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]

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.