supporters of the Meddler State: this kinda math doesn't make sense in your home? What in hell makes you think it works on a bigger scale?
No comments:
Post a Comment