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!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Re-inventing the language
Re-inventing the languageFollow
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
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!
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!
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.
I'll take a closer look, but a quick Ctrl + F of "decreasing tax expenditures" found 0 results, and "tax expenditures" yielded one:
A quick Google search of the term yielded this business week article:
According to the definition:
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
Obama was talking about allowing the tax cuts on the upper brackets to expire since forever.
Way to call it?
Way to call it?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
the rabid little sh*tstain, Jack Layton.
His curious village pisses me the hell off >:(
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.
You wanted a special Canada thread?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
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.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
We have an OOT for that kind of trivial sh:t. Favorite Color, Best Anime, *** board, Canadian politics. I sense a theme over there.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
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.
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.
Ah, so worried about the rate downs.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ah, so worried about the rate downs.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Yeah, but you can't be worried about rates & be smart at the same time, so good call.
This thread is on the move 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 325
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Re-inventing the language
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC