DADDY

Dems Decry Conservative Bid to End Tax Breaks for Some of the Wealthiest One-Percenters

Liberals are suddenly defending federal subsidies to the ultra-lucrative NFL, even though player average income of $1.9 million has them squarely in the wealthiest ten percent of one-percenters.

For all the liberal hand-wringing about conservative economics providing tax breaks for the job creators of the country, now that Breitbart reported on a conservative who suggested removing subsidies for the NFL, the left has taken to defending those tax breaks. It’s unclear whether they’re ignorant of, or deliberately ignoring the fact that players are not job creators, and also are literally in the highest echelon of the one-percenters who were the greatest enemy of progress not so long ago. The NFL was operated as a non-profit for over 70 years, so virtually all of the league’s subsidies filtered down to teams and players.

Conservative Rep. Mo Brooks’ recommendation is a response to the ongoing NFL debacle. It seems the player protest has hit a tipping point among fans and lawmakers alike, particularly since it’s been established that anybody who dares defy the liberal mob is villainized, to the point a former Army Ranger has been forced to publicly apologize for observing the national anthem. The team’s goal was to not make a statement, but this sort of public and media response to a U.S. soldier standing for the anthem, in a venue called “Soldier Field” of all things, is a very clear statement; disagreement for any reason will not be tolerated.

This is a clear indicator of the modus operandi of the political left, which is to simply oppose anything someone on the right supports. Here, liberals are opposing an end to tax breaks for some of the most obscenely wealthy people in the country, since it was suggested by a republican. When a conservative advocates for free speech, violent leftists wage a campaign of violence to silence them, with virtually no ramifications until recently, when the violent factions began to lose some public support.

Rather than complaining about the reason for the proposal, perhaps liberals should be wondering why the government was subsidizing the income of the richest of the rich individuals to begin with. The left has historically opposed subsidies for companies, which actually employ people. It does make you wonder, though. If President Trump presented a viable plan to achieve world peace, feed all the hungry, and elevate the standard of living for the world’s poor, what pretense would the left use to try to shut that down?

Feature Image via Washington Examiner

3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. GTKRWN

    October 23, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    >If President Trump presented a viable plan to achieve world peace, feed all the hungry, and elevate the standard of living for the world’s poor, what pretense would the left use to try to shut that down?

    They’d tell the truth for the first time in their lives: they’d make the argument that the problems of the third world can’t be solved by simply giving them endless handouts; while the media finally told the truth and explained that by feeding Africa for all these years we’ve just made Africa worse, starvation worse. Like feeding wild animals, they become so dependent on that feeding they can no longer feed themselves. The population swells because they have nothing to keep it in check. The numbers grow because they rely completely on others and all they have to do is fuck and eat while waiting for the next handout. Now even more people suffer. Exactly what has happened.

    They’d call it a staggering loss of jobs, due to the tens of millions of welfare workers that would no longer be on government paychecks doing nothing but handing out free money to others.

    … but the reality is, it would create a huge problem among the globalist elite that has been stealing trillions of shekels of that aide over the decades and putting it in their own pockets. That’s why they’d have to shut it down.

    • PaulMurrayCbr

      October 26, 2017 at 9:19 am

      It’s not just handouts of food – it’s medical care that reduces infant mortality. A nice idea, but if the culture is one in which you have twelve kids because ten of ’em will die in infancy, having eight kids survive is a ticket to poverty.

      We will see massive die-offs of the human population once the oil runs out, because oil is the feedstock for chemical fertilizer.

      • GTKRWN

        October 26, 2017 at 11:43 am

        Mn. Good point about surviving offspring. Breeding like rats only works if you have the mortality of rats, and they’re not yet eating their own young to control the population. That comes after we cut aid.

        Though we’re never going to “run out” of oil. We’re fully capable of producing synthetic everythings involving oil, with the synthetic being better than fresh squeezed dinosaur juice in most all cases. It all comes down to money and profits. Synthetics, like “green energy” are more expensive, which means the market for them is small. Most consumers aren’t willing to spend a huge premium for it when a cheaper alternative is available. (It’s why Walmart exists at all.)

        As crude deposits becomes harder and harder to get at the price will rise. Basic supply and demand. Once the price of crude reaches the point that synthetics become competitive manufacturing will see a massive shift towards synthetic, as it becomes the cheaper product everyone wants to buy. We’ll still have crude everywhere for the very limited applications where the “real deal” is actually needed, and that will be what is available at top-dollar prices.

        The developed world will continue to thrive. The third-world will suffer greatly from the price increases, surely. At least unless we continue to dump trillions of other people’s money into subsidizing their failed countries and their unsustainable populations. With certain (((groups))) always insisting that “overpopulation” means that Africans should keep having those 10 kids, while white people should stop having their own children. Goyim need to work to pay taxes for all the brown babies after all. Coincidentally, of course.

        The marketers have spent decades just trying to sell synthetic motor oil, even though it’s a better product. No one wanted to pay the money for it. It’s just recently caught on as being “worth it” or forced upon the consumer with new vehicles that only run synthetic. It took almost 100 years for consumers to start using “concentrated” laundry detergents instead of something that was 90% fillers, because the consumer just refused to accept the idea that a teaspoon of soap worked as well as a teaspoon of soap in a half-cup of ground peanut shells and salt. Change comes slowly, then everyone forgets because it’s become the new norm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top