GOP Proposes $4.5 Trillion Tax Giveaway to the Rich, CUT MEDICAID AND FOOD STAMPS

Aww man, I didn't even get to the grand finale: why is it okay to take money away from group A and give it to group B, but not the reverse?

 

Because both groups might want to do what is mutually beneficial? One group may not need the assistance? Giving assistance to one group might help that group and the other group and other groups who don't even have a stake yet because they are children.

 

I also think your ideas are bad and do not agree with your philosophy. I am in favor of freedom and self-reliance, with voluntary aid. You are in favor of compulsion and forcible takings. Please stop promoting theft.

 

Your hypothetical law might sound clever on paper, but it completely misses the mark. Yes, we tax behaviors - like cigarette consumption - to discourage harmful actions, not to penalize political speech. Freedom of speech, especially when it comes to political expression, is a cornerstone of our democratic society. Taxing people for voicing their opposition to tax cuts would not only be a radical departure from how fiscal policy is typically designed, but it would also be a clear violation of free speech rights, likely rendering it unconstitutional. In practice, tax policy is based on collective responsibilities tied to income or consumption, not on individual political opinions.

 

Actually, I am not trying to punish people, I am trying to align people's tax bills with what they believe is a fair rate. People are always telling the rich to "pay their fair share". Certainly, if the rate requested of them is fair, you should be willing to pay it. It also wasn't a serious proposal, it was a parable.

It absolutely is the case. I want to be free of paying for other people and not take anything in return, instead relying on myself to pay for whatever I need. You want people to receive government aid (not self-reliant at all), and have other people pay for it (not much freedom for those of us stuck with the bill).

 

This shitbird wants anarchy plain and simple with a side of **** the poor for good measure.

 

Yeah, I've seen enough of his posts to get a fair idea of his stance. I'll give it a brief consideration, then move on.

 

No. I am not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law and punishment of criminals (though that is largely a state power). I just want a small government that is limited to the things enshrined in the Constitution. Defending the homeland, ensuring people's rights, enforcing contracts, building and maintaining post offices and roads, having a system of courts for the peaceful resolution of disputes, etc.

 

I don’t think his ideology is from this angle, imo, not sucking up to billionaire/corporate power but kind of believes its benevolent and inconsequential, which is wildly bizarre to me, but still a distinction.

 

Press Release: February 2025 – Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll
Apparently, the majority of Americans do not agree that it sucks. In fact, it seems like cutting government spending is wildly popular.

Correct. I don't give a fig about billionaires or corporations. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Them having more doesn't make you have less. Even the lower class now are massively better off than upper-middle class people were 50 years ago, through the development and distribution of technology. Having a television used to be a luxury. Computers were massive things that took up whole rooms that only the government and universities could afford, now we carry around computers with thousands of times the power and data in our pocket.

I want the government to be so small that it doesn't matter who is in control of it because it would have essentially no impact on my life. Having a massive government that is controlled by monied interests increases the power of billionaires and corporations. I want my interactions with corporations to be voluntary and transactional, not them deciding who can or cannot open a business or how much other people have to pay employees.

 

So to be clear, group B is the poor and group A is the the rich here.

Asking why something like this is okay is an ethics question, why is anything okay or not okay? It's kind of set by socially agreed upon standards that are based on how people generally think we should behave, right? Redistributing wealth or supplies from those that have and are able those who don't and are unable is a deeply cultural thing, not only in America, within the West and Christianity but also globally and historically across many cultures, of many sizes/scales, and across times. It's simply a human cultural phenomenon.

In general the rich (group A) with less money are still able to subsist, the poor (group B) on the other hand, generally can't. This redistribution mostly lessens human suffering, and the reverse mostly increases human suffering. Therefor, ethically, historically, the former has been deemed okay, and the later, not.

We've had this discussion before, I'm generally baffled on how you believe this would be the natural outcome with a powerless government. I think, in a cartoonish fashion, with the collective will of the people having NO arm, that we'd get overrun in a few seconds by a powerful person or group who could care less about how you want things to be done in this world.

 

So, if I mug a rich guy and use the proceeds to hire some mercenaries and kill some people who don't want me to take their cobalt in another country, but also buy a homeless guy a sandwich, that's okay because the guy I mugged will still get by and a homeless guy got a sandwich out of it. Pure utilitarianism is ultimately an abhorrent moral system. It is not okay to take from someone by force, even if you give part of it away to someone else. Minimization of suffering always leads to the justification of what any rational person would consider morally wrong in service to some "greater good".

It is because if I don't like the way Jeff Bezos does business, I can choose not to give him my money by not ordering from Amazon. No one forces me to buy things from McDonalds or Microsoft. No one forces me to use X or Facebook. All of my interactions with businesses are voluntary. If I don't like the way the government does business, I am SOL because they are taking my money whether I like it or not, and if I refuse, they will lock me in a cage, and if I resist they will kill me. All of my interactions with the government are compulsory and under threat of force.

 

Again, you're assuming the current economic and world structure stays in place under a system that would have zero incentive or enforcement for such benevolent and fair structure.

 

I'm making no such assumption. I am just not assuming that without a strong US federal government that suddenly the world will be overrun by Megacorps that enslave the population and force you to slave in their soylent factory. I noticed that you had no real response to the other half of my post, just a guy in a gorilla suit. I suppose I don't blame you, it is hard to defend robbery on the justification that some of the proceeds will benefit a poor person.

Why look at Donald Trump's approval rating when I gave you the polling on the exact thing you said sucked? Is it possible that people have a personal dislike of Trump or some policy of his, but also are happy to reduce spending? Did you notice that 69% (nice) of those polled supported cutting government spending by a trillion dollars and 83% supported reducing spending over raising taxes?

 

Well I could take my time to do a more serious response but you know you threw in a random “go murder people for cobalt” in there which has nothing to do with my argument on ethics for wealth redistribution. It seemed very unserious so I googled okie dokie gif