Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes and no. If it turns out to be a material misstatement, I'll be pissed. But there are factors which tilt me to believing they actually believe this. For one, 10% is the high end, it could be much less.
|
OK, but doesn't a responsible budget director need to observe that it very well could be more? For him to say "no effect" without more discussion just makes my head spin (although I do kind of wish I had the actual quote before I say these things).
Quote:
|
Second, this is not a straight line calculation. Meaning that even if we hit $50B in additional spending, the net number will be something less than $50B, as the additional $50B in outlays will need to be netted against additional corresponding revenue increases at both the corporate, individual level, and sales tax level.*
|
I don't get this at all. Why would there be any revenue increases "corresponding" to amounts we spend in Iraq? They're entirely separate. I can understand that it's possible there will revenue increases elsewhere that would cancel out the Iraq expenditures. But that doesn't mean that the possible Iraq expenditure doesn't matter to our deficit reduction models. C'mon, you're smarter than this.
Quote:
|
*This is not voodoo economics
|
It might be something similar, unless you know something I don't about the fed government receiving sales tax money as that term is commonly understood...
