Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Re-inventing the languageFollow

#1 Apr 13 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Huh! So apparently "tax increase" has been relabeled as "decreasing tax expenditures". Gotta love the implications of that one. Anyone still doubt that the political left views our earnings as belonging to the government?

Obama seems to think that rasing taxes is the same as a spending cut. I was watching that speech and my jaw literally dropped. I've always said that this is how the left views private property, but this is the first time I've seen a US president so brazenly use this sort of language. Amazing!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2 Apr 13 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Huh! So apparently "tax increase" has been relabeled as "decreasing tax expenditures". Gotta love the implications of that one. Anyone still doubt that the political left views our earnings as belonging to the government?

Obama seems to think that rasing taxes is the same as a spending cut. I was watching that speech and my jaw literally dropped. I've always said that this is how the left views private property, but this is the first time I've seen a US president so brazenly use this sort of language. Amazing!
Since these threads are just thinly veiled petty arguments of left vs. right when anyone with half an IQ point can see that the only difference in the arguments is based solely on who's in charge this week, I'll just point out that a topic about reinventing language with spelling errors is kind of funny.

My solutions: Legalize prostitution and marijuana, tax them the same as cigarettes.

Edit: And inadvertently I've also just created more jobs.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Apr 13 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
I'll take a closer look, but a quick Ctrl + F of "decreasing tax expenditures" found 0 results, and "tax expenditures" yielded one:
Quote:
I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit.


A quick Google search of the term yielded this business week article:
Quote:
Obama in a speech today urged Congress to raise money by eliminating so-called tax expenditures, which would generate revenue that could be used to reduce tax rates and also increase the government’s take from the economy. He didn’t provide details about which tax breaks he would curtail or eliminate.

The largest U.S. tax expenditures include the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions and the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.


According to the definition:
Quote:
Loss of revenue attributable to an exemption, deduction, preference, or other exclusion under federal tax law


Considering a lot of the rest of the business week article spoke about simplifying the tax code, it seems that eliminating the expenditures is the same as taking out exceptions.

You're right in that taxes would go up, assuming you are an exceptional case currently below the actual tax rate. Again, just a quick 3 minutes of looking it up.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:05pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#4 Apr 13 2011 at 2:08 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Tax increase is Decreasing tax expenditures, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#5 Apr 13 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama redefined the language when he wrote:
My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

So pretty much the same thing I thought sounded good in November 2010 when the bipartisan debt commission recommended it?

Golly, I'm EVER so upset!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6gbaji, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 2:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah. So you wont speak up because they aren't coming for you yet, huh? It's ok as long as it's not you paying the extra taxes. Lol...
#7gbaji, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 2:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah. The one that was "doomed to failure"? I don't think anyone was upset, just sure it wouldn't work. So nothing really new on that front. I was mainly pointing out the blatant use of the language swap to label a negative as a positive. He's making "raising taxes" sound like "reducing spending". Want to take any guesses as to how many hours it'll be before some pundit will insist that conservatives should get behind the Obama plan because it "cuts spending" just like they want?
#8 Apr 13 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You're right in that taxes would go up, assuming you are an exceptional case currently below the actual tax rate. Again, just a quick 3 minutes of looking it up.


Ah. So you wont speak up because they aren't coming for you yet, huh? It's ok as long as it's not you paying the extra taxes. Lol...


Wow, you're warped Smiley: dubious

So your post is saying, "Obama says he's raising taxes, but only comes out and says it once, and even then when he uses the words 'raising taxes' it's in a negative way, so, uh, it's bad!! But you're content because it's not affecting you!"

I don't even know if it would affect me... I guess the best I can say is... congrats on getting upset over nothing?

This entire post could have been made much shorter if you just said "Obama's going to raise taxes by reducing exemptions and I disagree with his views and presentation." Much more direct, and just as pointless.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#9 Apr 13 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. The one that was "doomed to failure"?

Hey, if I'm wrong about it being doomed to failure, it'll be the happiest kind of wrong :)

Quote:
Want to take any guesses as to how many hours it'll be before some pundit will insist that conservatives should get behind the Obama plan because it "cuts spending" just like they want?

Not really. I don't have the same pathological need to scream "Media!!" every twenty seconds that you do.

So the commission recommended reducing expenditures and Obama used the phrase "reducing expenditures" and now I'm supposed to get all a-fluster because some pundit might say it. Well.... hrmmm...

I'm gonna save my outrage for just a little bit, ok?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Apr 13 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Quote:
Want to take any guesses as to how many hours it'll be before some pundit will insist that conservatives should get behind the Obama plan because it "cuts spending" just like they want?

Not really. I don't have the same pathological need to scream "Media!!" every twenty seconds that you do.

So the commission recommended reducing expenditures and Obama used the phrase "reducing expenditures" and now I'm supposed to get all a-fluster because some pundit might say it. Well.... hrmmm...

I'm gonna save my outrage for just a little bit, ok?


I think the other part is that his plan does call for cutting spending in certain areas, including social services, defense, and healthcare. If a pundit comes out and says that reducing expenditures is cutting spending, then by all means mock them for not understanding the concepts. If they come out and say Obama's plan will cut spending - they're telling the truth.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#11 Apr 13 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
So your post is saying, "Obama says he's raising taxes, but only comes out and says it once, and even then when he uses the words 'raising taxes' it's in a negative way, so, uh, it's bad!! But you're content because it's not affecting you!"


No, my point is that once again we see the Dems twisting language around in order to make doing something that is the opposite of what the people want sound like they're doing what the people want. It's that by using those phrases, the media will repeat them over and over and insist that Obama is really just cutting spending.

It's the same thing they did when they argued for "tax credits" for the poor, and called them "tax cuts". Then they argued that they were cutting taxes by doing this. In that case, they relabeled a spending increase as a tax cut. And now they're bringing it full circle and labeling a tax increase as a spending cut.

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Apr 13 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So the commission recommended reducing expenditures and Obama used the phrase "reducing expenditures" and now I'm supposed to get all a-fluster because some pundit might say it. Well.... hrmmm...


Remember waaaaaay back when Obama was running for President and I was pointing to him promising increased social programs (spending) *and* cutting the deficit *and* not raising taxes? Remember when I said that it was mathematically impossible to do all three? And remember when I predicted that he would do the increased spending, this would result in an increased deficit, and he'd use that deficit to argue for tax increases instead of decreases, thus making his promise a lie? Oh. He'd say that it was unavoidable and use nice words to make it sound all necessary and whatnot, but the end result would be tax increases if we elected him.


Yeah. I was right. Shocker!

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Apr 13 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.


Hey, welcome to politics. I do see your view, I just don't understand the point. Politicians phrase things to sound better for their cause? He didn't lie at all (even said "raising taxes" right after, by your own admission). At least he didn't lie outright (like Senator Kyl, as we discussed before), or try to spin it in completely nonsensical ways ("Don't retreat, reload!", as per you).
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#14 Apr 13 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama was talking about allowing the tax cuts on the upper brackets to expire since forever.

Way to call it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Apr 13 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,364 posts
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night. It was boring. Really boring. So boring, it doesn't warrant it's own thread. Even more depressing is that the only leader who didn't come off as completely useless was the rabid little ********** Jack Layton.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 Apr 13 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
the rabid little sh*tstain, Jack Layton.

His curious village ****** me the **** off >:(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Apr 13 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.

No, it really isn't.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#18 Apr 13 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.
No, it really isn't.

You wanted a special Canada thread?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Apr 13 2011 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,364 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.

No, it really isn't.
Sure it is. Its a pointless topic within another pointless topic.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Apr 13 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
We have an OOT for that kind of trivial sh:t. Favorite Color, Best Anime, *** board, Canadian politics. I sense a theme over there.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#21 Apr 13 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,364 posts
Over there, it would have gotten 50+ responses. My hope was to throw it out there and have it completely ignored, which is why I put it here.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 Apr 13 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.

No, it really isn't.
Sure it is. Its a pointless topic within another pointless topic.


Posting to confirm the above statement, and all other debate related statements are true. What a waste of time and money.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#23 Apr 13 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Ah, so worried about the rate downs.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#24 Apr 13 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,364 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ah, so worried about the rate downs.
If I was worried about that, I'd never agree with anything you say.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#25 Apr 13 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Yeah, but you can't be worried about rates & be smart at the same time, so good call.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#26 Apr 13 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread is on the move Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)