Bear along because this is important. I need a minute to get this off my chest because im a sucker for accuracy and everything lined up nice and neat.

It’s about nets. not butterfly nets or fishing nets. Accounting nets.

remember that bonehead comment SHS made the other day:

“The average American family would get a $4,000 raise under the President’s tax cut plan. So how could any member of Congress be against it?”

OK we all know it was wrong and why - sorta.

And then some smart twitters made an apple analogy:

“If I give 10 apples to one person and no apples to nine people, the average person has one apple. Why are nine people mad at me”

yes this was clever, and it isnt bad - as far as it goes - it’s short, sweet and simple and paints a good picture.

AND IT’S WAY WRONG. Wrong because it is too short and omits too much. And it legitimizes this “net gain” argument.

There are other moving parts here not just the one “what the average person gets”

There’s also what some people have to give up - this is the insidious, criminal part - the other side of the coin buried in the “average” $4k number

It’s not “I” giving 10 apples away to 10 people as if they fell from the government sky
Six of those apples were taken away from other people

Yes, this makes the analogy more complicated. and also more accurate. because it’s not even “an average $4000 raise”. Some people will have actual net losses

And some of those people who are giving up apples dont have any reserve apples of their own while others who are getting most of them ALREADY HAVE LOTS OF APPLES IN THEIR PERSONAL RESERVES.

I said six of those apples were taken away from other people. what about the other 4? Well it’s hard to show deficits in a simple analogy or picture. They are not yet grown, future, fictional apples, for lack of a better way to explain.

The real scenario has to include how many you started with, whether you gained or lost, how many you ended up with, and how many you need to, you know, eat and survive.

The real crime in her statement was not the use of averages. It was the unspoken netting of some pluses and some minuses. It was in not saying that part of those “raises” are paid for with other peoples actual pay cuts.