Euphemisms the rich use to enslave you

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..

The desire to distance ourselves from the poor while approaching the rich is a common human affliction. It is “Gap Psychology.”

Image result for blue collar worker
Don’t want poor people moving into my neighborhood.

Thus. the very rich — the upper .1% — wish to widen the Gap between them and you. Without the Gap, no one would be rich — we all would be the same — and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

“Rich” is a comparative. If you had $1 million, and everyone else also had $1 million, you would not be rich.  But if you had $1 hundred, and everyone else had $1, you would be rich.

There are two ways for the rich to widen the Gap, that is, to make themselves richer: Add to their wealth or subtract from yours.

Giving tax breaks to the rich is an example of adding to the wealth of the rich. Consider payroll taxes:

If your annual salary is $127K or less,  you pay more than 12% of your salary ostensibly for Social Security. (Yes, your employer pays half, but he counts this as part of your salary when calculating his costs).

If your annual salary is $500K you pay only 3%.  If your income is composed of dividends, interest, or business profits, you pay no payroll tax at all. Now that is a tax break.

As for income taxes, this post doesn’t have room to describe the many special breaks the rich receive for offshore and onshore deals. 

Image result for very rich person
Don’t want you living in our neighborhood.

Perhaps the most insidious method the rich use for widening the Gap, is to enlist you in their efforts, that is, to make you believe the Gap should be widened. This belief protects the politicians who vote for the enrichment of the rich and for the impoverishment of the rest.


The federal government’s budget is heavily swayed toward anti-poverty spending.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs, together account for the vast majority of federal spending.

So the rich want you to believe that social spending should be cut, and they do this in two ways:

  1. Tell you that the federal government is “too big,” that federal debt and deficits are “unsustainable,” and that social programs, being “unaffordable,” must be reduced, eliminated or privatized.
  2. . Tell you that those receiving social benefits are morally reprehensible “takers,” or “lazy and unmotivated.”

The notion that the federal government is “too big,” has become one of the more ludicrous mantras of the Tea Party/Libertarian/GOP. It is an idea based not on fact, but on emotional symbolism.

One Libertarian website refers to the federal government as “Leviathan,” to draw a picture in your mind of some great primeval monster gobbling up your freedoms.

Consider this article:

Mick Mulvaney says the White House’s budget proposal will help people ‘take charge of their own lives again‘ 

“We’re no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs, but by the number of people we help get off of those programs,” Mulvaney said. “We’re not going to measure compassion by the amount of money that we spend, but by the number of people that we help.
“That is how you can help people take charge of their own lives again.”

The right-wing tells you that financial benefits for the non-rich are like an addictive illegal drug rather than a helping hand. (By contrast, financial benefits to the rich are seen as justified.)

The GOP has no plan for helping people get off Medicaid, social services for the low-income and disabled, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The “plan” simply is to gut these programs.

The word “help” is a euphemism meaning “force.” And as for helping people “take charge of their own lives again,” this is the right wing euphemism for tossing families into the middle of a shark-filled ocean and shouting “Swim!”

In another article, “Trump budget to cut $800B from Medicaid“:

The Trump administration stated the “budget strives to replace dependency with the dignity of work through welfare reform efforts.”

What rot! A more accurate statement would be that the Trump budget strives to replace dependency with the dignity of starvation, sickness, homelessness, and illiteracy.

There is nothing in Trump’s budget that provides dignity for anyone. It is a 100% mean-spirited, “punish-the-poor-for-being-poor” draconian document of exclusion.

And continuing:

Trump has already supported cutting Medicaid by sponsoring the GOP’s American Health Care Act.

The $193 billion cut, or 25 percent cut, to the food stamps program, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, would be achieved by limiting eligibility for food stamps and by requiring those enrolled in the program to work.

Starving the children of the poor always has been a right-wing method for widening the Gap.

And as for requiring work, what kind of work does the government force on the rich to warrant their favorable tax treatments?

The right-wing wants you to believe that the generously bequeathed, retired, yacht-owning, beach-lounging, idle rich deserve massive benefits from the government, while the poor, for whom mere survival is a daily struggle, are sloths who deserve nothing.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability conservative think tank, said Trump’s proposal gives states flexibility to impose work requirements that could usher in changes to programs such as Medicaid and public housing.

“Flexibility” is another right-wing euphemism that means: The Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which can afford anything, and never will run short of money, dumps the costs of social programs onto the monetarily non-sovereign states, which are hard-pressed for dollars.

Why does the right-wing do that? Because they know the states will have to cut benefits, thereby widening the Gap.

A most disingenuous euphemism is “balanced budget.” We all need to balance our budgets, one way or another, or else we will run short of money. The federal government has no such need.

But the words “balanced budget” have such a reasonable and soothing sound, a public that doesn’t understand Monetary Sovereignty believes such a “balance” not only is prudent but necessary.

In fact, however, balancing the federal budget always results in a recession or a depression. Always. The right-wing knows this but relies on the public’s ignorance of economics to endorse a program that would destroy the American economy and especially destroy the lives of the 99.9%.

We’ll end with the observation that while euphemisms are positive, misleading code words, there also are negative, misleading code words, the most common of which are:

Federal “Debt:” Actually should be called “deposits” or “investments” and
Federal “Deficit:” Should be called economic “input.


If the correct words were used, the public would not be deceived. One doubts whether there would be a demand to reduce “deposits” (in the Federal Reserve Bank) or cut “investments” (in T-securities). And why would anyone want to stop economic “input”?

Bottom line: The rich run America by bribing politicians (via campaign contributions), the media (via ownership and advertising), and the economists (via university endowments and “think tanks.”)

The rich want to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. They do this partly by convincing the American voter that the poor are undeserving and can be helped only by denying them benefits (while the rich continue to reap benefits).

The fact that the electorate has voted for a Republican Congress, a Republican President, and many Republican state governors and legislatures, proves the scheme has worked.

The people, believing the euphemisms, have voted against themselves, and they will fight you if you try to tell them the truth.

The power of euphemisms is greater than the power of facts.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.



One thought on “Euphemisms the rich use to enslave you

  1. Chicago Tribune, May 24, 2017:

    Trump budget rips safety net
    $4.1 trillion plan favors defense, cuts programs for poor
    By Brian Bennett, Don Lee and Lisa Mascaro Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON — Democrats condemned the $4.1 trillion plan for its proposed mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and benefit cuts for the poor and working class.

    With his budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, Trump proposes a reordering of the nation’s priorities, ending the decades-old parity between annually appropriated military and domestic spending to favor defense and slash the safety net programs keeping millions of Americans out of poverty

    White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, who orchestrated the budget’s rollout in Trump’s absence, lashed out at critics who said the budget showed a lack of compassion.

    “Compassion needs to be on both sides of that equation,” he said. “Yes, you have to have compassion for folks who are receiving the federal funds, but you also have to have compassion for the folks who are paying it.”

    As usual, the Party of the Rich takes from the poor, gives to the rich, and uses the Big Lie (that federal taxes fund federal spending) to justify everything.

    Amazing that the poor continue to fall for the same, old scam.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s