Two answers: 1. No, my point wasn't that there's something wrong with using the word "suckers" to describe people on $200k/year, but that I strongly suspect th

Two answers: 1. No, my point wasn't that there's something wrong with using the word "suckers" to describe people on $200k/year, but that I strongly suspect that he's substantially better off than a lot of the people he's labelling as "suckers". 2. Oh ho ho ho. Yes, indeed he said that. But the fact that someone says "I'm doing X to demonstrate the power of language" doesn't mean that's really why he's doing X. It may merely mean that he's hoping to deflect criticism of the sleazy rhetorical move he's pulling. Which, by an astonishing coincidence, moves in the same direction as the sleazy rhetorical move of saying "allow yourself to imagine" followed by this huge pile of problems our hypothetical doctor might have, each of them plausible enough but distinctly unlikely in the aggregate, and then "That's what the real world looks like for the so-called Sandwich Generation". No, it's what the real world looks like for a small fraction of the apparently-affluent, of any generation. Oh. And "gang-raped by the Rich and the Majority while they high-five each other and call it fairness"? I suppose that would be another example of a loaded word to demonstrate the power of language. The most that anyone's proposed is that his taxes should be returned to the level they were at before the so-called Bush tax cuts, which would put them at about the same level as they were under that egalitarian communitarian socialist, Ronald Reagan. And even that has just been put on hold for two years.