Reason on Obama’s word trickery:
Tellingly, The New York Times defines “tax expenditures” as “payments to taxpayers for deductions for charitable donations or home mortgages,” as if letting people keep more of their own money is the same as giving them subsidies.* The Times notes that “the use of the phrase ‘tax expenditures’ allows the administration to lump tax-related issues into the spending category”—i.e., to describe tax hikes as spending cuts, which is a pretty neat trick. Similarly, it reports that “Mr. Obama attacked the demand by Republicans to make the lower tax rates permanent as emblematic of their plan to enrich the wealthy on the backs of the elderly and poor.” This description of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s fiscal plan reflects the president’s view that people have whatever money they have only by the grace of government, which has the legal and moral authority to rearrange it at will. Hence declining to raise taxes to pay for open-ended, ruinously expensive health care entitlements is the same as robbing the poor to pay the rich. These dueling perspectives have a Randian ring.
War is peace, slavery is freedom and all that.
It seems that Obama and his lackeys in the media are back to their old word tricks again. Apparently we live in a world where not stealing money from the people who have earned it is actually stealing from those who didn’t. That people ACTUALLY fall for this shit shows their just how morally and intellectually bankrupt they are.
Note to Washington: My money is NOT yours to give to those who keep you in office.
2011-04-14 » madlibertarianguy