|

Obama’s doublespeak on federal taxes

Doublespeak is language that intentionally disguises, distorts or reverses the meaning of words. It is language used by unscrupulous politicians to manipulate rather than communicate with citizens.

In his bestselling book Doublespeak, William Lutz notes that doublespeak is not an accident or a “slip of the tongue.” Instead, it is a deliberate, intentional, and calculated misuse of language. Doublespeak’s purpose is to mislead and distort reality; it avoids or shifts responsibility.

As these attributes indicate, doublespeak can be seen as analogous to doublethink and Newspeak, concepts created by George Orwell in 1984. Using doublethink, a person could hold two opposing ideas in his or her mind at the same time, fully believing in both ideas. “Newspeak” was the official language used to express the ideas of doublethink.

Obama’s progressive administration uses Orwellian doublespeak in news conferences and campaign speeches throughout the country. The latest example is that extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 is a middle class tax cut.

Actually it isn’t a tax cut at all because taxes will remain at the level they have been for a decade with higher wage earners and small business will have their taxes increased during a recession, if Obama has his way.

Obama says the country can’t afford the “costs” of tax cuts for the wealthy. Where are the “costs” associated with keeping your own money? Taxpayers, regardless of income, don’t “pay” for the “costs” of tax cuts; they simply keep more of the money they earn.

Taxpayers don’t pay for “tax cuts,” we pay for “government spending.” It’s the spending that “costs” us money, not tax cuts! Obama is arguing that the baseline of government spending should encompass all our earnings and anything the IRS doesn’t take, “costs” the government.

A slight variation of Obama’s doublespeak is when he says it’s wrong for the rich to be “given” more money. He says, the government can’t afford it! Isn’t the money earned in the possession of those who earned it and is taken from them through an overt action of the government called taxation?

The Obama doublespeak makes people think that cutting taxes is a handout. You have the direction of the flow of money backwards, Mr. President. The government doesn’t give the taxpayers the money; they take it from those who earn it.

Is the government “spending” money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Ironically, real spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, isn’t called spending, it’s called “investments” in education, welfare programs, etc.

Another example of doublespeak in the Obama campaign, which shows complete disdain for individual success and exceptionalism, was Vice President Biden saying that Mitt Romney’s agenda would not help “working families.”

What is the doublespeak criterion in order to be a working family? Regardless of the efforts put forth by the wealthy and upper middle class, Obama’s progressives do not consider these people to be among the “working families.” Again, doublespeak’s purpose is to manipulate not inform.

The Obama administration brilliantly created a new standard using doublespeak for his stimulus spending, by announcing that it would “create or save” a predetermined number of jobs. Obama knew no one would be able to hold his administration accountable for “saving jobs,” which can not be measured. Brillant!

Since the government can not afford to “spend” all this money on tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama says this money will help reduce the deficit. The president’s doublespeak doesn’t mention that the total amount saved annually would equal only 8.5 days of government spending and would cost untold jobs from small businesses.

However, the government considers a saved job the same as a created job not realized.

Obama also states that increased taxes will stimulate consumer spending and the economy. What is not explained with doublespeak is how government spending the money it takes in taxes, stimulates the economy any more than the wage earner spending their own money in the first place?

Another great example of presidential doublespeak is stating that tax cuts benefits the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. This example further manipulates class envy by insinuating that tax cuts for the wealthy come from the middle class. Keeping your own money affects neither the wealthy nor the middle class.

Our nation was founded on the idea of free speech – of open, honest discussion of ideas and issues. When our government uses doublespeak, the people begin to become cynical and distrustful toward those organizations. It is only through clear language that we have any hope of defining, debating, and deciding the issues of public policy that confront us.”

Share:

28 Comments

  1. Ted Biondo

    This Doublespeak Post is open for comments. It has been fixed to allow comments.

  2. JRM_CommonSense

    Are we to make the assumption that the members of the Republican party have never, will never, and/or could never practice the fine art of Doublespeak? After all, I wouldn’t want to make an “interpretation” of this post that could possibly be slightly baised.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM – I think the Republicans and conservatives probably use double speak WRT defense spending, pentagon, taxes, etc. I can’t think of anything off hand but I’m sure they have a similar doublespeak. It’s just that the Dem’s financial doublespeak is so easy to pick out!

  3. No, but the hypocrites of Liberal Left have elevated it to an art form.

  4. JRM_CommonSense

    Well I guess that is just another thing my fellow Republicans couldn’t get right by themselves. They needed the other party (the government) to show them how to do it…………

  5. JRM_CommonSense

    I understand Ted. I know you are a very busy guy and don’t have time to read things that don’t support your position on stuff. It makes perfect sense why you cannot “think of anything offhand” and it is easier to just pick the spoon fed stuff and not do any deep research. I’m with you on that! My life has become much easier the last day or so since you guys have finally convinced me of the truth. My research and reading time has gone almost to zero since I have all of my positions handed to me sterilized and shrink wrapped with extra strong doublespeak tape. Life is not good!

    • Ted Biondo

      Hey JRM, today my voluntary efforts helped save a million or so for taxpayers. What did you do with your spare time, buddy? Since you are so smart and above it all, what examples of doublespeak for conservatives can you think of?

  6. JRM_CommonSense

    Sorry, that’s “Life is now good!” Sometimes conversion is a slippery slope, but I am committed to staying on the new straight and narrow. I think I need to get to a 12 step meeting today to keep me going.

  7. JRM_CommonSense

    Hey Ted, I don’t participate in pharisaic behavior when it comes to what I do in the service of others. But I have a small collection of Republican doublespeak that I can share with you since you asked that question as well.

    1. Republicans who are gearing up to repeal the health care reform bill ( for the 34th time) are trying to make the case that health care reform is bad for jobs. They claim that 650,000 jobs will be lost as a result of health care reform, based on an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. However, the actual estimate by the CBO is that around half a percent will choose to leave their jobs voluntarily. Plus there is no discussion of why the principles of supply and demand would not have a large impact with 30 – 50 million new customers being added.

    2. Republicans have claimed for over 11 years that tax cuts create jobs. Before the Bush tax cuts America was prosperous and strong. Jobs were plentiful. After 10 years of benefits for the 1%, America is broke and jobs are scarce. However, they blame all of that on Obama, even though Republicans held the Presidency for 8 of those years. Now they claim that allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire will “kill” jobs…the jobs their tax cuts failed to produce. Now they claim that stopping the government giveaway to the 1% will “punish the job creators”…those who reaped the rewards for the last decade and failed to create jobs….

    3. Republicans have raised holy hell about National Labor Relations Board issues from the legitimacy of Obama’s recess appointments, the supposedly biased nature of his nominees, and the NLRB’s “activist agenda”. The doublespeak in this situation is so warped and misguided that it is impossible to explain what they are really talking about and not sound like you are on really powerful mind altering drugs.

    4. On Thursday, February 2, 2012 (Feb 2), John Boehner, took to the airwaves for his latest condemnation of President Obama proposal to require banks to roll over mortgages so home-owners can take advantage of current low interest rates. Boehner said: “All it does is delay the clearing of the market. As soon as the market clears and we understand where the prices really are — [that] will be the most important thing we can do in order to improve home values around the country.” In researching what he meant by “clearing the market”, we find it means that Republicans want every homeowner that can possibly get foreclosed to hurry up and get it over with. They’re saying to these homeowners, “Quit trying to hold onto your future. Just give up and move into an apartment, a cardboard box or whatever. Declare bankruptcy. Give your home back to the banks, already!!” But Boehner wants to make people think it means something else.

    5. Republican doublespeak at its finest is when Paul Ryan claims that the imposition of austerity “prevents austerity”? Just as funny as Pelosi saying that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.

    Do you need more?

  8. JRM_CommonSense

    That’s 8 years, not 87 ——– maybe someone will volunteer to fix my fat fingers.

    • Ted Biondo

      Fixed the 87. I understand your #3 and #4 and Boehner is an idiot. However, your “pharisaic behavior” comment derives in the rationalization from those who do little in the service of others, but belittle those who do. Sorry, that I don’t have the time left to do the in depth study of the issues as you do.

  9. #1. “Those who suspect that the real purpose of ObamaCare is to drive everyone into a single-payer, government-run health insurance scheme may be onto something. A new report from the House Ways and Means Committee finds that 71 of the top 100 companies in America would benefit financially by dropping health insurance coverage for their employees, thereby forcing them to purchase such coverage through government-run exchanges, where they might also obtain premium subsidies at taxpayer expense.

    “Broken Promise: Why ObamaCare Will Force Americans to Lose the Health Care Coverage They Have and Like” paints a grim picture of a future in which, notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s promises to the contrary, Americans will be forced out of health plans that they like and into those deemed acceptable by Washington bureaucrats.”

    Read more at: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/11249-obamacare%E2%80%99s-employer-mandate-means-less-not-more-employer-based-health-insurance

    A majority of Americans STILL don’t support ObamaTaxCare.

    #2. The combination of excessive government regulations, the world’s HIGHEST corporate tax rates, and an incompetant, arrogant, President, does suppress business growth.

    Re: #3, See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140770647994692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

    #4. That is the free market. If you buy something that you can’t afford, choices have to be made. Why should those of us who were fiscally prudent, subsidise (through higher bank fees) those who chose poorly? Don’t forget to thank all those Democrats who kept telling us that nothing was wrong with Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae (and were well-compensated for their services) when regulations were proposed (by Republicans).

    #5. An empty space. This must be where you posted all of your coherent thoughts.

    As to #6, I would put Ryan’s comment not as double-speak, but not as clearly defined as it could have been.

    It’s something like the old Fram oil filter commercials, where the mechanic’s punch line is: “You can pay me now (oil and filter change), or pay me later (replacing the engine, due to lack of maintenance) “. Translated for the simpletons of the Left, that means cutting expenses back now will cost less in both money and personal misery, than being forced to cut a lot more later.

    I understand that the concept of “cost” is difficult for the Liberal Left to understand, since you believe the tax fairy, riding his unicorn, magically produces big bundles of money for the government to “appropriate” to fulfill all your other fantasies, but you really need to make the effort to face up to reality.

  10. JRM_CommonSense

    Oops, I guess we aren’t playing by Ted’s rules so he is going to take his ball and go home. Real adult response.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM – I don’t even know what you are talking about! What kind of rear-end are you trying to be now? I simply stated that I’m a busy person, and don’t have time to waste going into deep research on only your comments. I need to move on to other important topics on TIFs and real estate assessments which are coming out in a couple of weeks and need to help taxpayers save more money from government of all types.

      I don’t do this blog only for your whims. I’m volunteering my time for this blog and I’m going to use that time to the greatest advantage of taxpayers and for local info.

  11. Perhaps he can’t stomach any more of your inane blather, and took a break. Replies to your inane drivel are created on OUR time schedule, not yours.

  12. JRM_CommonSense

    You guys get funnier and funnier. Sorry for inconveniencing y’all by asking you to defend or support the positions you take. Sorry for answering your questions, when you ask them, and then having my thoughts and research called “inane blather” because it challenges your positions or you don’t like what I say.

    Maybe I should stop bothering you and let you go back to saving taxpayers money (Ted) and doing nothing of value (SNuss). After all, instead of wasting my time talking to people who couldn’t care less about opinions other than their own, I could volunteer even more of my time to supervising the 3 community gardens that I started this summer, tutoring more sessions of the GED program than I already do, doing more Meals on Wheels runs than I already do, doing more handyman repair work for the elderly and infirm than I already do, putting in more hours at the hospital that I already do, doing more free lawn mowing for the elderly than I already do, and I might as well add another $200,000 to the charity that I have been funding for 5 years now.

    Oh sorry, I must have learned that pharisaic behavior of bragging about all of my good deeds from someone who writes a blog or someone who constantly says that Republicans give more to charity than anyone else. Have a nice day!

    • Ted Biondo

      Thanks JRM for finally owning up to the fact you are a liberal through and through – Conservative my … finger!

  13. JRM_CommonSense

    Well Ted, you can take your finger and …… Once again, you have reached the wrong conclusion by trying to “interpret” what someone has said rather than just reading their words. Putting your own biased words into someone else’s mouth is a very unsanitary trait you frequently exhibit. But I am sure it makes you feel better and you will continue to do it and continue to find yourself having to take your foot out of your own mouth. Good luck with that, and have a nice day.

  14. Well, JRM, if you don’t want your comments called “inane blathering”, I could describe them as “Male Bovine Excrement”, or MBE. The problem is, MBE is useful as fertilizer. I haven’t found any such redeeming quality for your postings.

    BTW, I am not the one who investigated, compiled the data, and discovered the fact that conservatives are more charitable with THEIR OWN money, time, and even blood. I merely tried to educate you Leftists who are ignorant of those facts. I will make another attempt to do so:

    Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

    If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

    — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

    — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    — People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

    Read the rest at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

    Any questions?

  15. JRM_CommonSense

    This was a cute trick some in the conservative camp tried to pull in the lead up to the 2008 elections. Could you reference data from 2011 or 2012. One would think that if that small group of conservatives that tried it 4 years ago were going to try it again, they would at least update their old data. Want to make sure you are not spreading finely aged, but irrelavant MBE like you are prone to do.

  16. This study is a couple of years old, so it was done with the most up-to-date information available AT THAT TIME. As I recall, it wasn’t done as a snap-shot in time, but as the trend over a number of years.

    Trends tend to continue along their projected paths, so your attempt to “move the goalposts”, while not unexpected, is still a rather pathetic attempt by you to discredit an unbiased study.

    I suggest that you contact Prof. Brooks and see if he is still accumulating data, to update his study.

  17. JRM_CommonSense

    Wasn’t attempting to move the goal posts! Was attempting to say that why try to turn the same crank that failed the last time. Arguing about who gives more to charity and who releases more tax returns than the other pretending that either of those two things (or hundreds like them) indicate who would be a better President (or pick any other public office), or who is more righteous that another, is a ridiculous enterprise, no matter which side is doing it. It is as effective as calling people “lefty looneys” or “righty retards”. It may make the person shouting it feel superior, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It makes us sound like 3rd grade playgound bullies making taunts like “your mother’s so fat that….” or “you’re so ugly, your folks had to tie a porkchop around your neck so the dog would play with you…”.

    When conservatives are so set on dividing their own members by who is more conservative than the next one, and shunning those who are more moderate, then they are doing the work of their political opponents – divide and conquer. Making the assumption that the most conservative cannot learn anything from the other members opf their own party leads to nothing but failure. But, if that is what people want to do, no one can force them to change. All we can do is watch the whole thing fall apart.

  18. I tend to think that Obama has done a pretty good job of unifying conservatives (and quite a few independents) against his regime, though the Lame-stream media will never admit it.

  19. wilson

    SUPRISE!
    CBO to employers: Obamacare has $4B more in taxes than expected

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to-employers-obamacare-has-4b-more-in-taxes-than-expected/article/2503013

  20. Whitehouse. gov supports ObamaCare? What a surprise! Certainly no bias is allowed there.

    Speaking of Left-biased media coverage, I’ll pass along this blurb from The Jawa Report:

    What Do They Have In Common?

    What do the following attacks all have in common?

    Dr. Amy Bishop Shooting Spree
    Discovery Channel Hostage-taker
    U.S. Census Bureau William Edwin “Bill” Sparkman’s hanging
    Times Square Bomber
    Andrew Joseph Stack’s IRS Building Plane Attack
    Fort Hood Shooting
    Gabby Giffords Shooting

    Give up?

    They were all initially blamed on right-wingers by the MSM, and the media was wrong in every case. Isn’t it funny how the media never blames leftist nutters by “mistake”?

    Now you can add the Aurora, Colorado shooting to this list of shameful media coverages.

  21. JRM_CommonSense

    SNuss doesn’t support the Affordable Care Act, doesn’t comment on the other links (can’t refute them most likely), and changes the subject rather than address it. What a surprise! Cerrtainly no bias is allowed there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>