NYT (a.k.a. the New York Times) was foolish enough to float the following opinion:
“It has been obvious all along that cutting government services alone is not a solution to either the budget deficit or the mounting national debt.”
Which is a pitch slow and easy right over home plate. Too delicious to pass up. Here’s the response:
“False, and verifiably so. The only people to whom ‘[i]t has been obvious all along’ that cutting spending won’t solve a debt and deficit problem are liberals. As a matter of fact, cutting spending well below revenues will solve a deficit problem immediately, and will eventually solve a debt problem. See, if you spend less than you make, you cannot, by definition, be in a deficit. ‘Puter believes the term is ‘surplus.’ Let’s say it together, NYT editors:’Sur-plus.’ And, if you’re taking in more than you’re spending, you can use the surplus (there’s that word again) to pay down the debt.”
Indeed, he hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer. Spending less than you take in cannot mathematically produce a deficit. I’ll add the following Curmudgeonly Gem Of Insight:
“Spending less than you take in is always an option, usually a good idea, and the difference between controlling your future and being a dumbass.”
Curmudgeons do not state things are true when they are not. This is why I don’t have a job at the NYT. Well that and the fact that I’d scare the editors and freak out the mailroom. But that’s their loss!