Are Americans getting fed up with govt tilting the playing field toward special interest groups?

[g5000]

Little Acorn is proving tax expenditures are the perfect con. The dumb rubes don't even know they are being robbed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn)

Back to the subject:
Voters realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another.

With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality under law demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), is inevitable. Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial government that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

 

[g5000]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn

Yawning. Not enough oxygen to the brain, I see.

Name one? Easy peasey. Ronald Reagan.

You deserve to be robbed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'd still like to know if the OP finds Rotagilla's take on the matter to be of value. What do you say, Acorn......?

 

[sealybobo]

I would love to level the playing field as libertarians and Republicans see fit for one year and when middle class Republicans realize what they think is fair is not fair and doesn't work make them live with their decision.

No social security. Anyone who wants the libertarian way would be completely on their own. They'd come crawling back so fast.

Or would they just accept being losers like Kentuckians do under Mitch McConnell.

 

[g5000]

Acorn, have someone read my posts about tax expenditures and then have them explain it to you. Hopefully, the light bulb, though very dim, will go on in your head.

 

[Rotagilla]

Sorry dude,but I can no longer put up with the constant harping on infrastructure.

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

 

[Rotagilla]

I would love to level the playing field as libertarians and Republicans see fit for one year and when middle class Republicans realize what they think is fair is not fair and doesn't work make them live with their decision.

No social security. Anyone who wants the libertarian way would be completely on their own. They'd come crawling back so fast.

Or would they just accept being losers like Kentuckians do under Mitch McConnell.

hold up on denying social security...I paid into that...Give me all my money back and I'll handle my own retirement and you can do all the marxist social engineering you want.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn

Ronald Reagan.
You deserve to be robbed.

And then follows up with a lie.

Ronald Reagan did not ban all tax expenditures.

Back to the subject:
Spending tax money on Special Interests has been illegal ever since the Constitution was ratified. The so-called "Welfare Clause" (better called the Uniformity Clause) was written to make it exactly that way. And liberals (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating it ever since.

Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods | Page 21 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[g5000]

By banning tax expenditures, we could balance the budget and lower everyone's tax rates. If that isn't a conservative cause, I don't know what is.

What's more, everyone earning identical incomes will pay identical taxes.

What's more, your taxes could be done on a single page. Every single Republican candidate you hear talking about how their tax plan will enable you to fill out your taxes on a single page is talking about banning tax expenditures. And yet some retards think banning tax expenditures is a left wing idea! Frigging hilarious morons...

What's more, a serendipitous side effect of preventing politicians from placing carve outs and loopholes in the tax code will mean special interest will no longer have an incentive to bribe them to do so. Campaign donations to incumbents will plummet.

 

[sealybobo]

What we saw when bush took over investing in things the majority of americans want and benefit from like investment in science, public schools, infrastructure and NASA, we now invest less in all these things, gave the rich big tax breaks, and increased how much we spend on haloburton type defense contractors or kock brother type projects.

The rich love pork projects too if they go to their private companies.

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

 

[g5000]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn

Ronald Reagan.
You deserve to be robbed.

And then follows up with a lie.

Ronald Reagan did not ban all tax expenditures.

It was politically impossible to ban all of them. However, he eliminated those which benefitted the wealthy the most. He particularly aimed at the real estate industry.

 

[sealybobo]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn

Ronald Reagan.
You deserve to be robbed.

And then follows up with a lie.

Ronald Reagan did not ban all tax expenditures.

Back to the subject:
Spending tax money on Special Interests has been illegal ever since the Constitution was ratified. The so-called "Welfare Clause" (better called the Uniformity Clause) was written to make it exactly that way. And liberals (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating it ever since.

Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods | Page 21 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conservatives didn't mind welfare back before black people started using it. Before that they said it was the Christian thing to do.

I agree we are losing our religion.

 

[g5000]

The rubes have been fooled into thinking all their tax problems are the fault of minorities. "Obamaphones". "Food stamp President". Blah, blah, blah.

Social welfare programs add up to only HALF of what tax expenditures add up to.

Half.

The perfect con. Point the finger at the darkie while slipping a hand into your wallet.

"It's that negro's fault. He's buying liquor with his EBT card!"

 

[Rotagilla]

Banning tax expenditures is a CONSERVATIVE idea

Name one. (yawn

Ronald Reagan.
You deserve to be robbed.

And then follows up with a lie.

Ronald Reagan did not ban all tax expenditures.

Back to the subject:
Spending tax money on Special Interests has been illegal ever since the Constitution was ratified. The so-called "Welfare Clause" (better called the Uniformity Clause) was written to make it exactly that way. And liberals (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating it ever since.

Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods | Page 21 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conservatives didn't mind welfare back before black people started using it.

What? when were black people not allowed to collect welfare? Show me the statute forbidding it.

 

[David_42]

The rubes have been fooled into thinking all their tax problems are the fault of minorities. "Obamaphones". "Food stamp President". Blah, blah, blah.

Social welfare programs add up to only HALF of what tax expenditures add up to.

Half.

The perfect con. Point the finger at the darkie while slipping a hand into your wallet.

"It's that negro's fault. He's buying liquor with his EBT card!"

From what I've heard, you're a conservative, are you the only rational one on this board?

 

[Rotagilla]

TRANSLATION: I want government to tilt the playing field toward ME and away from those eeeevil other guys.

(sigh)

To make it an even playing field sure!

Are you successful? How old are you? Well I want that system. The system even a dumb beeoch like you can be a winner.

What I don't want is you and bush rigging the rules so now that you've made it you changed the rules to benefit you but hurt the rest of us.

And of course I know you aren't winning. You're a angry loser who thinks liberals screwed you over when it was really Tom delay and Dennis hastert.

define "even playing field"

I thought we already did that but then Reagan changed things then newt changed things then bush and Tom delay changed things then Jon boehner and Mitch McConnell changed things.

They unleveled the playing field. Now trump has 8 billion not $1 billion and things are harder for you.

Does what's fair have to also work? I'm asking you. What if what's " fair" doesn't work?

I'll give you an example. A minimum wage person pays so much in taxes every year. Let's say $500 a year to live in America. Well why should a billionaire pay more? Why are they being punished? Do you hear yourself?

Would $500 max per American be the rule regardless of wealth? If not why

In America today, everyone is assigned a legally-enforceable racial category by the government.

Rights and privileges are then granted or denied based on one's racial membership, with non-whites given preferences over whites.
The federal government does this in the name of anti-racism, of course..

here's a novel concept...you rise based on your own skills, knowledge and aptitude. No discriminatory laws to artificially advance a minority over a qualified white person because of their race.
How's that for a "level playing field"?

...or do you view them as inferior and incapable of achieving on their own without gvt interference?

It's actually money that makes the playing field unlevel, not race. Rich black kids have it easier than you.

Lots of people have it easier than me..So? That's how the real world works.I'm ok with it.

 

[Rotagilla]

The rubes have been fooled into thinking all their tax problems are the fault of minorities. "Obamaphones". "Food stamp President". Blah, blah, blah.

Social welfare programs add up to only HALF of what tax expenditures add up to.

Half.

The perfect con. Point the finger at the darkie while slipping a hand into your wallet.

"It's that negro's fault. He's buying liquor with his EBT card!"

From what I've heard, you're a conservative, are you the only rational one on this board?

who?

 

[David_42]

The rubes have been fooled into thinking all their tax problems are the fault of minorities. "Obamaphones". "Food stamp President". Blah, blah, blah.

Social welfare programs add up to only HALF of what tax expenditures add up to.

Half.

The perfect con. Point the finger at the darkie while slipping a hand into your wallet.

"It's that negro's fault. He's buying liquor with his EBT card!"

From what I've heard, you're a conservative, are you the only rational one on this board?

who?

You don't know how to figure out if someone's being quoted?

 

[g5000]

Think what our government could do with $1.2 trillion a year.

HUGE surplus.

Lower EVERYONE'S tax rates.

Pay down the debt.

That's what tax expenditures are costing you. Just so you can pay higher tax rates and more for your house to benefit realtors, brokers, home builders, and bankers.

Is it worth it? Is it worth paying higher taxes and more for your house so your banker can buy a new Escalade every year?