Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
some people are just so anxious to become indignant...  |
You nailed it. The media and politicians dig up some truly irrelevant stuff which they try to pass off as dirt . . . tell us how awful it is . . . then, on cue, the peanut gallery squeaks and squawks a chorus of indignant outbursts . . . and others wonder "is this what the election is about? These are the kind of issues which will determine the fate of our country?"
But even more puzzling than the need to be indignant is analysis like:
"
Now we can see why he does not wish to release his tax returns ... I would guess it would show more about him trying to get over on the government then trying to get by as a business .. not sure how the right who claim to be fiscal conservatives can twist this into a positive?
if he runs the country the same way as his business, does he know the Country cant right off what it owes .. or does he roll the dice?"
Is it being suggested that Trump should tell his tax accountant to disregard losses when doing his taxes. Should trump pay taxes on lost revenue? Does that make sense? Can a business survive with that type of tax policy? Are we supposed to think that "fiscal conservatives" approve of running a business that way? Isn't a primary character of being fiscally conservative not paying more or spending more than is necessary? Wouldn't spending money for nothing in return actually be fiscally profligate?
And the notion that Trump is writing off what he owes is peculiar nonsense. To be able to write it off means he doesn't owe it. If he owed it, he couldn't write it off.
And if he ran the country in the same fiscally conservative way, would that not be exactly what We the People want? Wouldn't we want the government to actually not pay more in expenses than is necessary? That is if the President actually is even supposed to "run the country." Or if it were actually the President's responsibility to control the budget. That is the Congress's duty, not the President's. Although President's, of late, have been ramming through executive orders which cost us money and runs up the debt.
Of course, that is not supposed to happen in our constitutional system. But who cares about that? People expect the new ways over the restrictive constitutional stuff. We expect that the President should "run the country," not us or our elected representatives. Ergo we are frightened to indignation about the chances of electing a candidate who didn't pay taxes which were not necessary to pay. After all, under the new way, fiscal profligacy is exactly what is expected and approved. All the wonderful things that our government does for us costs lots of money. And the government can't write off the debts because it actually owes them. They cannot be considered losses because the government is not a profit producing business. For the government, there is no profit or loss, there is just spending or not spending. And, under the new way, the more spending, the more government, and the more wonderful things it does for us.
We are under the fabricated impression that we actually want a spendthrift government. I guess that's why the curious suggestion that Trump should pay more in taxes than he owes makes sense. The actual suggestion is not that Trump should be fiscally conservative. That might deprive the government of unearned income with which it could spend on getting votes for the really good candidates who want to do stuff for us and enables them to keep the new "system" of raising the debt for the good of all.
And that is too real of an issue to debate on, or dig up "dirt" on. Better to obfuscate, "roll the dice" and make profligacy seem like conservatism. That way we can put the dirt on someone who acts fiscally conservative.