p. 29. AHC: p. 29. AHC: "[T]he leading Democrat[ic] argument against Bush's 2001 tax cut was to demand to know how exactly it would help anyone. . . . To state the manifestly obvious: People would have more money. That's an improvement right there. . . . More money will give people more money. Isn't that the goal? What am I missing?" No citation provided. This is, IMHO, the most egregious lie in the whole chapter. The response is obvious. True, some people will have more money. But others lose the benefit of the government programs that the money had funded. . . . . True, some people will have more money. But others lose the benefit of the government programs that the money had funded.
This guy has an interesting definition of "lie", and clearly didn't proofread this very well. Unless he's intentionally misleading his own readers, that is. The fact that others lose the benefit of the government programs is irrelevant to the point Ann made. Look at the precise point Ann was addressing:
"how exactly it would help anyone"
Anyone does not mean everyone. The author even conceded that "True, some people will have more money...." Thus, far from "lying", the exact point Ann made is one that even the author admits is true. Ann answered the question of how it would benefit anyone by pointing out that reducing taxes will put more money in some people's pockets. The fact that some other people will get less in government handouts doesn't change the truth of Ann's statement in the slightest.
And this is the statement that the author claims is the "most egregious lie in the whole chapter." Doesn't say much for the est of his research, does it?
By the way, footnotes are not always reserved for documenting points in the main text. Sometimes, you may put a tangential, though valuable, argument in a footnote in order not to disturb the flow of the main text. In other words, the mere fact that a footnote does not contain a formal citation to a particular source doesn't make it an improper footnote.
The tax rebate came out of the surplus, you know the extra money. Extra, as in it wasn't being used for anything at the time. I'm curious how surplus money, not in the general fund would have funded something?
Not being snotty to you Jarhead, but rather the quoted source!