Again, I think you need to understand what the original post said. Because you're not arguing what is being said.
I read exactly what was said and I don't appreciate the condescending tone.
His platform for his 2012 bid: priority 1) cut spending, especially w/r/t national defense and the drug war. His only "day-1 promise" has been to submit a balanced budget to congress. He advocates cutting most programs by 43%
"Cut everything by X%" sounds like a way to avoid making decisions.
Your quote. Right there. The way that's worded suggests that most
programs, your words and not mine, need to be cut by 43%. Not that spending needs to be cut by 43% in total, which is a different matter. Greenback said that cutting 43% from every program is away to make those cuts without making decisions. He is correct.
If you all continue with this ridiculous argument that cutting every program 43% is a horrible idea and shows a lack of a plan and an inability to make decisions and that is what his plan in, then I'm going to start saying Obama thinks the Star Spangled Banner needs to be 'changed' and isn't an American.
How is it ridiculous when it's your words? If you meant it differently than it's worded, I understand that and it's fine. Clear up the confusion instead of continuing to quote the same misleading sentence and say there's a ridiculous argument. Please choose:
1. Johnson's position is that federal spending should be reduced by 43% to be met with varying cuts across many programs.
2. Johnson's position is that federal spendign should be reduced by 43% by cutting most programs by 43% exactly.
2 is a ridiculous position that avoids making decisions. That's what you stated his position as above. 1 is at least...comprehensible.
Tambourine Man wrote:
Mitt's a tool used for scooping white balls out of the dirt. A catcher, if you will.