Soros by 1000 Cuts
I have to cuss for this one. It’s the only way I’ll stay sane through this.
Death by 1000 cuts is an ancient Chinese method of torture where the victim is cut 1000 times and on the last cut dies. How much more fucking SICK can Soros and his cronies be? He wants to subject our country to the economic version of that.
I am in the process of checking out his proposed “cuts”. You can check it out here. Before exploring his cuts, I was blown away at all the horrendous bullshit displayed just in the introduction.
*Cart Before The Horse*
Whether you agree with us that any deficit reduction should take place only after the economic recovery is firmly in place
Really? Don’t do any cuts until AFTER the crisis has been averted? What’s the point then?
*Put forth a False Assumption*
those who believe deficits should be reduced immediately—halting projects and jobs mid-stream
Halting what jobs? Government jobs? These fools assume that government jobs GENERATE revenue? That is patently FALSE!
*Pre-emptive Strike any Opposition*
people talking past each other… primarily to mislead their audiences about the true scope of the problem.
This effectively says “there are people who won’t agree with us and you should not listen to them because they are liars” – even before anyone has disagreed! Before they even get started they’re defensive! That is a giant red flag that they’re about to bullshit everybody.
… hiding how difficult grappling with federal budget deficits is going to be, leading the public to believe that there are relatively easy ways out
They don’t mean “difficult” in the way that a casual reader would assume. They mean it is going to be difficult on the taxpayer, because the deficits are NOT going away. Life is going to be hard for the taxpayer!
*Setting up the Straw Man*
That isn’t to say that no one has acknowledged how difficult this really is or offered specific ideas and gotten attention for their work—but they have been largely drowned out by the disingenuous cacophony.
Oh what a cute little scape goat. Kind of a “we tried to tell you how to fix it before, but you just weren’t listening because there was opposition that was LYING to you” kind of approach. Again with the passive-aggressive character assassination of any who would disagree.
*Announcing the title is miss-stated*
Tax increases would have to make up the difference for those plans that don’t hit the target entirely through spending cuts— although we leave to another day detailing what such tax hikes might look like.
Perhaps the only honesty we can hope for – they admit that cutting spending is just a treat to calm the masses; raising taxes is their goal.
We have analyzed spending cuts in this report to promote serious discussion not because of a failure to recognize that most spending cuts are painful and, in some way, harmful.
They propose that only the cuts are harmful. They don’t address at all how the spending is harmful. From this characterization, all the spending is helpful. This is a BALD LIE. There is a lot of harmful spending – like all of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which provide incentives for banks to lend money to people they KNOW can’t pay it back because the taxpayer will pick up the tab.
*Assert Government’s Dominance & Importance*
And there is hardly a clamor for higher taxes to pay for all that is good and popular. It may be that the best way to preserve what is valuable for government to do is to cut what is less valuable.
Here they assert that everything government does is good and valuable. They even use the proletariat term “popular”. They’re right that there is hardly a clamor for higher taxes – as well as there is hardly a clamor for more government.
*Lie, Under-Quote, and CYA tactics for Obama*
Our deficit reduction target is $255 billion in 2015. This is the amount by which the deficit would have to be reduced in 2015, relative to the president’s current budget plan for that year, to bring the budget into “primary balance.”
$255 billion – the interest alone will be around that PER MONTH. They basically want to reduce the deficit by one month’s interest payment. They have lied again. 2015 is a convenient date – Obama, even if re-elected for a second term, will be on his way out of office and it won’t matter what people think of him. If we have any rights left by then.
*State the Real Goal*
But recognizing the need for deficits now does not mean that we should not take action now on the deficits projected for the future.
Indeed, they have no intention at all for eliminating deficits, but rather to create the framework for future deficit creation. Deficits are the goal here, not cutting spending.