Reading comprehension may be dead, crazy considering we are in a text based game. I said I don't agree with it at all, and I believe it's a whackjob election promise that should definitely be condemned. I'm more so looking at the legal side of it. As I said, I'm not an American lawyer, so it's mostly speculation on my end.
Trump Announces Illegal Bribe for Votes
Started by windyrockbell [2805009] on in Politics & Law.
Posts archived: 67 / 67 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
No one is getting $5000.
Republicans are pretending to give Americans hush money because they love raping children.
It's all moot because the Supreme Court will go to bat for anything Trump does,...
Minus Birthright Citizenship, IEEPA tariffs, Firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Mississippi mail-in ballots, E. Jean Carroll appeal, National Guard to Chicago, Census citizenship question, DACA rescission...
Not if Democrats have the majority they won't...
Have you cashed your DOGE and tariff checks yet?
Have you thought about why those didn't go out?
;)
Incorrect, this is just for legal citizens of the US
So, what would you call the constant "free _____ for all!" policies the democrats are constantly pushing? They leverage the welfare state for votes and nobody calls that voter influence
Free for all policies like providing healthcare and food?
Yes. Trump was lying.
He made up something on the spot and just said it knowing his scumbag followers would lap it up then forget it.
Except they arent.. "free", social programs make up about 63.9% of the U.S. federal budget is spent on social insurance and social safety net programs. Thats trillions taxed against people who earned it from people who didn't, which is cycled back into the cost of goods and raises the cost of living collectively for everyone
Universal healthcare doesn't mean healthcare has literally zero cost. It means you don't pay the cost directly at the point of service, and the system is financed collectively through taxes or premiums. That's true of virtually every public service. We don't say public schools aren't "free" because they're tax-funded. We say public education is free at the point of service. "Someone has to pay" just means you slightly understand how taxation works, well done.
Saying "63.9% of the federal budget is social programs" and treating all money being redistributed from "people who earned it" to "people who didn't" is an ideological characterization, not an economic description. Social Security and Medicare? Earned social insurance benefits. People paid for those benefits working their entire lives and only receive those benefits according to eligibility. Your entire argument just exposes how little you understand anything works around here.
Nobody claims universal healthcare is free. The question is whether Americans would pay less overall. You're comparing the taxes used to finance a public system against zero, when the actual comparison is taxes versus the premiums, deductibles, copays, employer contributions, insurance overhead, and medical bills we're already paying. If my taxes go up $4,000 but my healthcare costs fall $7,000, I've saved $3,000. Calling the $4,000 'not free' doesn't change the arithmetic.
Because they’re non-existent? That would be the obvious answer!
Republicans are in charge of the House and the Senate, as well as the executive branch, so what would the reason be?
Your criticism is really that I didnt do any in-depth breakdown of how taxes function and instead made a generalized statement to emphasize a point? How astute of you to notice 😂
Now use context clues to apply my statement to the one I had replied to and see how im referencing how the typical "We'll give you free stuff" policies don't just materialize out of nowhere. Every "free" policy increases the tax burden that is spread out across a wide margin, dense the "cost of living" bit
The point that youre even considering that a centralized government would spend more efficiently is laughable on its own merit
Feel free to hyper focus on my example rather than debate the actual topic again
And can you believe government takes taxpayer money and spends it to build roads and extinguish fires? What a SCAM!
The majority of the US infrastructure needs to be replaced and too many of our tax dollars fund people that make a lifestyle of avoiding societal contribution like the plague and act entitled for the charity. I could definitely think of more effective usage that would benefit society rather than the individual. Heck, if we cut ALL social aid programs we COULD fund "free" education and Healthcare
Back to the OP topic, could anyone explain how Biden printing money to mail checks across the country in several waves isn't economically worse than Trump using surplus from tariff revenues to fund sending paychecks in a similar manner?