Skip to comments."Revenue" Redefined: Libs abuse another innocent word
Posted on 01/17/2013 8:46:31 PM PST by Daniel Clark
Revenue Redefined: Libs abuse another innocent word
by Daniel Clark
Sometimes it seems like it would be a good idea to publish a liberal-to-English dictionary. That way, normal people would be able to understand what liberals mean when they take already existing words, and apply meanings to them that are nowhere close to their true definitions.
Listening to liberals speak can be like visiting Alices Wonderland. Taking things that belong to somebody else is what they call fairness. Parading through town while wearing leashes and chains and nothing else is an exhibition of pride. Violent criminals who are turned loose on the streets are referred to as ex-felons, as if it were reasonable to presume a recidivism rate of zero.
The killing of innocent children in the womb is called choice, as if it had no greater moral consequence than a choice among coffee, tea or milk. If thats not chilling enough, the people who do the killing are said to be providers.
Economic terms are subject to their grotesque redefinitions, also. A legitimate tax deduction is deemed a break if liberals would rather you not have it. Wanting to keep more of what you earn is called greed, whereas another persons claim to your earnings is an entitlement. Now, as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations, higher taxes have been renamed revenues.
This latest euphemism is undoubtedly the result of a premeditated campaign of deception. Linguistics itself more effectively, when in reality, hes just plain lying.
The ostensible purpose of raising tax rates may be to increase revenue, but the two are far from synonymous, and Lakoff surely knows it. To assume a direct correlation between tax rates and federal revenues is to apply the discredited static economic analysis on which the Democrats assumptions, and therefore those of the media, are based.
A static analysis assumes that an income tax rate cut will result in a proportional decrease in federal income tax revenues. Thats why Democrats always claim that tax cuts need to be paid for. Its also how the media help them blame the Obama deficits on George W. Bush. In 2009, federal revenues fell by more than $400 billion, accounting for almost a third of that years startlingly high deficit. If revenues equaled tax rates, this must mean that tax rates were dramatically reduced shortly beforehand, but they werent.
The drop in 2009 revenues was the result of the stagnant economic growth that followed the subprime mortgage crash, and bore no relation to tax policy whatsoever. The bulk of the Bush tax cuts were enacted back in 2003, and not only did they not cause a reduction in federal revenues, but they helped stimulate the economy in such a way that annual revenues rose by almost 50 percent over the next four years.
George W. Bush increased federal revenues by cutting tax rates, just as Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had done before him. Lakoffs Democrats are now trying to erase that record, by introducing a new economic lexicon that makes such results sound literally impossible. If taxes are revenues, then you cant both cut and increase revenues simultaneously, can you?
Moreover, this semantic trick ignores potential revenues from sources other than taxation. Privatization can produce revenue, for example, but dont expect our pro-revenue politicians to entertain the thought of selling Amtrak. In other words, now that revenue means taxes, it can no longer mean revenue also. If the Democrats ever want to refer to actual revenue, theyll have to think of something else to call it.
So you see, theres no need to write a liberal-to-English dictionary, because Lakoff has already done that, albeit preemptively. If Lakoff were to write that euthanasia should be called anti-aging, Democrats would soon start touting the anti-aging effects of Obamacare, and Sunday news anchors would accuse Republicans of wanting to inflict age on people. To liberals, no reality exists beyond their own words.
It is said that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. The Democrats, not wanting to give up any precious honey, have decided instead to put a free honey sign next to the vinegar. Can the flies really be that stupid?
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.
The expression of one’s biases and prejudices, through the vehicles of contemporary events, couched in terms of contempt for those who don’t share the same - “reporting” or “journalism”.
I don’t think this is a new definition. Wasn’t it Reagan who said, “There are only two certain things in life: negative patient outcome and revenue enhancement.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.