Fun with Slippery Slopes
If we give people tax exemptions for marriage, how long before we give tax deductions for other aspects of family life, like children's allowances and family reunions? If the government begins subsidizing the family, won't we be near the end of a long march toward socialism? Won't we just be a breath away from death camps and a new holocaust?
I like to think of it as an extra slippery double-slope. Though you can argue that tax exemptions for marriage are an example of "social engineering" by incentivizing legal marriage, it'd be hard to imagine any argument for tax deductions for allowances or family reunions getting beyond the question of "why?" But even if the government were to take such an unprecedented interest in keeping extended families together (potentially boosting barbecue-related sales), would it really be socialism, a model that focuses more on the means of production being in the hands of the workers more than anything else? And finally, assuming some kind of "red tsunami" swept the nation and labor unions were controlling the government instead of corporations and mandating controlling shares of stock be given to all employees of their respective companies mean there would be a sudden genocidal effort?
It's the same kind of extreme argument used by the "birthers" turned "tea baggers" turned "deathers." Pointing to typically confusing legislative language as "hidden in plain site" proof that the government wants to kill your grandmother, the elderly-who've already followed the likes of Orly Tates, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich-have been convinced to bring signs to town hall meetings demanding (un-ironically) that the government keep its hands off medicare (because a government run health care system that would be an expansion of medicare would obviously have to siphon money from medicare for funding).
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so funny. Instead, it's better than hilarious. It's so funny, it's life changing. In the future, students will be required to read about this moment in order to attain government-mandated enlightenment.
"Read the bill!" they shout at non-believers, neglecting that it's still in various committees and there's hardly a bill to read. Combining provisions for "end of life counseling" (which in the past has been a bi-partisan effort but has now been removed as an attempt to placate the town-hall mobs), with suggestions that efficiency be incentivized in order to prevent overhead, they insist that the elderly will just be killed instead of given a prescription for cold medicine or something. Awesome. I'd be worried if the Department of Education released videos describing the elderly as "social parasites," instead of AM radio-hosts like Savage and Limbaugh using such language to describe and dehumanize liberals (just like before the genocide in Rawanda, and before every other genocide in history).
I guess I'm just an America-hating liberal. If I really loved America I'd want the government to be small enough it could be dragged into the bathroom and drowned and I'd draw Hitler mustaches on pictures of Obama.
I like to think of it as an extra slippery double-slope. Though you can argue that tax exemptions for marriage are an example of "social engineering" by incentivizing legal marriage, it'd be hard to imagine any argument for tax deductions for allowances or family reunions getting beyond the question of "why?" But even if the government were to take such an unprecedented interest in keeping extended families together (potentially boosting barbecue-related sales), would it really be socialism, a model that focuses more on the means of production being in the hands of the workers more than anything else? And finally, assuming some kind of "red tsunami" swept the nation and labor unions were controlling the government instead of corporations and mandating controlling shares of stock be given to all employees of their respective companies mean there would be a sudden genocidal effort?
It's the same kind of extreme argument used by the "birthers" turned "tea baggers" turned "deathers." Pointing to typically confusing legislative language as "hidden in plain site" proof that the government wants to kill your grandmother, the elderly-who've already followed the likes of Orly Tates, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich-have been convinced to bring signs to town hall meetings demanding (un-ironically) that the government keep its hands off medicare (because a government run health care system that would be an expansion of medicare would obviously have to siphon money from medicare for funding).
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so funny. Instead, it's better than hilarious. It's so funny, it's life changing. In the future, students will be required to read about this moment in order to attain government-mandated enlightenment.
"Read the bill!" they shout at non-believers, neglecting that it's still in various committees and there's hardly a bill to read. Combining provisions for "end of life counseling" (which in the past has been a bi-partisan effort but has now been removed as an attempt to placate the town-hall mobs), with suggestions that efficiency be incentivized in order to prevent overhead, they insist that the elderly will just be killed instead of given a prescription for cold medicine or something. Awesome. I'd be worried if the Department of Education released videos describing the elderly as "social parasites," instead of AM radio-hosts like Savage and Limbaugh using such language to describe and dehumanize liberals (just like before the genocide in Rawanda, and before every other genocide in history).
I guess I'm just an America-hating liberal. If I really loved America I'd want the government to be small enough it could be dragged into the bathroom and drowned and I'd draw Hitler mustaches on pictures of Obama.