Chris Matthews says that George Bush was more successful in getting his message out than Obama?
This is easy to explain, by the way. Obama rarely states simply what he actually believes or wants to see happen. He often couches his policies with language that means often the opposite of what it really means. The idea is, he wants to co-opt independents and conservatives who are not paying close attention, so that they will sign on to his proposals. He is fond of the words investments, fair share, tax cuts.
Investments are not really investments; this simply refers to the federal government spending money. We will not reap any tangible benefits from these investments nor will we be able to draw a straight line between money that the government has spent and positive results for our country. Essentially, we are looking at money which is given to companies run by Obama supporters, donators and bundlers and they have the potential to reap some profits (some do and some do not). This money might be a grant and it might be a guaranteed loan from government, but it is taxpayer money which is spent often to benefit someone who supported our president.
When Obama uses the words fair share, he is not really talking about someone paying their fair share. This is a reference to people who already pay their lion’s share of taxes, and Obama is calling upon them to pay more taxes. In many cases, these are small businesses, which do much of the new hiring in the United States, and they are called upon to pay more of their profits to the government so that the government can invest that money. The media assists President Obama by having polls which ask, “Do you think the rich should pay a little more in taxes?” These polls never ask, “Do you think that small businesses are not paying enough in taxes and need to pay more?” Paying one’s fare share is all about income redistribution; taking money which a person has earned and putting this either into the hands of those who make less or into the hands of those who support the President. In the latter case, the money often goes from those who make less money to those who make more money, because the latter group supports Obama and his policies.
When Obama talks about all of his tax cuts, he is really talking about tax credits, which are a bribe from the federal government to do things that Obama wants us to do. He or another politician, 2 years later, will call these tax credits by their more accurate name, tax loopholes. Obviously, the president will never say, “I want to give out some tax loopholes to the following groups of people…” That would never fly. Therefore, he uses Orwellian language in order to try to gain the support of people who would not support his policies if they knew exactly what those policies are. This is why Obama’s message and policies are less clear than those of Reagan or Bush, and why, for one of the few times in his life, Chris Matthews is correct in his assessment of the situation.
From the Conservative Review #203 (HTML) (PDF) and expanded.
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.