- Banned
- #21
I understand why people consider the distinction between tax cuts and government programs important. However, Obama's phrasing is perfectly clear and accurate. While it's not entirely neutral, it's certainly not inflammatory either.
Consider the common definition of spend (dictionary.com): to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of
Tax cuts are certainly money expended and disposed of (from the perspective of the government). The Bush tax cuts in particular were tax cuts that were paid and and disbursed: checks were mailed out to millions of Americans. Obama's phrasing is also in keeping with standard macroeconomic language: deficit spending refers not merely to policies involving expenditures but to the difference between expenditures and revenues (ie, taxes). In general, the study of fiscal policy recognizes that spending and revenues are fundamentally linked.
Baruch argued that the difference between a tax cut and spending in a government program is that
the money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people.
This is a sentiment that, if taken literally (and I doubt this is how Baruch intended it), seems to suggest that taxes are inherently illegitimate in all circumstances. That is a notion that I've seen many times on this forum, and one that I still cannot fathom. To suggest that the government has no right to collect taxes or to hold assets is contrary to the law and to our constitution. It flies in the face of our culture and our history. It ignores the legitimacy of our democratically elected representatives. It's a pernicious concept that justifies destroying even the most worthwhile of government programs on the grounds that their method of funding is immoral.
Once again, for the slow , the ONLY way tax cuts are Government spending is if the Government owns all the money. And THAT is NOT in the Constitution.