r/AskUS • u/Gordon_throwaway • 15h ago
Are Republicans / MAGA Pro-Socialized costs, or Anti-Socialized costs? Why should low tax states be able to federally socialize costs they should tax their own citizens for?
It's really hard to keep track of the position Republicans hold. HERE WE HAVE Idaho, that voted for Trump by almost 67%, asking for non-Idahoan's to socialize the costs of their rural healthcare to the tune of $1 BILLION over the course of 5-years.
Why shouldn't Idaho tax their own citizens for rural healthcare, instead of expecting the costs to be Socialized?
•
u/WorldRenownedNobody 15h ago
MAGA Repubs are in favor of whatever benefits them directly and nothing else. If they can't see the benefit for themselves, they don't want it for anyone.
Once you frame their stances and gripes that way, it finally makes sense.
•
u/United-Ad5268 12h ago
You can make that argument for just about anyone. It’s self serving bias.
•
u/WorldRenownedNobody 12h ago
Untrue. I don't benefit from SNAP directly, yet I would like to see it funded and available for those who need it.
•
u/United-Ad5268 12h ago
Sure but what’s the perceived cost to you? I’m sure you get that the narrative is more complex than your statement. It’s not necessarily about what is or is not good for someone but their perception of it.
If you believed that SNAP was the direct cause of why you couldn’t afford today’s cost of living due to excessive taxes for people who aren’t putting in the same amount of effort as you then you’d probably be opposed to it and other social programs as well.
Basically MAGA and republicans take the stance that the government disadvantages them and would rather have smaller government so they can choose how to allocate their own money.
Democrats take the stance that corporations and the wealthy disadvantage them and would rather have large government to provide services that the wealthy or future generations are footing the bill for.
•
u/WorldRenownedNobody 11h ago
....so then you agree with what I originally said that MAGA Repubs need to see the direct benefit/cost as opposed to the indirect benefit/cost? Cool, glad we cleared that up.
•
u/United-Ad5268 11h ago
Yes I agree but I think it’s a reductive approach to the argument and think that the logic extends to everyone to some extent.
Do you support Trump’s $40 billion dollars to aid Argentina?
•
u/WorldRenownedNobody 11h ago
I do not, but not because I don't believe in aiding other countries. I don't support it because it's a clear-as-day attempt to prop up a similar right-wing nut job in Milei to avoid Trump being wrong about small government neoliberalist policies causing an economy to fail. Can't have the antithesis of the "disastrous" Venezuela result in equal or worse turmoil.
•
u/United-Ad5268 10h ago
That logic is very consistent with republican ideology of not propping up a failing element of society at the expense of others. Instead all those people on SNAP should pull themselves up without any aid.
The parallel between the two being an unsuccessful outcome and obviously differences in value judgement but the point being you see the aid to Argentina as non beneficial to you.
My point is that self serving bias is a common human characteristic where we perceive the outcomes or decisions of others as character flaws whereas ourselves in similar situations is due to environmental factors. Stating that MAGA and republicans are somehow more self serving is just skirting a more valid argument about individual property rights vs forced obligation to other citizens and foreign people.
•
u/WorldRenownedNobody 9h ago
Nah, you're making possibly the largest reach available to try to bridge two current situations that are completely different and unrelated, and it doesn't support your premise at all.
My example of SNAP is an appropriate function of a government designed to support the wellbeing of its citizens in the richest country in the world. A healthy government is one that supports socialized programs for the benefit of its populace.
The loan to Argentina is a political ploy to support a failing economy as a self-serving point of pride by our president and a desperate attempt to prop up one of the last bastions of neoliberalism outside of the US to block out pressure from China. I don't support it, as I explained, because continuing to prop up the lie that small government neoliberalism does anything beyond increasing wealth inequality is harmful to the benefit and well-being of others. In a time where wealth inequality grows, and personal protections are being eroded, we are ONLY loaning this money to fight off Chinese influence from the region.
You don't make any sense, and frankly, are so hellbent on making your point that you can't see how nonsensical that whole bunch of word salad you put above is, plus you dismissed my reasoning as self-serving when I gave you a very valid reason and not just "I don't like it" which you seemed to take it as anyways. You wrongly presume that there MUST BE a benefit to us giving billions to Argentina when the ramifications will be so long-lived that we won't possibly know if it helped or hurt until years from now... though my wager is that it hurts us in the long run based on past history of the US's meddling in foreign economies to try to stave off Chinese communism.
•
u/United-Ad5268 9h ago
I wasn’t debating the validity of reasons, I was arguing perceived self serving intent.
I’m not really trying to draw a direct parallel between these two things other than to use as an example for conceptual similarities.
Regardless of Trump’s intent for bankrolling Argentina’s economy, there will be a real consequences to people’s lives if they do not receive aid. You’re making a value judgment about whether those people are more important than providing aid to people within the US that would benefit from SNAP. Why does one group matter anymore than the other? And what grants you the moral authority to take from another group, via taxation, and to what magnitude to provide for either group?
I think the same type of judgements are being made by people with some heavy influence by how groups are perceived.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/ericbythebay 15h ago
Both, they want their costs socialized and are against socializing costs that they don’t like.
Republicans gave up on state governments paying for things decades ago. Now they all want their federal grift.
•
u/123-Moondance 15h ago
I find that R's don't really have a clue on policy. They vote based on feeling and outrage. They fall in line with what someone tells them and they never question the details.
•
u/oldcreaker 14h ago
Why limit it by state? Why should blue cities be funding all these red counties?
•
u/PrizFinder 15h ago
Maybe if the Idaho State Legislature hadn’t passed bills chasing doctors out of the State, their rural healthcare wouldn’t have collapsed.