“It’s not doable to say we want to cut spending, we want to reduce the deficit, but we don’t want to increase revenue.” – Colin Powell
Ummmm. OK. Read that again, to be sure you understand what he said.
Now, tell me: why is it impossible for the government to cut spending without increasing revenue? If “they” say “OK, the Office for the Study of the Mating Habits of the Seven-Striped Salamander is going to be closed in the interest of budgetary prudence,” then what is there about said closure that demands an increase in revenue?
You might also like:
- Oh, NOW the individual mandate is a tax
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a … - Five questions for Obamacare supporters
Do you think a single person anywhere has read the entire, 1,017-page bill? Does it concern you tha… - Let’s hear it for fiscal discipline!
Capping weeks of intense negotiation, this week congressional leaders delivered a solid, immediately… - Senator Nelson sells his vote
Senator Ben Nelson had held up the Senate version of “health care reform” with objections of princip… - Republicans to kill seniors, children; rich must pay their fair share
“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characte…
Obviously you’re working from the standpoint of a mere citizen wherein you try that crazy insanity called “living within your means”. That wouldn’t apply to our government who work under the premise of “Spend more than you have, ask for more to cover the overage, spend even more.” It’s a very different system. Also, how cool would it be to go to your boss and say “Well, I’ve decided I don’t want to live within my means, so if you could give me a larger paycheck I would appreciate it. And no, you won’t get any additional work or benefit from me by doing so, I just want more.” I know Mister C would love to do that.
I’m just surprised that Powell expressed such a direct contradiction so plainly. Usually you have to suss the BS out. 🙂