It’s like you haven’t read a word I’ve said. I’ll make this very simple.
-
Please tell me what is “moral” about pointing out the implied assumption in the “pay for tax cut” position that the current level of not only government spending, but also of government spending growth is a complete necessity, and cannot possibly be reduced or even slowed, lest the world economy would collapse.
-
You see nothing dishonest about pretending you believe something is valid and worthy of debate on its technical details, when in actuality it is a debate you don’t even think is relevant or necessary…just for the purpose of tricking someone into listening to you?
-
Please tell me what it is you’ve said that I haven’t heard (or even directly responded to, for that matter).