This is taken from Failbooking.com which is a site that collects humorous Facebook posts.
see more funny facebook stuff!
Just substitute “Socially/Economically/Environmentally Conscientious Voting” for “texting Haiti to 90999” and “my taxes” for “my phone bill”.
This line really sums up the leftist point of view:
It’s not my money, Hah!
But in the end, you’ve got to pay your bills, even when you’re being ostentatiously compassionate while you think you’re spending other people’s money.
15 thoughts on “There’s a Grand Metaphor for Leftism in This”
Hilarious and tragic at the same time, like a kitten with a cast on it’s leg. How stupid people are these days! “Not my money”. Really? Whose money do you think you’re spending, genius?
God, I hope that phone bill absolutely crushed her. I’d consider it the price of responsibility.
I see what you’re saying, but if you really mean MY taxes, then what’s the problem? If I support a tax increase that I’m equally willing to pay for, that’s hardly naïvité. More like a willingness to sacrifice (sorry, I couldn’t think of a less pompous way to put that).
It’s still hilarious, but I don’t think it translates into a grand metaphor for leftism quite so easily as you’ve put it.
BTW, David, you owe me three hours of my life back; I can’t get off that stupid site.
Ha! Then I win, Cara (Not *That* Cara), because I didn’t even LOOK at it!
Sneaky! You’re a sneak! And yep, I’m still reading it. I’m losing IQ points by the second. Helpppp!
At least it was more socially useful than my daughter’s $1400 iTunes charges to my credit card. That was after I insisted she use the Mac at college so we didn’t keep getting viruses.
Graham, wanting a tax increase means that you want everyone else taxed as well for a sacrifice that they may not wish to contribute towards at all. If I support a ‘war tax’, it means I want others to pay for war just because i likes wars. that is icky icky coercion.
Yeem, I gotcha, it’s just the way it’s phrased in the post (and the facebook example) seems like more of a “liberals don’t know they have to pay for the tax increases they want” kind of thing.
A snarky point: the tax problems of some in the current administration indicate they don’t expect to pay. I get roads to drive on and a military to protect me – no one likes to pay taxes, but we understand some are necessary. This year, post-Geithner, etc., I mind. Obama wants to direct that irritation toward the bankers: when he says he is all that stands between the bankers and the pitchforks, his “populist” rhetoric implies he wants to shift our feelings. The tea parties indicate that shift isn’t working.
Graham, fact is that politicians promising a cornucopia of benefits always promise they’ll raise someone else’s taxes, not yours. Further, most people cognizant enough that there will be an increase in tax burden tend to believe that the value of the benefit received will be greater than the taxes paid; i.e. it’s at least partially paid for by someone else. Rarely do you find anyone who consciously desires to pay far more taxes than a service is worth so that people with a lower income than him can enjoy them, too.
it’s just the way it’s phrased in the post (and the facebook example) seems like more of a “liberals don’t know they have to pay for the tax increases they want” kind of thing.
Well, I think that is exactly what is going on. Here’s the evidence:
(1) Obama campaigns on a platform of significantly increasing government spending but also promises not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 dollars a year. That means he pledged to not to raise taxes on 98% of the population while delivering more free goodies to 100% of the population. Translation: Vote for Obama and get stuff that is “free” for 24 out of 25 people. I think that translates into “It’s not my money. Hah!”
That is only true if you have a flat/fixed proportion tax code. In that case everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. In that case, it would be a case of “equally willing to pay”. However, leftists have always strongly resisted “regressive” tax structures precisely because it would impose an equal burden on everyone.
Leftists are like the mooching friend who goes with you to the restaurant, eats half the food and then only pays the tip (while making a great display of doing.) The only caveat to this analogy is that your mooching friend seldom insults your moral integrity for not taking them to expensive restaurants they have picked out.
(3) Leftist are continually surprised when they end up paying for the government taxes they advocate. They always get caught “unexpectedly” paying for their successful advocacy for more taxes. Sometimes its just that their taxes get raised directly by lying politicians. Sometimes it is in direct as in when job-makers leave a community because they are overtaxed. Other times, you get a situation like California and similar states that loaded up the rich with taxes and now face having to raise taxes on everyone now that the incomes of the rich have imploded.
Why would leftist repeatedly vote to balance the tax base on the numerically smallest, most mobile and most monetarily volatile part of the population if they understood that if those people can’t pay or don’t pay because they leave, then the leftists will be stuck with the bill?
No, I think the leftists track record is very clear. Just like the hapless Cara, they are smugly self-rightous for spending what they think is other people’s money on “compassionate” programs. Then they are shocked and angered when they find out the bill actually comes to them.
I wish I believed they planned that far ahead. I absolutely cannot understand what the Obama people think will happen in 5 to 10 years with these deficits ? Do they have a plan for repudiation of the debt ? Is massive inflation in their plan ? One problem that tax reform has created is the nearly 40% of the potential taxpayers who have zero or negative tax liability. There is a constituency for spending who probably have the lowest possible concern with the future.
OK, OK, President Obama is all for tax-and-spend only he has mastered the spend part and is still working on the tax part.
I am kinda dated, and I don’t know what a trillion is anymore, what the GNP is and what it is supposed to be, what the Federal budget is and what it is supposed to be.
I know that on the tax side receipts are “way off!” and on the GNP side, the economy is shrinking or maybe growing a little bit because of stimulus or El Nino or the Alaskan Volcano (OK, enough about Sarah Palin).
But what does the proposed 3.8 (? do I have this right) budget mean? Is it that big because of the Stimulus (ARRA) and what would it look like once the Stimulus runs its course?
Are we on a Federal discretionary funding binge, and is this a new binge, or is it a mere continuation “of the last 8 years that as president I have inherited” binge?
Is discretionary money the problem, or is all “entitlements.” Are entitlements “way up” because of the bad economy and guys getting laid off and taking early retirement or is it again a continuation “of the last 8 years.”
I know Mr. Obama is blaming all the ills everywhere on “what hadn’t been done in the past 8 years” including when he had been in the Senate.
But tell me, what is the wonkish big picture. Is Mr. Obama’s presidency simply Mr. Bush’s Third Term, or is there a spending feeding frenzy going on that makes Mr. Bush look like a piker? But even about the alleged feeding frenzy under Mr. Bush, wasn’t a lot of that entitlement growth (he did try to partially privatize Social Security and got nowhere)?
C’mon people, lets get some wonkishness going around here. How do I get my head around these numbers making my head spin?
The parents won’t have to pay the bill. Text-based donations can be canceled within some time period (I think 60 days?) for pretty much this very reason.
“If I support a tax increase that I’m equally willing to pay for, that’s hardly naïvité. More like a willingness to sacrifice”
Only if the people who are not willing to pay the tax get to opt out. Otherwise you’ve supported a tax increase on someone else’s money. There’s no ‘willingness to sacrifice’ there. It’s theft by government oppression.
Comments are closed.