Clauswitz in his study, On War, wrote that war is politics by other means. He was not being cynical, but rather trying to analyze the changes that Napoleon had brought to warfare and why wars are fought. He thought that it was a violent continuation of diplomacy.
So, in other words, there is no down side.
Whether it is a downside or a further benefit is immaterial to the presence of a slippery slope. the question is imply will one thing lead gradually lead to another specific and foreseeable outcome.
With due respect, I have paid a small fortune into medicare. Now, it seems to me that Republicans are all about “giving people back their hard-earned money”. Well, when it comes my time — and that will be soon — you’re going to give me mine back. You should be happy.
We’re not talking about the development of a chemical dependency or the effects of the unleashing of market forces We’re talking slippery slope in the sense that changes in the law or government policy that appear to be a “first step” in a particular direction somehow makes it inevitable that additional rounds of policy changes will push the situation to the ideological extremes, with the opposition powerless to block it.
This ignores the fact that, a) The faction instigating the changes usually has no intention of pushing it anywhere near the feared extremes, and b) There will be plenty of opportunities for opposition to develop and block the moves, especially given the information-age hyperpartisan permanent campaign and the backlash tsunamis it can generate.
As for welfare, well, we had welfare reform a wile back, didn’t we? It’s now stricter and thus more difficult to develop dependency on. We didn’t turn into a nation of welfare dependents. Heck, welfare reform itself could easily be portrayed as the beginning of a slippery slope that would lead to the wholesale dismantling of the social safety net, as a certain political faction purportedly desires.
Democrats don’t start wars?
What does the right have to be paranoid about?
But can Congress change the IRS laws themselves?
Ah! OK
No, I imagine that very few of them do. It is the fear that this is yet another step down the - ahem - slippery slope that is under discussion, not whether or not any average person actually wants that sort of society. It seems that people who call for things like the rich giving all of their money to the poor don’t stop to think what doing that really means.
But, we can see that all the other industrialized democracies which have adopted UHC in one form or another have not become totalitarian societies. So, what slippery slope? One that lands us in the same place as Sweden? That’s a gentle and pleasant slope indeed! 
Except that, according to some sources, if Sweden were to provide its own military security, it would be unable to afford its rather utopian welfare state. But wait. That’s not all. The growth of its Muslim population is proving to be a problem for Sweden. They are a poorer underclass of people, and are beginning to strain traditional resources.
What sources?
And, security from whom, exactly? :dubious:
And, in Sweden’s case in particular, who provides their security if not the Swedes? They were neutral in WWII and neutral in the Cold War and nobody ever fucked with them.
During the 90’s here in Minnesota, we had to get our vehicles emissions tested every year. But even though it was an intrusive, big-government program, after 8 years it was ended.
The slippery slope would have predicted the emissions standards to become more and more strict until only hybrids and electric cars were allowed on the roads. But because it was deemed not worth the cost and people didn’t like the inconvenience, it was rolled back. Kaput.
“Start wars” is too general. The foreign policy of the Bush Administration and/or the rhetoric of it’s supporters after 9/11 seemed to suggest that the US would intervene in country after country in order to block terrorism, with or without regime change. The election of Obama can in part be seen as a backlash to that policy in favor of a faction that clearly would move in another direction.
Is this a trick question? Nothing! That’s why it’s paranoia!
I’m not following you here.
There you go. You went from people wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts to pay for programs like UHC, to them calling for the rich having to give ALL their money to the poor.
Sweden hosts a rather large array of US Redeye missiles, and was a key strategic ally with the US during the Cold War. For reading, here’s one source. Or you can listen to an interview with other sources here.
I think it’s getting down to nitpicks to cite Sweden’s defense burden or lack thereof. We’re not going to slippery slope our way to Sweden.
Sweden is unlike the US in many ways other than whether or not a UHC is in place…
In California, it rolled right down hill. We have to test all cars and the electric cars are given perks. When I moved here 17 years ago, I had to get rid of my truck because it wouldn’t pass the smog test - not because it was actually polluting but because it was missing a part in the emissions system. The truck was so old that I couldn’t see paying to find and install that part, if it could be found, so it went to live in Tijuana.
Yet, the war still goes on despite the change of administration.
No trick questions - assume I know nothing about politics because I really don’t know much. What is it that they think they need to be paranoid about?
I’m asking if Congress has the power to change the IRS laws.
Not me - I’m paraphrasing what people have been saying, people who want the UHC and see nothing wrong with taxing hell out of the rich.
You mean the trend of invading country after country until the US has brought the entire Islamic world under control? No, we’ve retreated from that agenda.
Lord knows why they think they need to be so paranoid, but here are some examples:
[ul]
[li]Gun regulation leading to gun confiscation.[/li][li]Gay marriage leading to the end of straight marriage and wholesale abandonment of moral values.[/li][li]Climate change warnings being a plot to destroy the US economy so as to implement socialism.[/li][li]Medical marijuana leading to wholesale drug legalization.[/li][li]Diplomacy toward the Muslim world “appeasing” them to the point where they can impose Islamic law on the US.[/li][li]The UN and other international organizations will take away our nation sovereignty.[/li][li]Abortion leading to widespread disregard for human life, especially wrt infanticide and euthanasia.[/li][li]Efforts to keep religion out of government being a plot to destroy Christianity.[/li][/ul]
That’s plenty to start with.
I don’t see why not. Why don’t you go find out and then tell us what your point is.
You said “all of their money”. What percentage change do you think is realistically being contemplated?
I suppose, but we are still fighting a stupid war!
I am hoping that most of the people leaning to the right aren’t believing these things!
This one -
[li]Climate change warnings being a plot to destroy the US economy so as to implement socialism.[/li]
Doesn’t even seem to make sense. What do those two things have to do with each other?
Excuse me, I didn’t realize asking a question that you seemed to know that answer to was a bad thing. Particularly since you were the one who brought up Congress.
I have no idea - all I see about the subject is on this board. There are people who don’t see anything wrong with 50%, and since the super rich in California already pay that more or less between the IRS and state income tax, it doesn’t seem like it would be a big surprise if the top IRS percentage went from where it is now (around 35% I think) to 40%.
Or maybe it will simply be another payroll tax but since the last bill I heard about was only going to tax the rich, I’m not sure how that would work.
Enough do for me to have heard all of those positions, and not just from yahoos on the street. I’m only pitting those who do think that way.
Good question. Find someone who thinks that and ask him.
I don’t know where you got “bad thing”, but you asked if Congress had the power to change IRS laws. Unless there some loophole I’m not aware of, I’m going to go with “yes”. Certainly tax increases have to be voted on as part of the budget. But you were the one who brought up the IRS, so you obviously have some point to make, so what is it?
[/quote]
But that’s not the extreme position suggested by invoking the slippery slope.
I wouldn’t go over 40%, but even a top rate of 50% is moderate by historical standards. In the 1950s it was 91%! It may have been realistic then, but I don’t think that’s realistic now or in the near future.
Here’s a chart of top Federal income tax rates for the US by year. Lookit the slopes!
Got to agree, some of the models like slippery slope and pendulum are mostly wishful thinking.
This is like the bravado of defeated mercenaries of all stripes who declare “If you kill us that will just inspire more to rise in our place, as we will then be martyred heroes.” Yeah, that or quickly forgotten losers.