Pascal opines
while recounting a conversation we had, that we live in a house of cards (so to speak).
This is an interesting idea and has a few interesting twists and turns.
undoubtedly, the left began the game by cheating. You can’t gain support for stupidity with reason, so you do it by making people beholden to you- witness the welfare act and social security and etc.- in other words, dealing from the bottom of the deck.
Once you win by cheating often enough you can win- as Pascal points out too clearly- by “Buying” the pot. Raising the bid so high that nobody can bid against you. He mentions Bloomie and all the elections he has recently purchased, but this is true of the entire liberal organization- not only in dollars raised and spent on campaigns, but in things like Obamaphones, “Free” healthcare, etc.
The house of cards will eventually fall. As the Iron lady said, you eventually run out of other people’s money. The unions now feel their bloated pensions are under attack, so they are trying to “buy the deck” from the public officials.
Only one thing is sure. WE are the losers. because they are ALL using OUR MONEY to do this. P mentions the way the Progressive Income tax was supposed to work, to remove the money from Bloomie’s hands so he couldn’t do this sort of thing, but those in power will always carve out their own loopholes so they can keep what they want and do nefarious shit with it.
Well, if this was a card game you could elect not to play.
Not so much with this group. Like Kim used to say, lamp post and rope, some assembly required.
I addressed the loophole issue in my post. Let’s explore this even more than I did there.
Of course there are ways to beat the taxes, and always will be. However the big money is not completely unencumbered.
At least the income tax forced the 19th century robber barons to form foundations. That in turn required them to hire people to do what they wished.
There is a kind of checks and balance there. No two people think the same way no matter how strong the incentives.
However, once the top tax rate became low enough, the big money, like Bloomie, could use his amassed loot much more directly. And we see almost daily how his sudden whims actually allow him to both make a fool of himself and reveal how tyrannical can be a wealthy man permitted to gain high enough office. He has no middle men to fire and blame for his stupidity — as Obama is likely to be doing a la this post: http://pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2013/06/skirting-godwin-at-aoshq-no-smoking-gun.html
See, once again, even what seems like sound logic, because it popularized mainly from libertarians it is missing a few screws. Like actually looking into the consequences.
Paul b.
You almost prove that I didn’t need to write my post if there were more people who thought like you.
You certainly got my point about poker games. We walk away from any game where there is a money bags who is gonna buy the pot. Who in their right mind would even throw into a penny ante game?
And you also caught on immediately to how I extended the metaphor to the game of politics. Please forgive my self quotation. “But in politics we are supposed to have a choice. When there is someone who acts like a pot buyer, those who are forced to live under his rule are left with only with hope and prayer that he is not completely nuts, or faced with a messier solution if he is.”
You fully understand messier solutions as do our tormenters. The house of cards can fall inwards or outwards or both. You decide which you prefer and help nature take its course.
Well, I think the third direction for a house of cards to fall is the prevailing wind direction. But I suppose it does not matter much to whoever lives in the card house.
Messy depends on whether we can keep the wheels of delivery turning. Should they stop, things will get messy. The longer they are stopped the messier things will be.
yep