I'm sure you didn't get the subtle rhetorical shift in that statement – and you weren't supposed to. But it's significant, so let me point it out to you by asking a question. "When, Mr. President, did income inequality become income inequity?"
The following definitions are taken from Dictionary.com:
inequality [in-i-kwol-i-tee] noun, plural inequalities
1. the condition of being unequal; lack of equality; disparity:
inequality of size.
2. social disparity:
inequality between the rich and the poor.
inequity [in-ek-wi-tee] noun, plural inequities
1. lack of equity; unfairness; favoritism or bias.
2. an unfair circumstance or proceeding.
The latest Perception Control (PC) attack on the American People's mentality is a subtle substitution of "income inequity" for "income inequality." Look for the shift in newsprint and TV commentary in the coming months and be aware of it, because as can be seen from the above definitions, the difference is significant – and the substitution is deliberate.
These people would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous. They must lie awake nights thinking this stuff up. "Hey, if we surreptitiously substitute inequity for inequality, we can convince the American public that it's unfair for anybody to have more money than somebody else."
These clowns actually think they can affect the distribution of wealth by playing sneaky Perception Control games with our vocabulary? Hey, dummies, why not go all the way and sneak in the phrase "income iniquity?" Then you could convince us that it's evil to have more money than someone else.
Oh, wait. They're saving that for 2016.
This level of complete dissociation from the realities of economics is reflected in the President's further comment at the aforementioned Georgetown University conference: "If we can’t ask from society’s lottery winners to make that modest investment, then really this conversation is for show."
"Lottery winners?" The President of the United States thinks rich people got that way by winning some lottery? Obama and the people who work for him have no idea where wealth comes from. They have never had to create wealth. They've always been able to steal it from those who do create wealth. As a consequence, they have no concept of what wealth actually is and how it actually comes about.
First of all, wealth is not money. Wealth is and always has been the product of industry. 10,000 years ago, wealth was chipped stone spear heads and clay cooking pots. Today it's monolithic computer chips and microwave ovens.
During the late 18th and throughout the 19th century, a tremendous transformation of human industry took place: the substitution of machines – also known as capital – for human muscle. That transformation, called the industrial revolution, increased the wealth available to mankind by immeasurable orders of magnitude.
But it was not capital alone that created the greatest wealth producing machine in the history of the world. It was also the ideas and perseverance of men like Edmund Cartwright and Elias Howe and Robert Fulton and Alexander Graham Bell and Henry Ford and George Eastman and Steve Jobs. Yes, these men accumulated vast fortunes, but they did it by creating wealth for the people of the world millions of times greater than the number of dollars in their bank accounts.
Is it "inequitable" for those who create wealth for others to be allowed to keep a small portion of it for themselves?