An increase in spending is just that, an increase. Not a cut. That’s the only point. When the dems claim the evil Republicans are cutting programs it’s a lie.

BTW, I think its foolish for the GOP to be asking for more tax cuts in a time of war.

I m not sure what you re trying to get at QiaB.

I’ll tell you then.

Whenever the notion of rolling back future tax cuts that have already been approved by Congress is mentioned in these comment threads, someone will apply exactly the logic you have used above.

However, that logic somehow becomes transformed. A tax cut that has not yet been realized becomes as real as rocks and any suggestion to delay or repeal these future cuts somehow becomes a tax increase.

Nothing to do with you personally, randy. You may or may not have ever made such an argument. I have used your comment as an exemplar of one half of the familiar presentation.

If your taxes were scheduled to be reduced from $107 to $100 next year, but part of that reduction is postponed or rolled back, that seems to be a “tax increase.”

 Now let s say the whiny gift recipient said  But, you promised to give me $107.30, but you only gave me $107, so you cut my gift . Nonsense. The recipient never had the .30 to begin with, and you can t  cut something you never had.

Now let’s say Paris Hilton said “But you promised to cut my taxes by $7, but you really only cut it by $5, so you raised my taxes. Nonsense. Ms. Hilton never received the $7 cut to begin with, and you can’t “raise” a tax rate that was never in effect.

Stand by for an entertaining rationalization.

“If I give you a gift $100 this year, and a gift of $107 the next year, I have not “cut” your gift. ”

“Now let’s say the whiny gift recipient said “But, you promised to give me $107.30, but you only gave me $107, so you cut my gift”. Nonsense. The recipient never had the .30 to begin with, and you can’t “cut” something you never had. (I use the specific numbers I did because in the actual spending bill being debated, the goal is to reduce the rate of growth in some programs from 7.3%, to 7.0% – the equivalent of .30 per $100)”

Democrats…said it included the first cut in education funding in a decade

So this means that any previous claims about how Bush cut education spending were lies, right?

Dugger

The real reason the bill didn’t pass was there was not enough pork attached for Republican swine to belly up to the trough.

“Republicans said they may have lost votes because this year’s bill, down $1.5 billion from last year, included no special projects or earmarks for lawmakers. “You take those out and you lose the incentive,” said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who voted for the bill.”

Filthy swine on both sides of the aisle.

“the bill represented more spending than the entire budgets of Russia or China.”