Subscribe to Us for Free!
Jul
17
Liberals Redefined “Rich”: We Need to Take the Language Back
Filed Under Conservative Side of the Story, Statists (or Democrats for you Libs), Strategery
- Scott Miller
If conservatives are going to make any progress taking the country back, we need to start taking the language back… and now. It’s a point that Mark Levin makes on his radio show often, but it really hit home for me today when I was listening to Carl Cameron on Fox news report that the Obama’s health care plan would raise taxes on the rich. Now I don’t think Carl is a liberal by any means, but it made me realize how easily conservatives have ceded ground on the language war to the liberals.
We never challenge the new language when they roll it out, and the media quickly pick up the liberal definition of the language, and then it quickly becomes part of the daily reporting… it becomes reality vs. opinion.
Take the term “rich”. By allowing the Statist to define the level of income that one can earn before he/she is labelled “rich”, we allow tremendous damage to be done to our economic liberty, and we do so largely without a fight.
You notice that the level of income defined as rich continues to plummet, and thus the Statists is allowed to legally, and quickly, steal more and more of your labor. Back in 1993, Bill Clinton took the first major leap in defining down those categorized as “rich”. Before Clinton’s effort to “tax the rich”, the commonly accepted definition of “rich” was a afforded to someone who was a millionaire. Yet Bill Clinton, while deftly tapping into class envy, made a 75% reduction in that definition in one fell swoop. He set the bar at $250,000 in household income. This was a massive dumbing down of the term “rich”, and allowed the government to extend their highest tax rates well down the income scale.
Comrade Obama has taken the concept even further, as he promises to massively raise taxes on the “rich”, those making $250,000 or more, with big tax increases in income and healthcare taxes. Comrade Obama has always argued that he’s just going to bring the tax rates on the “rich” back to Bill Clinton levels… what’s so bad about that? Here’s where his plan is extremely devious… you see $250,000 purchased quite a bit more 16 years ago than it does today. In fact, the inflation adjusted level equivalent to 250K in the Clinton years would be $375,000. So in reality, Comrade Obama is extending the highest tax rates even further down the income scale than Bill Clinton did.
Now, I’m not advocating that we fight for the one million dollar mark as the new definition of “rich” from a conservative point of view. I’m saying that we need to change the debate entirely, and counter the very idea that we can arbitrarily lump people together into class groups for the purpose of driving wedges between the American people. The Conservative needs to immediately counter the very use of the term “rich” when we are talking public policy as it is a entirely subjective measure of wealth.
For example, to someone who earns $10,000/year, the guy who earns $30,000 is “rich”. To those making $30,000, the guy making $90,000 is “rich”. To those making $90,000, the guy who makes $180K is “rich”… you get the point. The term is defined by whatever each individual’s perception of their income status is versus someone else, and that is why the Statist abuse these terms to further their political agenda… stealing our liberty without the vast majority of America even noticing.
Comments
2 Responses to “Liberals Redefined “Rich”: We Need to Take the Language Back”
Support Us, Get Some Gear!
Help support this site to continue our fight against the raging socialists, and annoy the libs while you proudly wear our Hardcore Conservative Gear.... shop now!
Connotation vs. Denotation has been the rhetoric of the liberal party for decades. Now, to be fair it should be noted that language has the ability to manipulate itself very easily within a small culture as you point out very astutely in your final paragraph. Context and perception is everything in society today. And since the US has unquestionably the most diversity across all parameters, such as, race, sex, ethnicity, and socio-economy, this context becomes far larger and far more important.
In addition to the diversity of our nation, there is also a geographical factor to consider when addressing the issue of being considered “rich”. While a single person living in a small southern town, miles away from any major metropolis making $250 thousand a year is rich, that same income in New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, etc. is comparatively smaller. However, the government tax structure doesn’t effectively differentiate this, which is why we see so many small businesses struggling in major cities throughout the country.
Either way, I agree that words must again regain meaning and purpose and not be thrown around so wantonly by politicians of all people.
Patrick Edmonds
http://www.thelunchbreakblog.com/
Patrick,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with your furtherance of the point. Regional cost of living differences make a huge impact on true purchasing power, and the pols seem clueless to the point. This is why most conservatives support either a flat income tax, or the fair tax as the solution to the Marxist heritage of the “progressive” income tax.
Scott