Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9, for example, he said that Republicans “believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.”
Let us begin with the word “spend.” Is the government “spending” money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.
Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers’ unions, is called not spending but “investment.” You can say anything if you have your own private language.
But let’s go back to the notion of “spending” money on “the wealthiest Americans.” The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.
People over 65 years of age have far more wealth — but lower incomes — than people in their thirties and forties. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax “the wealthiest Americans” is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.
The really big lie — and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in — is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will “trickle down” to the rest of the people.
Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether from economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.
Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.
The recent migration of people earning more than $1M from Maryland to avoid the Millionair tax actually returned $1.9 billion less than before the tax proves this.
Loved how Sowell contrasted JFKennedy to Obama.
JFK would oppose Obama’s ideas of taxing ”the wealthy” more (actually higher income earners – not really ”the wealthy”).
He (JFK) pointed out:
And that’s exactly what investors today are doing!
At least Sowell gets it.
Obama knows he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in Hell of raising taxes on higher income earners.
All Obama is doing is whipping up the rabble into a class warfare frenzy.
Sure, there are more voters who are liable to be stupid rabble than there are voters who will see through Obama’s word games.
But can Obama hold his rabble back from going too far and rioting?
He lost control of his Occupy movement very quickly.
Bad acts from Obama’s rabble can turn even stupid, but meek voters against him.
He has a thin tightrope to try to balance on.
How about Reagan’s budget director.
“It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”
“Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy.”
“…the Reagan coalition prevailed again in the House and Congress passed the tax-cut legislation with a final frenzy of trading and bargaining. Again, Stockman was not exhilarated by the victory. On the contrary, it seemed to leave a bad taste in his mouth, as though the democratic process had finally succeeded in shocking him by its intensity and its greed. Once again, Stockman participated in the trading — special tax concessions for oil — lease holders and real-estate tax shelters, and generous loopholes that virtually eliminated the corporate income tax. Stockman sat in the room and saw it happen.”
“‘Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront?’ Stockman asked with wonder. ‘The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control.'”
The wealthiest Americans, as opposed to those currently reporting high levels of taxable income, those wealthiest Americans have largely already tax-sheltered their wealth. As a class they evidence little resistance to passing future heavy tax burdens onto those who have yet to earn their fortunes, because future income tax increases bypass their wealth and power.
It’s generally understood that tax cuts for the wealthiest actually means tax cuts for those having the highest income. Confusion might exist among the mentally challenged, but everybody else knows what’s actually under discussion.
The state consequences of increasing high end tax rates have little bearing on federal increases. If you want to migrate out of the country to dodge taxes, go ahead.
@Jason:
But to Obama’s base (the uneducated rabble ready to riot if they don’t get their “Fair Share”) the ”wealthiest Americans” are indeed the 1%.
Those super-rich people are untouched by whatever empty promise Obama makes to raise their taxes.
Remember, Obama knows better than he speaks.
He knows the 1% include a good number of his own supporters (not the rabble part).
He knows that when the Republicans in the House prevent the destruction of the Middle Class and the small businessman, that he can SPIN their blocking of his tax hike AS IF they were protecting that 1% that his rabble hate.
Thomas Sowell wasn’t kidding when he started his essay:
No Republican, no matter how OFraud and the Left want to “spin” it… has ever ‘said’ they want to ‘cut taxes’ for the rich…. this is pure spin and propaganda..
The Republicans simply don’t want to RAISE taxes on ANYONE…
It’s the LEFT demagogues… [Ofraud and pals] who want to RAISE TAXES [twice ] on EVERYONE…
“I” don’t believe for one minute when Ofraud throws out the $250,000 dollar year number… that the “under” $250,000 crowd is exempt… we “all” fall into the same category….in the eyes of the Government anyone who pays taxes is “Rich”!!…better believe it and, …this Government will make sure of it…
“No Republican, no matter how OFraud and the Left want to “spin” it… has ever ‘said’ they want to ‘cut taxes’ for the rich…. this is pure spin and propaganda..”
Have you read the Ryan budget proposals? Consider this informative article: New Tax Cuts in Ryan Budget Would Give Millionaires $265,000 on Top of Bush Tax Cuts If that’s not a whopping big new tax cut for those already having the highest income, spelled out in plain and simple language, I don’t know what is.
They plan to pay for this generosity to those already doing exceptionally well by drastically reducing funding for programs serving the nation’s most needy–the poor, their children, the elderly, the disabled.
To hell with that plan. It’s a con designed by greedy bastards to benefit greedy bastards. It’s not Christian. It’s immoral. It’s anti-Christian.
@Jason: Jason, your source is committed to the 99%.
It is designed to increase participation in WELFARE, Food Stamps (SNAP) Housing, freebies and grants.
No wonder it paints ”the rich” as evil.
Jason has drunk the kool-aid and then come back for the lifetime supply it seems.
Talk about spinning;
No, everyone else doesn’t understand what is the topic of discussion. And liberal/progressives are counting on this, which is the only reason to specifically state “wealthiest”, instead of “high income earners” or similar.
And no, liberal/progressives aren’t the only ones using specifically chosen language, or terminology, to explain their points. If one understands the purpose of using the language, or terms, chosen, then one understands the goal behind it. In the case of liberal/progressives, choosing to label their target of taxation as the “wealthiest” is meant to engender a feeling of going after those who have large amounts of wealth. And in many, many cases, having large amounts of wealth does NOT mean someone who earns a high income. Trust fund babies, investors such as Warren Buffet, “retired” persons like Bill Gates, and even a large number of CEO’s and other corporate officers, earn a moderate income, or no income at all, but have more wealth due to inheritances, stock portfolio earnings, savings, investment funds, etc., than does the average American.
Jason misses Randy’s point by a mile here. The point is that people, when presented with options to reduce their tax exposure, will do so, and opt for the method available to do so if necessary. In the case of the people in Maryland, their option was to move out of state. When discussing federal taxation, people can do many things to reduce their tax liability, such as increasing charitable giving, or opting for more work recompense in the form of stock options or higher 401k contributions, and even, despite Jason’s remark, move out of the country.
Additionally, in regards to Randy’s point, the stated goal of the politicians, concerning the raising of taxes, is never realized as the people’s behaviour regarding their incomes and what they do with it is influenced by the increase in taxation. In the case that Randy points out, people’s behaviour was influenced enough to cause them to move out of state.
Notice Jason’s use of the word ‘generosity’ here. In so doing, Jason has implied that government is a benevolent entity towards the citizens of the country. And further, that Republicans have chosen a specific group of citizens to be benevolent to, in this case “those already doing exceptionally well” at the expense of the “most needy”.
Talk about spin. It’s no wonder that the supporters of Obama are some of the most economically challenged people living in this country.
I missed this gem. Let’s assume, for a moment, that Jason is correct in this statement. He rails against Republican “greed” yet discounts, or spins, liberal/progressive “greed” that uses government to take money and send it to Obama’s cronies. Instances like Solyndra come to mind here.
I suppose the “greed” that Obama and his kind practice is somehow more “christian” than what he claims the Republicans do. Give me a break.
Now that that is out of the way, in regards to Jason’s comment above, maybe he could deign to tell us the last poor person who he received a job from. Or how companies, both big and small, receive capital for expansion and growth. I suppose it should come from that same benevolent government he likes so much. That certainly seemed to work for those people who thought they would continue to have a job with Solyndra.
The problem with the economics that liberal/progressives “know” is that what they believe works, fails every time.
talking about the RICHS, they are implimenting a service to get the VETERAN RETURNING A JOB
CHECK AT; 150job.com IT MIGHT BE 150jobs.com
no s or with s
to the VETERANS check on it, THEY THE RICHS WANT TO FIND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS JOBS FOR YOU ALL
I was always taught an obsession with worldly riches was a good way to lose sight of heaven, and that the first duty Jesus set out before us was to tend to the poor, even if we had to give up something of our own to do it.
First we had to accept the very different ways of The Republican Jesus. Now we’ll have to get used to The Republican Jesus having 3 wives and being Satan’s brother. It’s OK to cut assistance to the poor to reduce your own taxes so you can pile up even more money in Swiss bank accounts, but drinking coffee will keep you out of heaven?
It’s just too much for a simple guy like me.
Nobody with millions in annual income needs new tax cuts. Not when there are so many who have nothing, and when there’s an entire middle class slipping into extinction. Bring back the rates that Ronald Reagan found acceptable. Isn’t that conservative enough for you?
“Now that that is out of the way, in regards to Jason’s comment above, maybe he could deign to tell us the last poor person who he received a job from.”
Somebody once might have made the same lame argument to the serfs.
You don’t need billionaires to create jobs. A healthy, expanding middle class and an upper middle class measuring their wealth in millions rather than billions is all you need for that. We’d all be much better off without the top 1% or 5%. The world would be a better place.
“We’d all be much better off without the top 1% or 5%. The world would be a better place.”
HOW? Like Europe and all the old Soviet states? yeah, that’s a goal to look forward to…….
@Jason:
You are forgetting a very important aspect about Jesus’ teachings. That is, he never proposed that government be the driving force behind people being charitable. Instead, he suggested that people take it upon themselves to help the poor, the needy, and the less fortunate.
What you support is charity by force, which is just as evil as theft.
If you really understood, or believed, in the teachings of Jesus, then you wouldn’t be promoting the forced confiscation of anyone’s earnings or wealth, but rather, suggest, recommend, and support people giving of their own free will charitably.
The fact is that conservatives do understand, and believe, and are constantly recognized for their charity. You just don’t like it because they do so by choice.
People who cheer on theft from the sidelines aren’t any better than the thieves themselves.
@Jason:
That has got to be one of the most economically illiterate statements I’ve read here. If you believe in what you just said, there isn’t any hope in convincing you of your own ignorance and stupidity.
If you believe in what you just said, there isn’t any hope in convincing you of your own ignorance and stupidity.
Any “ignorance and stupidity” is on the part of the average working class and middle class Americans who will cheerfully cut their own throats at the behest of plutocrats, who promise them more crumbs will eventually fall from their very exclusive table if you will only lower their taxes and dispose of inconvenient regulations.
Do you really, really believe it’s all about moral values and constitutional principles with most of those people? It’s not. They just know which conservative buttons they need to push to get the votes. Once they’re in again it’s all about the money. Just like it was the last time they had full control. Don’t you remember where the culture of corruption originally came from? It didn’t come from the title of one of Ann Coulter’s books.
jason
keep talking about the liberals democrat souls, you’re doing a good job, but don’t get mixed up with the CONSERVATIVES, THEY ARE THE ONE KNOWN TO MAKE BUDGETS, TO BE STOP AND REJECT BY THE DEMOCRATS, REMEMBER?
@Jason:
What a pathetic misrepresentation!
Jesus wanted His followers to TEND to the poor.
He did NOT want them to be like the Sadducees and Pharisees who excused themselves by saying ”whatever I have that might benefit the poor is given to the government.”
In fact, he found that tendency disgusting.
This chart:
http://rogerkerr.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/mobility.jpg?w=584
shows that poor people’s children (the bottom 5th) are 100% richer than their parents while the top 5th’s children are NOT any richer than their parents.
In fact, the children of all earners except those in the top 20 percent saw their incomes improve over those of their parents. The children of earners starting in the bottom 20 percent saw the biggest increase over their parents’ incomes.
So who is saying the poor are getting poorer except liars like Obama?
jason forgot who made AMERICA A SUCCESS STORY, BEFORE THE COMMUNIST CAME IN UNINVITED AND SET FOOT IN THE POWER, TO DISMANTLE THE SOCIETY AND TO STEEL THE RICHS,
AND THEIR COMPANIES,, NOW WHAT DO YOU SEE, YES LIKE RUSSIA, THOSE BROKEN UP COUNTRIES
OF EUROPE, AND YOUR PRESIDENT WANT TO COPY ON THEM, HE IS ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF DESTROYING THE VALUES WHICH AMERICA WAS CREATIVE AND MAKING MONEY AND HAVE JOBS FOR THE PEOPLE, NOW THEY WANT TO CREATE JOBS FOR THE VETERANS BECAUSE THEY RESPECT THEIR BRAVE EFFORT TO PUT THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE TO SAVE YOU BOTH ASSES AND THOSE LIKE YOU.
@ BEES,
I think you misread my post. Please do not group me with the likes of Jason. Cheers! BTW, I always enjoy your posts.
Those who worship the dollar and make it the center of their lives aren’t qualified to interpret what the words of Jesus really mean. The simple and inconvenient truth is that the words mean exactly what they say.
@Jason:
And what, precisely, do the words of Jesus say about the government taking care of the poor?
Cite those passages for me.
jj
I AM SORRY IF I thought your comment was offensive,
I must have miss something, I apologize,
jj. I erase your name,
good you catch me early.
bye