LOL twoplustwo is way ahead of you on this subject. See quote below.
I looked up Glenn Beck, I don't see anything in his biography that validates your point. What gives him more training in this subject than you or I? Someone with a recent bachelors of economics, and mediocre logic ability, should not make this mistake. They will also be able to reason about economics problems better than a person well-versed in logic but not economics.
[ QUOTE ]
His point was that the statement:
cuts = more revenue
Can not be true in all cases, and it is illogical to say this, as you did. There must be a point, .0001%, at which cuts do not generate more revenue. There must be another point, 100%, at which cuts do generate more revenue. Without providing an analysis, it is impossible to determine on which side of the point we are on.
I strongly suspect that at the current levels, cuts generate less revenue in a vacuum, it just makes more sense than the lawyerly arguments on the other side.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post7962074