Get ready for another round of new language

[Gaspar]

Orwell called it Newspeak.  We see it employed whenever politicians propose unpopular ideas that require a new definition to pass.  The most recent one I am beginning to hear from Pelosi et. al. is "We can't afford spending money on tax cuts."

First of all a tax is where the government takes your money and spends it "on your behalf."  This removes that money from natural flow of the free market based on organic demand, and puts it in a position where it has far less, if any, impact on growth, and promotes artificial demand.  

To make the statement "we can't afford spending money on tax cuts" naturally makes the assumption that personal income belongs to government, and allowing you to keep that a portion of that income is equivalent to government expenditure.  Anyone concerned with fiscal responsibility would say "we can't afford more spending" instead.  The re-invention and re-engineering of language is the weapon of the politician, used not on his opponents, but on his constituants.  The untrained mind cannot perceive this Jedi mind trick, and in some cases the Newspeak becomes mantra.  

[guido911]

Well, now you've done it.

[Red Arrow]

To make the statement "we can't afford spending money on tax cuts" naturally makes the assumption that personal income belongs to government, and allowing you to keep that a portion of that income is equivalent to government expenditure.  

You don't understand that? 

I am practicing to become a Democrat when I (hopefully) retire.

[nathanm]

Gassy, aren't you one of the deficit whiners? Are you just being deliberately obtuse or what?

[Gaspar]

Gassy, aren't you one of the deficit whiners? Are you just being deliberately obtuse or what?

Yes.  We can't afford any more spending.  

[nathanm]

Yes.  We can't afford any more spending.  

Ok. From where I sit targeted tax cuts are effectively the same thing as spending. I would like to get rid of them all, or at least the vast majority. (there may be a few that literally pay for themselves)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yes.  We can't afford any more spending.  

And that is why spending has been slowing for the last 3 years - to the detriment (making it slower, too) of economic recovery.  I know you got the memo... did you accidentally delete it?

[erfalf]

And that is why spending has been slowing for the last 3 years - to the detriment (making it slower, too) of economic recovery.  I know you got the memo... did you accidentally delete it?

Spending is still roughly double what it was near the end of the Bush admin. Saying spending has slowed down is like telling the cop as he pulls you over going 80 that it was alright because you were going 120 earlier.

[Gaspar]

Spending is still roughly double what it was near the end of the Bush admin. Saying spending has slowed down is like telling the cop as he pulls you over going 80 that it was alright because you were going 120 earlier.

Now you've done it.  Nate is going to pull up an obscure graph.

[Conan71]

Now you've done it.  Nate is going to pull up an obscure graph.

Preemptive strike.  I'm just going to leave this here

[nathanm]

Wrong country.



That's better...

Lucky you, I have to go finish packing now, gotta leave in an hour.

[Conan71]

Wrong country.



That's better...

Lucky you, I have to go finish packing now, gotta leave in an hour.

Presidente time?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Spending is still roughly double what it was near the end of the Bush admin. Saying spending has slowed down is like telling the cop as he pulls you over going 80 that it was alright because you were going 120 earlier.

Except for the reality that it is NOT anywhere near double...but then, what would we be if we didn't have our fantasies.  It IS actually 20% higher from 2008 through the end of 2011.  Hard to say about 2012, since it isn't over yet, but estimates are putting it at about 5% over last year.

The spending increases have been at the lowest rate since...well, since forever.  Nice try, though.  The Murdochian's love you for it!

[erfalf]

Except for the reality that it is NOT anywhere near double...but then, what would we be if we didn't have our fantasies.  It IS actually 20% higher from 2008 through the end of 2011.  Hard to say about 2012, since it isn't over yet, but estimates are putting it at about 5% over last year.

The spending increases have been at the lowest rate since...well, since forever.  Nice try, though.  The Murdochian's love you for it!

My, mistake, deficit spending is still well over double what it was near the end of the Bush (Republican years, prior to stimulus programs).
Spending is only roughly 20% higher than 2008. Truly this was a mistake on my part. But spending, was up the most recent completed year. Not much, but spending has been over $3.5 trillion every single year, whereas prior to FY09, it never broke $3T.

I don't think the difference make me feel any better about anything our representatives are doing in D.C. It just seems that the benchmark has been moved. When Bush was in office, this kind of spending would have been criminal. Now, it is good because we are reducing spending. It's just that we had to ramp it up 20% so we could say we then reduced spending.

[Gaspar]

My, mistake, deficit spending is still well over double what it was near the end of the Bush (Republican years, prior to stimulus programs).
Spending is only roughly 20% higher than 2008. Truly this was a mistake on my part. But spending, was up the most recent completed year. Not much, but spending has been over $3.5 trillion every single year, whereas prior to FY09, it never broke $3T.

I don't think the difference make me feel any better about anything our representatives are doing in D.C. It just seems that the benchmark has been moved. When Bush was in office, this kind of spending would have been criminal. Now, it is good because we are reducing spending. It's just that we had to ramp it up 20% so we could say we then reduced spending.

Yes officer, I've been drinking, but not as much as yesterday!