Obama’s Illogic for the Gullible

Obamaby Jerry Richardson   7/1/14
On Friday June 27, 2014, President Barack Obama uttered the following words—a statement breathtakingly unanchored-in-reality:

“By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. You wouldn’t know it, but we are.”  link to complete text of the speech

The words in the above quote were spoken during a lengthy political, campaign-harangue, designed to target Republicans and fire-up Obama’s Democrat/progressive base.  The ‘campaign’ speech—is there any other kind for Obama?—was delivered on the occasion labeled DAY IN THE LIFE OF: Rebekah.   —Backstory

Obama also delivered these marvels of deception:

“And today, over the past 51 months, our businesses have created 9.4 million new jobs. Our housing market is rebounding. Our auto industry is booming. Our manufacturing sector is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s.  We’ve made our tax code fairer.  We’ve cut our deficits by more than half.  More than 8 million Americans have signed up for private insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act. So here in Minnesota, you can now say that the women are strong, the men are good-looking, the children are above average, and 95 percent of you are insured.”
link to complete text of the speech

Joseph Curl, of the Washington Times, responded to the above Obama reality-contortions.  Here’s part of Curl’s response:

“Of course, as usual with the president, none of that is true. In 2007, there were 146.6 million Americans employed. Last month, there were 145.7 million people in the workforce. But it’s all worse than that. The labor force participation rate dropped more than 3 percentage points, which equals nearly 8 million people. Now, just 62.8 percent of working-age Americans hold jobs, a dismal number that’s the lowest in 35 years.

What’s more, Candidate Obama (is he ever anything else?) promised an unemployment rate of 5 percent as the impetus to pass his $1 trillion stimulus plan. While his minions now cooking the books claim the rate is 6.3 percent, millions of Americans have simply fallen out of the workforce — disappeared. The number of “underemployed” — those who want to work full time but can find only a part-time job — is 16 percent, Gallup says.”  —Joseph Curl Opinion

Let’s carefully examine our initially-quoted Obama statement again in a larger context:

“And it’s thanks to the hard work of citizens like Rebekah and Ben and so many of you that we’ve come farther, we’ve recovered faster than just about any other advanced economy on Earth.  More and more companies are deciding that the world’s number-one place to create jobs and invest is once again the United States of America.  That’s the good news. And you don’t hear it very often.    

By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. You wouldn’t know it, but we are. We’ve made some enormous strides. But that’s not the end of the story.  We have more work to do.”   link to complete text of the speech

The above two paragraphs seem to be easy enough to analyze, except for the statement, “You wouldn’t know it, but we are.”  

“You wouldn’t know it”.  What does that mean?

Most likely the statement, “You wouldn’t know it, but we are.” was intended as rhetorical irony—meaning, if you (whoever “you” are) listened-to Obama’s critics (such as the Republicans), you wouldn’t know the economy was better.

Rhetorical or not, is that a creditable statement?

Why wouldn’t you (whoever “you” are) perhaps know, if the economy is actually better as Obama claims? Are there no reliable objective-measures that indicate the health of our economy; and do the “you” being addressed by Obama not have the necessary intelligence and judgment to be informed-of and understand objective-measures of economic health and to evaluate opposing political opinions concerning that economic health?

More to the point, are the “you” being addressed not in the absolutely best position of anyone to judge whether “their” economic wellbeing has improved or not under the Obama Presidency?

Apparently Obama, the omniscient one, believes he is in the best position to tell all Americans whether the economy has improved for them or not.  And presumably if he doesn’t tell “them”, or if they have listened to his critics, they won’t know.

Regardless of intent, Obama has stated, categorically, the improvement of the American economy, under his watch; and in the same two-sentence statement he has implied the logical possibility of a certain class of people not knowing, or resisting the ‘truth’ of the great economic gains wrought by the heroic efforts of Barack Obama.

I suppose ‘improved-economy-deniers’ will be the label for these ‘truth’ resisters.

Here’s Obama’s statement again:

“By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. You wouldn’t know it, but we are.”  

There are two logically separate parts to this tricky two-sentence Obama statement:

Part A: By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office.

Part B: You wouldn’t know it, but we are.

By assigning the values T (true) or F (false) to A and B above, there are four possible truth values concerning Obama’s two-sentence statement:

LOGICAL TRUTH TABLE
FOR OBAMA’S CONJOINED STATEMENT

A B A ∧* B (Obama’ statement)
T T T
T F F
F F F
F T F

*Note: = a symbol for logical conjunction.

What follows is a short semi-serious discussion of the four possible truth values of Obama’s two-sentence conjunctive statement; please notice that the only logical way for the two-sentence conjunction to be true is for both parts (A and B) to be true:

1. A is True, B is True; hence A ∧ B (Obama’s two-sentence statement) is True.
If this describes your belief about Obama’s statement then this means you have accepted an evaluation of the American economy (better now under Obama); but you would have no evidence (“you wouldn’t know it”) that your evaluation is correct, if you have listened-to critics of Obama.

What is the meaning?

It means that you are part of a large, and hopefully shrinking, group of politically gullible Americans.  Sentence B also reveals Obama’s contempt for the American people; he thinks most Americans are stupid and/or totally uninformed unless informed by him.

What to do?

Act quickly!  Get some immediate psychiatric treatment for your mental problem.
You are under the influence of the two primary pathological elements of progressivism:
1) Denial of reality; and 2) Scapegoating.  —Progressives’ Disconnect From Reality

2. A is True, B is False; hence A ∧ B (Obama’s two-sentence statement) is False.
If this describes your belief about Obama’s statement then this means that you have accepted Obama’s evaluation that the American economy is better under his administration; but you disagree that you wouldn’t know whether it is better if you listened-to the critics of Obama.

What is the meaning?

It means that you have been conned with words, but that you are somewhat skeptical of Obama’s pronouncements; you believe, at least, that Obama is partially incorrect.  There is hope for you.

What to do?

Follow your skepticism.  Explore what Obama’s critics have to say.  Gather the facts concerning our economy’s progressing weakness under Obama.  When you have the facts (the truth), then you will see clearly that Obama has lied about the direction of our economy—it has headed steadily downward under his presidency.

And it is largely because Obama is promoting the socialistic economic disaster of “wealth redistribution”, in his words to Joe the Plumber, Obama’s economic goal is to “Spread the Wealth.”; or as Democrats interpret it: Tax and Spend.  Get the truth; it will set you free.

3. A is False, B is True; hence A ∧ B (Obama’s two-sentence statement) is False.
If this describes your belief about Obama’s statement it means that you believe that the American economy is not better; yet you believe that you wouldn’t know whether the economy is better if you listened to Obama’s critics.

What is the meaning?

It means that you think that Obama is wrong or lying, you know the economy is not better; but you believe that you, yourself, will have your powers of information-assessment and reasoning totally stymied if you listen to Obama’s critics, some of whom may—gasp!—appear on Fox News.

What to do?

Do listen to Obama’s critics and then get busy with a bit of research of your own on the sad state and direction of our national economy—inform yourself out of low-info status.

4. A is False, B is False; hence A ∧ B (Obama’s two-sentence statement) is False.
If this describes your belief about Obama’s statement, you believe that both parts of his statement are wrong probably because he is lying and he knows that he is lying.

What is the meaning?

It means that you are not one of the Obamabot kool-aid-drinkers, and you clearly see through his deceptions.  [Obamabot: “A person who supports Obama and is willing to vote for him but doesn’t know a thing about him.” Obamabot ]

What to do?

Share your clarity of observation and thought with others.

“By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. You wouldn’t know it, but we are.”  link to complete text of the speech

Regardless of intended irony or logical trickiness, a primary trait of Obama and his  administration, demonstrated by the statement above, is that they are perfectly willing to say anything, regardless of its truth or falsity, if they think it sounds good. • (853 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Obama’s Illogic for the Gullible

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    As a one-time math major (I later switched to computer science) and student of logic, I can appreciate your analysis of Slick Barry’s falsehood. But an important point to remember is that even if one accepts that the economy has improved (as it has since the nadir of the recession), that hardly proves the validity of his economic policies. In the end, the economy always comes out of a recession, so the proper comparison is between the Obama Stagnation and the recoveries that have followed other recessions in the past. And there he fails badly, and will continue to do so no matter how much Keynesian economists think the economy is finally about to take off as it should have long ago.

    But there’s a reason why I compare economic theoreticians to the story of “The Six Blind Men and the Elephant”, and even used it in reviewing a book by Joseph Stiglitz on the Bush Recession (Freefall) for Salem Press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *