I realize the Visigothery of such a post title is likely to cause the mint in Rick Moran’s Julep to wilt, but here’s Jay Carney at a White House press briefing today, essentially signaling the linguistic shift I and others have been warning about for several months:
[…] the President sees, as a means of holding everyone’s feet to the fire to ensure that we take the action necessary to reduce both spending and — reduce spending in all ways, including through the tax code, in order to reduce our deficit, but allow us to continue to invest in those areas that will make American — the American economy the dominant economy in the 21st century as it was in the 20th.
[my emphases]
Analysis of the word “invest” — to the progressive, that means government spending on programs that they deem important, and which tend to benefit their constituencies and corporate cronies — has been widespread, so I’m not going to focus on that particular euphemistic turn. Instead, let’s take a look at this idea that in order to cut deficits, the government wants to reduce “spending” “through the tax code” — a clear indication that, from the perspective of the government, money that they don’t yet collect in taxes from you and your labor is the equivalent of government spending; meaning that all money belongs first to the government, and then is meted out to you in ways that the government sees fit, based on what they believe is “fair,” and based on who they believe “deserves” it.
In other words, it is entirely alien to the founding ideals.
This is the “transformation” Obama promised — the Hope and Change on offer from a Good Man who, by force of executive order and imperial overreach, is working to turn each and every one of us into clients of a massive centralized government managed by endless bureaucratic rules and regulations whose reach covers everything from puddles to dust to human exhalation to light bulbs to toilets to mandating what we purchase (and, as a result, mandating all sort of other things in the future, from what we need eat to maintain our “free” health care to where unions demand we open our businesses to the “social justice” agenda of the left that requires banks to “lend” money to those who can’t pay that money back as a condition of doing business).
We live in a soft tyranny. And the current governmental tack is, in a very strict sense, anti-American: property and liberty aren’t natural rights, but rather proceed from government, with Obama its current King.
Now. Some on the right cringe when such things are illuminated. But let them. Because frankly, their refusal to describe candidly what is right before their eyes — all to gain some imaginary electoral advantage that never materializes, no matter how many times they counsel a pander to “the moderates” — is part of the problem those of us who believe in foundational principles need to rectify.
And if that means we Visigoths push the GOP fops into apoplexy, so be it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
(h/t Mark Levin)
If they actually wanted to reduce spending vis a vis the tax code, they should simplify the tax rules down to: flat tax. No weights, no tables, no deductions, no loopholes. You could do away with the legions of the IRS if personal and business taxes were flat.
A feature to most sentient beings, but a bug to insecure statist assholes. BTW, I’m with you on the flat tax, which means it won’t happen any time soon.
Jeff, that new euphemism is one of the most dastardly I have heard in a long time. “Reducing spending through the tax code”? At least be a man about it, Obama. I realize that he has no idea what that phrase means, so he will continue being an underhanded disingenuous wannabe socialist fuhrer. That’s all he knows.
A phrase so nice, he used it twice.
It chaps me to no end when so-called reporters listen to some political figure excrete phrases like “reducing spending through the tax code” without asking them what the hell that is supposed to mean in plain English. Bullshit gobbledegook should be challenged at every turn.
During the campaign there was all the talk about transparency and disclosure.
Carney on the executive order to force all companies that wish to contract with the Federal Government to disclose any political contributions they or their officers made.
So Cass Sunstein has it half right, transparency and full disclosure for private sector we but not for he and his.
Pay for play, Geoff. The Chicago way.
It’s appalling. Made moreso watching leftists defend it.
the boner of the house speaks:
House GOP abandons pledge to force agency-by-agency budgeting
Yeah…”Reducing spending through the tax code” is from the same gameplan that thinks the Constitution is “a charter of negative liberties”.
In other words, all your money and the ability to determine all your behavior belongs first and foremost to the government; unless, of course, the constitution forbids them from determining a particular behavior, or unless the tax code deigns to reward you with a part of what you believe you earn-based on what your betters believe is “fair”.
That view is completely totalitarian, with the aristocrats replaced by our political class; what we are allowed to have, and do, being determined by their whim.
And they have to occasionally throw us a bone during the bothersome election years.
This is the kind of stuff we need to hear the GOP candidate talking about; what we need to be talking about with those in our circle of friends/relatives/co-workers. Because stiffs like Mittenz, T-Paw, and the Huck sure aren’t going to.
And Ron Paul is a joke.
Carney is just aping Obama. This particular hair has been be crammed up my ass for a month now.
Somewhere, the ghost of Eric Blair is saying “I told you so.”
I clicked over and read Moran’s later essay, in which he’s taking shots at Doug Ross, making a big deal about Doug’s use of ‘Democrat’ party instead of ‘Democratic’ party. Then, more Moran fat-boy lecturing on his definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘Marxism’, and the impossibility that the (newly socialistic) ‘Democratic’ party is either. By Moran’s definition, if the linguistic glove doesn’t fit, he’ll aquit. I can just picture Moran rolling his bulk back in his easy chair and droning on and on, delivering that moronotronic lecture on ‘our’ ‘responsibilities’ to the ‘poor and disabled’; and if we don’t support these sorts, what are they expected to do? Ask a church for help, or move in with relatives, like they did before oil became plentiful and we over-populated to
30330 millions?He sits there, his fat belly quaking as he carries on; but he ignores the reasoning why we must curtail this exorbitant and out-of-control deficit spending: there’s this huge debt that’s going to drop this nation right out of it’s status as a ‘Republic’, into third-world status, bring on who knows what sort of CHANGE.
Are we, the last superpower, too big to fail, Moran? Are we made of this money? No, and no. We can only ‘make’ money and ‘borrow’ money until the rest of the world decides it’s time to move off the dollar standard, then we are living in a different world, overnight.
We needed to never leave the gold standard, and we can’t get back on it soon enough.
Hey,
Ya think maybe Obama means ending the child tax credit and other tax breaks to people who pay no federal taxes when he says “reducing spending through the tax code”.
Yeah, me neither.
geoffb posted on 5/12 @ 5:47 pm
A phrase so nice, he used it twice.
MR. CARNEY: He did bring up his belief that we need to tackle our overall long-term deficit and debt problem with a bipartisan — rather, a balanced approach, also a bipartisan approach, and then that would have to include, in terms of a long-term solution to this problem, has to include all aspects of spending, including spending through the tax code. And — otherwise one segment of society has to take on an unfair portion of the burden. And that’s just — his vision of shared prosperity and shared responsibility would indicate that you need to have a balanced approach to this. And obviously he believes that; he put that forward very publicly in his proposal. And while he was mostly listening in today’s session, of course he did make clear his views on that.
We are absolutely screwed. Bi-partisan? Don’t make me laugh. Our emperor is a God damned exterminator.
I’m sorry for McGeHee’s cool hat. But why put yourself in the crosshairs by showing your independence?
Not yet, anyways. But lets face it, he burns through Other People’s Money the way the ol’ Saturn V burned through rocket fuel. So sooner or later those tax credits are going to go away.
Besides, children are bad for the planet.
The problem I have with a flat tax is you still have to determine income, and that leaves a lot of wiggle room for manipulators.
A sales tax is much simpler.
Reducing spending through the tax code.
They are not talking about reducing government spending. They are talking about reducing your spending, involuntarily.
The nightmare just keeps on getting worse.
The revolution can’t come soon enough.
Actually, there is a silver lining. These socialists are making no pivot. They’re not pulling a Bill Clinton. They are becoming more brazen. Their over-reach is expanding.
We talk about a tipping point (being reached) when 51% can vote themselves to take whatever they want from the 49%.
But, I think – hopefully – we’re going to reach the other tipping point. Where people have simply had enough of this shit.
While it may be attractive to sit on your ass and rob from the
billionaires, millionaires, upper middle class,middle class … more people want to BE those folks. They don’t want to settle for mere creature comfort and soft tyranny. While the commies keep lecturing us about how awful we are for wanting THINGS; a nice car and a big house … it’s not going to work. That shit may sell in Europe.People are going to wake up to the fact that redistributive taxes – in reality – aren’t going to harm the rich. They are merely going to prevent anyone else from reaching those ranks.
(sorry for long comment)
That they are “getting worse” is a good sign. We got HERE because they did their dirty work by baby steps. They’re turning the pot up to high, but the frogs may notice.
It’s our job to be pointing this out.
From each according to his ability; to each according to his need. And I determine what those are.
Nice work if you can get it.
How dare you say something so out of touch as “SHARED PROSPERITY” is now Obamas’ vision of “SHARED PROSPERITY”
May 12 Senate Show Trial- Big Oil BAD
Watson, John – Chair and CEO Chevron
I DO NOT THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT SHARED SACRIFICE. I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT SHARED PROSPERITY…..
Sen John Rockefeller (D) Interrupts him and fires back
DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW OUT OF TOUCH THAT IS? WE DO NOT GET TO SHARE PROSPERITY! WE ARE UNABLE..
MR. CARNEY: He did bring up his belief that we need to tackle our overall long-term deficit and debt problem with a bipartisan — rather, a balanced approach, also a bipartisan approach, and then that would have to include, in terms of a long-term solution to this problem, has to include all aspects of spending, including spending through the tax code. And — otherwise one segment of society has to take on an unfair portion of the burden. And that’s just — his vision of shared prosperity and shared responsibility would indicate that you need to have a balanced approach to this. And obviously he believes that; he put that forward very publicly in his proposal. And while he was mostly listening in today’s session, of course he did make clear his views on that.
[…] Totalitarianism is here. […]