Toro
Diamond Member
- Sep 29, 2005
- 112,313
- 65,328
It's definitely semantics...Orwellian semantics.Absolute total nonsense, which presumes, once again, that everything created in the private sector belongs to gubmint first.
Cut with the semantics. It presumes nothing. YOU are doing all the presuming. Tax cuts without spending cuts have to financed by debt. Period. Full-stop. Debt markets don't give a shit about pedantic philosophizing.
The semantics of "tax cuts cost gubmint X" are, without any doubt, presumptive that the funds don't belong to those who earned them...Subtle as the distinction is to you, it exists nonetheless.
I couldn't care less what debt markets (nice abstraction, BTW) think about the matter, as the positive earnings of the productive don't belong to them, either.
In a discussion about the creditworthiness and fiscal balance of the United States, nobody cares about philosophy. Well, almost nobody. In finance, its just intellectual masturbation. That's why no one hires philosophy majors.
How to Read a Balance Sheet