Orwellian Doublespeak Dominates Economic Policy

[StreetScooby 5]

I think this article is spot on.

Orwellian Doublespeak Dominates Economic Policy

Not only can't people agree on what the data means, they've decided to start speaking gibberish. Pointless, and just another sign to me they don't know what they're talking about.

=====================================

February 13, 2012
Orwellian Doublespeak Dominates Economic Policy
By Bill Frezza

While taking in my morning helping of news and commentary, I was struck by a certain similarity in every article touching on economic policy. It wasn't just the trampling of the Constitution, the abandonment of rational accounting principles, or the futility of the search for logic behind the proposals coming out of Washington that was so disturbing. There is nothing new about such sad developments. We long ago began to adapt to life without these bygone bulwarks against chaos.

It was the progressive destruction of the English language that prompted coffee to come out of my nose. Without a common understanding of precisely what words mean, rational discourse becomes futile. We might as well babble gibberish at each other as we fall back to settling our differences swinging clubs.

For example, what does "unemployment" mean? How can the official unemployment rate go down when millions of discouraged job seekers stop looking for work and the nation's labor participation rate takes the biggest plunge in history? Easy; simply stop counting people who drop out of the labor market. Numerous articles have pointed this out, but even sophisticated investors don't seem to be paying attention. When newspaper headlines proclaim, "Unemployment Down!" the stock market goes up. Smart stock buyers tell you that they know better but are betting on the trading behavior of people who don't. How's that for baking institutionalized ignorance into the market?


Can you buy "insurance" to protect yourself from predictable, repetitive events like paying your cable TV bill? No? So exactly how did we get into this big brouhaha about who has to pay for "insurance" coverage to gain "access" to birth control pills? (I looked up "access." It didn't say "free stuff.")

If compound obfuscation is your fancy, try "unemployment insurance." It's the only kind of "insurance" where your benefits can go up even when you are out of work and not paying any premiums. And if you stop looking for work as soon as you finish collecting benefits, you are no longer unemployed. Brilliant!

What does "inflation" mean? I know what I have to spend when I go to the grocery store and stop at the gas pump. Yet the official inflation rate excludes food and energy. How can the assurances of government officials be so contrary to our everyday experiences? Grouch Marx explained it. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

The star word of this silly season is "fair." The top 10% of tax filers pay 70% of all income taxes while the bottom half collectively pay almost no income tax. Yet we are in a huge debate about increasing taxes on those already paying the most in order to decrease taxes on those already paying the least. And it's all in the name of "fairness." That was a pretty neat trick. Think how different the debate would sound if instead of "fair" we used the words "stick ‘em up!"

While we're at it, do you know what your "tax rate" is? The most recent IRS data show that the top 1% of taxpayers fork 24% of their adjusted gross income over to Uncle Sam in income taxes. The next 1-5% cohort pays 16.4%, the next 5-10% pays 11.4%, the next 10-25% pays 8.2%, the next 25-50% pays 5.6%, and the bottom 50% pay a barely measurable 1.85%. In a progressive tax system, when you make more money you not only pay more taxes, you pay taxes at a higher average rate. Our current tax system may be impossibly complex, corrupt, and inefficient but it delivers exactly that result. So how did we end up in a shouting match about "millionaires and billionaires," enjoying a lower "tax rate" than secretaries when it's just not true? Better ask Obama's favorite billionaire. Maybe Warren Buffett can explain how someone that makes $200,000 a year is a millionaire.

It gets better. Giving money to your friends and political donors to finance hare brained speculative schemes is called an "investment." How can that be? I don't know, ask the Energy Department. But rest assured, fair taxpayer, your money is as safe as the General Motors stock the White House bought on your behalf. Perhaps they salted away your shares in the Social Security "lockbox."

God forbid we should invest our Social Security "accounts" in the stock market, which can go down, when we can entrust our "savings" to Congress, who has stolen them altogether. And speaking of speakers, is Congress "in session?" Better not ask the Speaker of the House.

Don't you love all those "budget cut" announcements? When we cut the budget in my household, spending goes down. Only in Washington can a "budget cut" lead to higher spending. You have to look at the numbers to learn that what they are really doing is marginally decreasing the acceleration in the growth of spending. As a geek, I know a second derivative when I see one. Apparently, members of the press never took math.

Train your eye to spot these language debaucheries, and send me your favorites. They have become so widespread that it makes you nostalgic for the days when we used to argue about what "is" is, or what carnal acts count as "sex" when the Commander in Chief claims he didn't have any. At least back then it was all good fun, speculating on the latest adventures of the presidential trouser trout as we watched our 401(k)s grow as fast as Pinocchio's nose.

Today, it's not so much fun. In fact, it's getting ugly. It will get uglier still if we don't get back to speaking plain English to each other.

We are all engines of karma

[quade 4]

Quote

Not only can't people agree on what the data means, they've decided to start speaking gibberish.

This isn't exactly a recent development, nor is it something any one party does.

There really ought to be some sort of "truth in naming" law.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

There really ought to be some sort of "truth in naming" law.

I read a really good article the other day regarding deductive reasoning vs inductive reasoning. The author pointed out that inductive reasoning is flawed in general, i.e., you can never number crunch your way to truth. Even more so today because data tends to be cherry picked to support the presenter's point. Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, has been the basis for most of the significant leaps made in man's understanding (e.g., Einstein's theory of relativity). But, deductive reasoning requires "principles" which can be agreed upon by parties. Right now, our society is incapable of producing policies based upon deductive reasoning because there isn't any agreement on the principles required for such reasoning.

Perfect example - lots of people say it's imperative that government provide for the poorest. But, you never hear anyone talking about what responsibility those people should bear in return. I for one hold that your highest responsibility in life is to take care of yourself and your family, first and foremost. If everyone took that view seriously, and acted accordingly (of course, always in a civilized manner), alot of the problems our society is facing would no longer be as pressing.

The point here - those government people speaking gibberish would argue they are meeting "truth in naming" requirements. But, you and I know they're not. Government officials are operating on "principles" different from other citizens. And, those operating "principles" tend to be overwhelming derived from inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

There is zero objective fact in the term “fair.” You cannot reach a political conclusion through objective thought because personal values play a the most massive role. Government is all about setting things in a direction. The wisdom of these can always be questioned.

My main gripe with ANY political thought is the presentation of subjective opinion as objective fact. For example, compare the following statements:
- “I think that the wealthiest ten percent should pay all income taxes”
- “The wealthiest ten percent should pay all income taxes”

Note that the second example is presented as objective truth. That is my problem, and we see it in politics and everyday life.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Can we at least agree that names like "The Patriot Act" have nothing to do with being a patriot?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Can we at least agree that names like "The Patriot Act" have nothing to do with being a patriot?

Absolutely.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I for one hold that your highest responsibility in life is to take care of yourself and your family, first and foremost. If everyone took that view seriously, and acted accordingly (of course, always in a civilized manner), alot of the problems our society is facing would no longer be as pressing.

Or not.

Throughout almost all of human history it was the highest responsibility of each person to take care of themselves and their families, because there was simply no alternative. But guess what? A lot of people were still totally fucked.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

There is zero objective fact in the term “fair.”

I think that was the author's point.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Throughout almost all of human history it was the highest responsibility of each person to take care of themselves and their families, because there was simply no alternative. But guess what? A lot of people were still totally fucked.

Then along came America's Constitution that enshrined the right to the individual's pursuit. That's the context in which I'm having this discussion.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>Then along came America's Constitution that enshrined the right to the
>individual's pursuit.

And also gave government the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. I think both are important.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

And also gave government the power to provide for promote the general welfare of the United States.

And how liberals interpret that is not what the founding fathers meant, as I've corrected to the actual wording. The original intent of the Constitution can be assessed by reading the Federalist papers. While I haven't done so, I'm gradually working my way there.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>And how liberals interpret that is not what the founding fathers
>meant, as I've corrected to the actual wording.

It is truly amazing how many conservatives wave the Constitution around like a bloody shirt without ever reading it. Often I think that they fear reading it, because they might discover that it doesn't say what they imagine it says.

Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (emphasis added)

[StreetScooby 5]

I stand corrected. I googled the phrase, and "promote" popped up to the top. I just now went and referenced my Heritage Guide to The Constitution, and indeed "provide" is the wording used.

Does that mean we all get free food, housing and medical care? I doubt it.

I'm working my way through The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. Just came in yesterday. The author brings in his knowledge of the Federalist papers, in which original intent of the founding fathers is discussed/argued (that's my understanding).

We are all engines of karma

[quade 4]

Quote

Does that mean we all get free food, housing and medical care?

All? No.

The weakest members of society who may not be able to provide for themselves? Absolutely.

The grey area in between? Well, that's a grey area.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>Does that mean we all get free food, housing and medical care? I doubt it.

No, and I also think that "provide for the welfare of the United States" does not mean "give everyone welfare." It means pass laws that, in general, benefit the citizens of the United States. Measures like social security, medicare, medicaid etc are just one part of that.

Nor do the guarantees of personal liberties ensure us the right to do whatever we want without regard to the consequences. There's a balance there, one that Congress attempts to strike by passing laws to both promote the general welfare and ensure that personal rights are not violated. (Although they often don't strike very good balances IMO.)

[StreetScooby 5]

As you've phrased it, there's nothing there I disagree with.

We are all engines of karma

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (emphasis added)

Yes that is what the constitution says. To bad honesty in debate is gone.

Some people would interpret this to mean " Provide an environment for the people to thrive"

Others would say "Provide for the people in the environment"

Like Streetscooby said, it's easy to get what they really meant by going back to their writings. Our founding fathers have many well documented papers and quotes.

But as the liberals like to point out, there was also slavery back then. If we are going to interpret their words directly, we might as well bring back slavery also and make a black vote worth only 3/5ths of a white vote.

If you go back and want to interpret what they said, you might as well bring back slavery.... you racist!

And the (not so) honest debate continues.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,120]

>Like Streetscooby said, it's easy to get what they really meant by going
>back to their writings. Our founding fathers have many well documented
>papers and quotes.

It's funny how conservatives attack liberals for re-interpreting the constitution when it's something like the Second Amendment, but when it's something they disagree with, their position rapidly changes to "well, to find out what they REALLY meant, you have to go back and read some other stuff."

I think they meant exactly what they said - and they said that the government shall have power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. And as I mentioned earlier that does _not_ mean give everyone welfare - it means pass measures that improve the general welfare of the people of the United States. That might mean creating the CDC to help prevent pandemics and epidemics. It might mean creating the EPA to reduce threats to public health from pollution. Or it might mean passing laws that allow corporations to more easily expand. It's up to Congress. The Constitution doesn't say how they have to provide for the general welfare, only that they have the Constitutional right to do so.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Quote

And also gave government the power to provide for promote the general welfare of the United States.

And how liberals interpret that is not what the founding fathers meant, as I've corrected to the actual wording. The original intent of the Constitution can be assessed by reading the Federalist papers. While I haven't done so, I'm gradually working my way there.

I've noticed that conservatives like to substitute "promote" for "provide" in the general welfare clause. This allows them to argue that the government should only be a cheerleader, but not actually do anything concrete to provide for "the general welfare".

Last year I heard an episode of "This American Life" where the host, Ira Glass, starts by talking about the story of how Van Halen had a clause in their contract that wherever they played the dressing room had to have a bowl of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed. He took this as an example of "rock star diva" behavior. Then he read David Lee Roth's autobiography, where Roth has this to say about the M&M clause:

"We'd pull up with nine 18-wheeler trucks full of gear in places where the standard was three trucks max. And there were many, many technical errors, whether it was the girders couldn't support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren't big enough to move the gear through. The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages, because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function. So just as a little test, in article number 126, in the middle of nowhere was, quote, 'There will be no brown M&Ms in the backstage area upon pain of forfeiture of the show with full compensation,' end quote."

So, he writes, "When I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl, well, line check the entire production, guaranteed you're going to arrive at a technical error. They didn't read the contract. Guaranteed, you'd run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to destroy the whole show. Sometimes literally life threatening."

Apart from observing that this puts a completely different (and rather clever) spin on the M&M story, I'd also point out that in the music industry, the "promotor" doesn't just invite the band, do some advertising (cheerleading), then sit back and rake in the profit. The "promotor" has to provide the whole infrastructure: the stage, scaffolding, all the electricity set up so the band can come in, set up, plug in and go without worrying about the stage or scaffolding collapsing under the weight of the gear or having somebody get electrocuted. The "promotor" provides security and all the people and resources to unload and reload the equipment. The "promotor" also handles advertising, ticket sales, and so on. Everything so the band can roll into town, set up, play safely and efficiently,and then pack up and move on to the next gig. That's what it takes to "promote".

So when people say the government should "promote" the general welfare, I think of those music promotors, and it seems to me that's not a bad way to think of the role of the government. Take care of the infrastructure (including an educated work force as well as physical utilities/roads/etc) so industry can "plug in and play".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

There is zero objective fact in the term “fair.”

True enough. But by that standard, there is zero objective fact to "beautiful", "hot" (or "hotter"),"ugly", "tasty", "fun", "exciting", or any other adjective, as what is beautiful to one person may be ugly to another (think of modern art for example), and what is fun and exciting to some may be terrifying to others (skydiving for example). Language would be sterile indeed if we could never use adjectives. We do use such adjectives because most of us understand that they are a statement of the speakers opinion, not of a quantifiable quality. If some politician says "fair" it's no mystery to me that they mean "fair according to their political world view", which may or may not be in agreement with what I think is "fair". Perhaps it would be better to say "more equitable", as in more balanced in terms of costs and benefits, but there will always be a lot of fuzziness to such terms.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>
Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (emphasis added)

so it doesn't say "welfare of the people of the united states"

in conjunction with common defence, it would seem to imply a general security for the country as a whole

the common welfare of the country is a lot different than a lot of welfare programs

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>so it doesn't say "welfare of the people of the united states"

You're right, it just says "welfare of the United States." So I guess you could construe it as "welfare of the land mass of the United States" and thus apply it to the Grand Canyon and Plymouth Rock and the trees on Manhattan etc. But since the Grand Canyon doesn't vote (and all those trees on Manhattan are gone) that probably wouldn't be a popular interpretation with politicians.

[yourmomma 0]

Not directed just at you Billvon, but what exactly does" a well regulated militia" mean? I understand th D.C v. Heller case, but know for certain the rabidly pro 2nd amendment people would be howling mad about "activist judges" had they concluded that "a well regulated militia" has a meaning.

[StreetScooby 5]

The preamble to the constitution uses promote, not provide... I knew I wasn't making that up

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Like Streetscooby said, it's easy to get what they really meant by going
>back to their writings. Our founding fathers have many well documented
>papers and quotes.

It's funny how conservatives attack liberals for re-interpreting the constitution when it's something like the Second Amendment, but when it's something they disagree with, their position rapidly changes to "well, to find out what they REALLY meant, you have to go back and read some other stuff."

I think they meant exactly what they said - and they said that the government shall have power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. And as I mentioned earlier that does _not_ mean give everyone welfare - it means pass measures that improve the general welfare of the people of the United States. That might mean creating the CDC to help prevent pandemics and epidemics. It might mean creating the EPA to reduce threats to public health from pollution. Or it might mean passing laws that allow corporations to more easily expand. It's up to Congress. The Constitution doesn't say how they have to provide for the general welfare, only that they have the Constitutional right to do so.

Disagree
The powers given the fed gov are clearly spelled out!

And the constitution clearly states the those powers NOT specifically given the fed gov., in other words enumerated, that those powers are given to the states

You spew the liberal view of the general welfare statement so as to support your position on what you think the fed gov should do and control.

I say ALL parts should be interpreted using the writings and intent that can be learned from the documents left to us by the founders

And that includes the 2nd. Your attempt to say that sometimes it is one way and sometimes the other way with conservatives is miss-leading at best

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln