- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 37,166
- Reaction score
- 24,124
- Location
- The Bay
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
You're right, I don't consider tax payments being shifted onto other taxpayers to be a reduction in expense, only a re-allotment of the expense. I never said that spending can't be reduced. Please provide information of the last time America spending was lower than the previous year. There's no pot shot at Defense spending, it is the largest discretionary spending item we have, and we spend way more than any country in the world.And you just proved my point about how the left views their pet spending programs - in this case shadily depicted as the "debt obligations of the country."
You admit tax cuts represent revenue lost, but you refuse to acknowledge the impact tax cuts have on those who must pay them as a reduction in their expenses - thereby being totally transparent in how you feel about taxpayer's liabilities to the government.
Moreover, you assume - incorrectly - that spending must never change (except perhaps to ever increase - and that, naturally at the expense of those who must provide said revenues for government to spend) - ergo the country's expenses "remain the same." And then you take a solicitous pot-shot at defense spending - ignorantly assuming the people apparently have no need of national defense? - while in the process admitting that spending is mutable. Plus, you're willing to assume our needs there are far less than those "needs" which leftists and leftists alone get to define - in this case, as never changing (but ever growing). Sorry, but leftists can only hide for so long behind their transparent rhetoric and bogus logic.
If our rhetoric is transparent, and our logic bogus...at least we tell the truth.