Looks like you clearly meant tax decrease - thus the massive spending.
You said, "We could do those [Buffet tax increases and job creation] now of course, but that would sink the dollar ever further as the governments spending fell further into deficit"
My reply, translated from the carefully modulated and civil original version <g> was "what the hell are you talking about, Buster? In what world do tax increases and job creation equate with massive spending? That is preposterous and I am incredulous that you would make such an assertion." Except that I mistakenly said "cuts" instead of "increases." Which blew the whole effect.
The above interpretation, however, is confirmed by my following statement, which was, "I understand that you can create jobs by buying them with government money but that's not a given. As for raising taxes, that's a money maker, at least short term, which is where your interest is." In other words, they are not budget busters. I'm "clearly" questioning your notion that your Buffet increases and job creation would be cost prohibitive.
Now, I understand that if you perceive job creation as inherently costly, you might not have gotten my tease, that it might not be natural for you to see it as incredulity, and my mistake certainly confused things, but that's what it was. I wasn't dancing. I continue to operate in good faith. I don't do dancing. |
