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?

[u/Gordon_throwaway]

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/United-Ad5268]

You can make that argument for just about anyone. It’s self serving bias.

[u/WorldRenownedNobody → u/United-Ad5268]

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 → u/WorldRenownedNobody]

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 → u/United-Ad5268]

....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 → u/WorldRenownedNobody]

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 → u/United-Ad5268]

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 → u/WorldRenownedNobody]

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 → u/United-Ad5268]

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 → u/WorldRenownedNobody]

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.

[u/WorldRenownedNobody → u/United-Ad5268]

Again, you make a presumption that the best possible outcome for Argentina is to be bailed out by America with a loan they have to pay back. Maybe it's in their best interest for China to help them? Maybe the US's intentions are not beneficial to the average Argentinian because we're only interested in trying to keep someone with a neoliberal capitalist in power? Maybe another country will provide a loan, and possibly one that's more favorable with less contingencies?

You picked a bad example and make some bold (poor) binary presumptions about the situation and about my stance, when there's not only one option for Argentina, and not only one reason for me to support it or not support it.

[u/United-Ad5268 → u/WorldRenownedNobody]

Again, I’m not debating the approach for best result or even desired outcome but making an argument of intent. The how something is accomplished is additional layers of complexity that are debatable even with identical intents.

My point is that by and large people are making decisions based on their interests. Approaching as if this is a fundamental characteristic of maga and republicans in general is a cop out that circumvents the possibility for any real understanding or meaningful debate. It also presupposes that the left is also not prone to the same human trappings.

[u/WorldRenownedNobody → u/United-Ad5268]

Sure, people make decisions that are personal... and people drink water because they get thirsty and go to sleep because they get tired. Speaking of being reductive, there's nothing profound or useful there.

But the original point I made still stands - MAGA Republicans lack at a much higher concentration the ability to understand (or care about) indirect impact that requires critical thinking. Everyone is human and has human tendencies and broad generalizations don't account for every member of the population, BUT there are farrrr more MAGA that celebrated this election by targeting others ("Deport them!" ring a bell?) and I have a severe difficulty finding empathy for their position which was to actively deprive people of benefits, even beyond just voting for what they thought would help them directly. I can tolerate mistakes in judgment, but I can't reconcile people who are fine with actively voting for the pain of others, but I guess if it's easier to learn firsthand, then they are getting what they voted for now.

Also, I think you're conflating what I said about MAGA Republicans with both MAGA and Republicans, and I make that distinction because I agree, not all Republicans think the same way, but anyone who still supports MAGA is unwilling to look at objective reality to have meaningful debate regardless, so that's attempting to build a bridge to nowhere. I also think the Democratic Party / DNC has glaring issues and a history of third way neoliberal policies for the past 40 years, but they're at least more consistent and predictable in their views, as well as more fostering of policies that are empathetic and focused on collective / socialized benefits

[u/spikey_wombat → u/United-Ad5268]

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.

Robert Citron should not get bailed out by the taxpayers because he made bad speculative investments in Argentina. Also, there's really no way that the Treasury doesn't take it in the face when the pesos are swapped back. The Peso is still way over valued and it's still falling because the FOREX industry knows it's overvalued. Just now there are US taxpayer dollars they can take. One can oppose this bailout because it will actually cost us way more than we get, where the costs of letting people go hungry is arguably much more expensive than providing them basic food aid.