"House Republican leadership put a giant bullseye on Medicaid, with the intent to strip Americans of their healthcare benefits to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations."
I hate the language around the federal budget. First, how budget figures are reporting in 10 year intervals, when everything else is reported in 1 year intervals. So everything sounds 10 times bigger. When like only 5% of the population ever looks at the federal budget, this creates a TON of confusion.
Second, how reductions in tax (like to the rich) are reported as “giveaways”. Taxes go in, not out. That’s a reduction in revenue, not an expenditure or liability. You can say, “shift the tax burden even more onto the lower and middle classes”. Then it’s actually accurate. Getting fired from your job is not an expense, it’s a loss of income. Same thing.
It might be semantically incorrect but it is still a decrease in tax for the rich which given the current disparity in wealth frankly is barely a distinction at all.
You’re just dealing with literal definition versus an inferred result, however you know this, you literally chose to deconstruct it in your original comment.
Laymans use imperfect allegories, that doesn’t make them incorrect. If the message’s intent is clear to imply that the only correct interpretation is the literal one is just bad faith.
I hate the language around the federal budget. First, how budget figures are reporting in 10 year intervals, when everything else is reported in 1 year intervals. So everything sounds 10 times bigger. When like only 5% of the population ever looks at the federal budget, this creates a TON of confusion.
Second, how reductions in tax (like to the rich) are reported as “giveaways”. Taxes go in, not out. That’s a reduction in revenue, not an expenditure or liability. You can say, “shift the tax burden even more onto the lower and middle classes”. Then it’s actually accurate. Getting fired from your job is not an expense, it’s a loss of income. Same thing.
It might be semantically incorrect but it is still a decrease in tax for the rich which given the current disparity in wealth frankly is barely a distinction at all.
It is factually incorrect. It is not giving them money, it is taking less money from them.
You’re just dealing with literal definition versus an inferred result, however you know this, you literally chose to deconstruct it in your original comment.
Laymans use imperfect allegories, that doesn’t make them incorrect. If the message’s intent is clear to imply that the only correct interpretation is the literal one is just bad faith.