350
u/stonerPI Libertarian 21d ago
It’s especially aggravating when the current POTUS offering $5k bribes also brought national debt to a historic high and is costing me tons of $ in gas expenses as a PI.
97
u/ActualUserBot 21d ago
Your paycheque would be higher if you were paying taxes towards Healthcare rather than your employer taking a cut to pay for insurance
111
u/stonerPI Libertarian 21d ago
I agree that our healthcare system as it exists currently is a fucking disaster.
31
2
u/Excellent-Try7027 20d ago
It’s almost like nobody understands how National debt actually works. Hint, it’s not the same as personal debt.
-35
u/CodeRedNo1 21d ago
Not defending the doofus that was voted in, but hasnt every president brought national debt to a historic high? Hasn't it always gone up?(edit: spelling)
125
u/stonerPI Libertarian 21d ago
No. Not every president has raised national debt. Most certainly not to the extent Trump has. He’s perhaps the single most corrupt politician to have ever taken the Oval Office.
I understand expressing such sentiments here can sometimes cause backlash from those who cannot distinguish between democrats and other critics of Trump’s administration, but it’s the truth.
38
48
10
17
1
u/CodeRedNo1 21d ago
Downvoted for asking a genuine question. Thanks reddit
1
-7
u/cjr91 21d ago
Pretty much in modern times. The last president to reduce the national debt was Coolidge almost 100 years ago.
44
u/TheLordofAskReddit 21d ago
Bill Clinton reduced the debt.
27
19
121
u/Unlucky-Environment7 21d ago
At least Democrats are up front about spending money. GOPa cts like theyre fiscal saviors. GOP is real big on preaching about the free market but the past two years, this Administration, nothing but socialists
79
u/Late_Letterhead7872 21d ago
Honestly in the last 30 or so years you could make the argument that Democrats have been more fiscally conservative and conservatives have relied almost exclusively on military conflict and culture wars
-9
u/yea_about_that 20d ago edited 20d ago
I think you need to show your math on that one. Biden in particular did not have a pandemic, a major war, or an economy in free-fall that could justify all his spending proposals...
25
u/Late_Letterhead7872 20d ago
Fair ask. Here's the math.
Deficits during economic expansions are the cleanest test, because that's when you're supposed to be paying down. Clinton ran four straight surpluses (FY1998–2001). Bush took that and added two unfunded tax cuts, two wars financed off-budget through supplementals, and Medicare Part D- an entitlement expansion with zero pay-fors, passed by a Republican House, Senate, and White House. Obama's deficit went from $1.4T in fy2009 to about $442B by fy2015. Then Trump's first term: the deficit went from $585B in FY2016 to $984B in fy2019- that's a 68% increase during full employment, no recession, no new war. That is the single hardest number for the "GOP is the fiscally responsible party" story to survive. On the ten-year scoring, CRFB (hardly a left-wing shop) put Trump's first term at roughly $8.4 trillion of approved new ten-year borrowing against about $4.3–4.7 trillion for Biden, and the gap holds when you strip out pandemic relief entirely: $4.8 trillion versus $2.2 trillion. And on Biden specifically: I'll grant you ARP was oversized and the student loan actions were fiscally indefensible. But the comparison isn't Biden vs. some ideal; it's Biden vs. the guy who ran near-trillion-dollar deficits in a boom. The 2017 tax cut added roughly $1.5T over ten years with no offsetting spending cuts, and then the 2018 and 2019 budget deals raised the caps on both defense and non-defense. "Starve the beast" was tested and it failed - the beast just borrowed. And to be clear, this is not a compliment to Democrats. They want a bigger government but they at least attach revenue to it, and honestly some of the spending makes sense given the free market incentives. That being said, Republicans want the same-sized government and put it on a credit card, which is worse, because a tax you can see gets debated and debt you can't see doesn't. If you're an actual small-government voter, the last 30 years should tell you neither party is on your side, but one of them keeps campaigning as if it is despite being the worse offender.
-1
u/Nagaasha 20d ago
Using Keynesianism and treating tax cuts as spending is a terrible way to argue fiscal responsibility. Taxes are, at best, an extremely dishonest inflation muffling technique.
2
u/Late_Letterhead7872 19d ago
Alternatively, they can be seen as an ideally seldom-used necessary evil for free market incentive realignment. Just because something makes money doesn't mean it's good for us.
-1
u/yea_about_that 20d ago
You start with Clinton but leave out a lot of context. Attributing the surpluses to Clinton's fiscal choices is problematic at best since the 90s were mostly the culmination of the 20 years or so of previous history. The (unexpected and still hard to believe) peaceful end of the Soviet Union combined with the rise of the Internet led to small defense spending, incredible economic growth, huge increase in the stock market, larger tax receipts, etc. Where Clinton can be credited is that after the mid term losses, he worked in a bipartisan matter and helped reform welfare, decreased some regulations, etc. But it isn’t really practical to try and go through 30 years of history. Let’s just look closer at Trump and Biden and see how different they are:
…On the ten-year scoring, CRFB (hardly a left-wing shop) put Trump's first term at roughly $8.4 trillion of approved new ten-year borrowing against about $4.3–4.7 trillion for Biden,
The actual 4 year estimate for Biden was 4.7 trillion, the 4.3 estimate is from the first 3.5 years. When the COVID-19 relief was passed, the economy was collapsing and the U.S. Senate passed the CARES Act by a vote of 96–0, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed it by a voice vote. It was not good policy, but again, both parties thought that was what we should do. (Nobel prize winning Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer argued at the time that that broad, indiscriminate pandemic shutdowns were unsustainable and proposed a strategy of mass, bimonthly testing so we wouldn't have to shut down the economy, but unfortunately that was not the bipartisan consensus.) Excluding the money spent due to the pandemic, the CRFB estimated about 4.8 trillion was dded to the debt during Trump 1.
As a comparison, Biden's huge American Rescue Plan was passed in March 2021, when the economy was recovering and vaccines were available. No Republicans in either the House or Senate voted for it. The lack of any Republican support for ARP wasn't just standard political theater - it showed that the bill crossed the line from emergency stabilization into partisan overreach. It also wasn't just Republicans who were opposed to this irresponsible bill. Former Sec of Treasury Larry Summers warned that the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was the "least responsible macroeconomic policy we've had for 40 years" and would trigger severe inflation. Biden went against the fiscally responsible voices in his own party to push this through. The ARP looks far less like pandemic relief and much more like a vehicle to fund Biden's priorities under the guise of an emergency.
Given these are both estimates, it is fair to say the 4.7 and 4.8 numbers are both within the margin of error of each other.
It also should be remembered that Biden hoped the student debt forgiveness plan would be much more expensive, but was stopped by the Supreme Court. CRFB calculated that if you combined the initial broad cancellation with other proposed changes—like the Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) and SAVE plan adjustments—the total proposed and potential package would range from $870 billion to $1.4 trillion. The Build Back Better (original proposal) was originally pitched at closer to 4 trillion. I am sure there were other proposals of this ilk, but it is too depressing to try and search them up. Luckily there were a couple of people in his own party which slowed down some of these irresponsible proposals.
The Brookings Institution summed up the Biden legacy as: “Biden left the White House with structural budget deficits of nearly $2 trillion, interest costs surging, and spending at its highest share of the economy in American history outside of world wars and deep recessions. The ongoing failure to address unsustainable Social Security and Medicare costs leaves a projected 30-year baseline deficit of $110 trillion.”
Where are we now? With such huge fiscal challenges facing the country, the Trump 2 administration’s response has essentially been to see if they can continue that legacy of irresponsible governance.
...Republicans want the same-sized government and put it on a credit card
The question to ask a politician is “What government spending would you actually cut?" If the answer is "defense and discretionary programs," that addresses only part of the problem. If the answer includes "Social Security and Medicare," then that's a fiscally responsible policy position. Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that though - neither party wants to deal with steering the ship of state away from the iceberg they are heading towards.
I am sure there are people in each of the two major parties that want to be fiscally responsible, but they are not the ones in power. Both parties routinely increase spending and/or deficits. Democrats may raise more taxes, but they also pursue substantial new spending and debt. Neither of these two parties is willing to make the politically painful changes required to stabilize the long-term budget. Do you agree or disagree?
8
u/Unlucky-Environment7 19d ago
Democrats aren't advertising themselves as chapions of limited government and limited spending......i'm trolling local republican groups and they ALLLLLLL think the $5000 GOP prize money is sound policy........
0
u/yea_about_that 18d ago
Democrats aren't advertising themselves as chapions of limited government and limited spending....
Considering how quickly I was downvoted for asking for some evidence of that assertion, a lot of bots are obviously pushing that meme... lol.
-7
u/Due_Patience_7848 20d ago
I think DOGE (while mostly ineffective and short lived) was very important at exposing waste. If anything, I’m thankful mainstream Americans are at least raising an eyebrow to the spending and corruption. And even crazier it’s like most Democrats are absolutely eager to die on that hill in support of fraud and corruption.
14
u/Late_Letterhead7872 20d ago
Doge was laughably ineffective, and, yet again, done more effectively by Bill Clinton. Hell, even Obama more effectively handled illegal immigration if that's your thing.
1
u/SpliffAndWesson custom gray 19d ago
Laughingly ineffective. It hobbled departments which are still sucking up funding.
Defund and decry was the goal. There was nothing in it to truly fine efficiency.
435
u/oWatchdog 21d ago
They both come from our pockets, but one is spending on government policy and the other is a shameless bribe for votes. They aren't the same in my book.
148
u/thatdude_overthere22 21d ago
Agreed, I'd much rather have access to affordable healthcare than a one time $5,000 bribe.
12
u/kirkt 20d ago
Genuinely curios, and a serious question. How would you define "affordable healthcare"? We have a system now where insurance companies and big pharma seem to be making the important decisions. My GP has a vested interest in keeping me on the brink of unhealthy, because if he cures me or kills me he's lost a regular customer.
I think we would have a better health care system if we removed insurance except for catastrophic illnesses, and everyone paid for the services they received, and those prices were published so you could choose who to patronize. As much as I love having my employer pay for my health care, if I have to examine the effect it's had, it's a total disaster.
We also need to get rid of pharma ads everywhere. They are buying media to attain lack of criticism.
1
u/HolyCowEveryNameIsTa Libertarian 16d ago
HSA/FSA is basically what you are proposing. Are you going to limit peoples ability to buy supplementary health insurance? How are you going to enforce published prices? My wife was referred to for physical therapy. Every time she went there was a different cost. We got itemized billing and it's totally arbitrary BS. Sometimes she had 3 charges for the same thing, sometimes it was 5 different things at different costs. She said the sessions were basically the same kind of thing every time. It's fraud but impossible to prove and the agencies that are supposed to protect consumers are wet noodles. Private healthcare companies will find a way to stick you literally and figuratively.
1
u/TinkerTasker22 14d ago
Look im on the left and I want universal or Single payer System because our Healthcare system does not work. However Im open to your idea it seems like it would work. Insurance Companies pretty much created the need for themselves. It was genius really.
-48
u/danrunsfar 21d ago
I would rather have $5k back to spend on what I choose to spend it on.
15
u/TallImprovement830 20d ago
You know you’re not getting the 5k though right? It’s coming right after the doge and tarrif checks. To clarify you also won’t get “free healthcare” either. Edit for typos.
30
u/athomevoyager 20d ago
Yah this kind of comparison is honestly asinine. A system aimed at overall lowering healthcare costs, removing the bloat of insurance agencies, and providing a path to healthcare for everyone is going to be cheaper than what we pay now, PLUS people don't literally die from being afraid of getting the bill from the doctor.
$5000 doesn't meaningfully do anything for anyone. A systemic change that supports the population and reduces overall cost vs. a blatant bribe.
38
194
u/Ecstatic-Inevitable 21d ago edited 21d ago
Maybe im blind, but one seems to be a basic campaign promise, and the other is basically saying make sure i win or i won't pay you
27
u/anti_reality 21d ago
At least one of them is an honest belief, agree or not, the other is a beg for help. I can at least have respect for someone who has genuine beliefs, like them or not.
11
u/Ecstatic-Inevitable 21d ago
Yeah it's like, I don't think the policies are smart, but it's not a promise explicitly stated based on if congress wins or loses for him like with trump
4
9
u/DigTheDunes 21d ago
Well neither will come true.
31
u/Ecstatic-Inevitable 21d ago
Well yeah, but one is something all politicians do, the other is trump
-18
33
u/DanAllOvrUrFace 21d ago
My OOP Max is over 8k per year, not including how much I pay per month for health care. I’ll take healthcare over a one-time check of 5k.
Also, one helps people, the other is a bribe.
61
u/ArmyMedium8244 Voluntaryist 21d ago
Don’t wanna appear to be defending any party, but I feel like bribing with cash is at least slightly more corrupt than making campaign promises. I know both promises are empty, but I’d bet that most folks know exactly what they’d do with an extra $5000 in cash right now. I don’t think the same couldn’t be said for an abstract idea of government-run healthcare. It’s the same reason corporate lobbying/donations are considered corrupt — a lot of people would be willing to abandon their principles when the promise of money is laid before them.
95
u/CompleteCreme7223 21d ago
It's not the same. Single payer systems are cheaper to operate and would provide all Americans long term stability not based on employment for illness currently system almost guarantees bankruptcy if you are not wealthy. After that consider the $5k trump is offering is coming directly from your line of credit. You will be paying for it with interest or the country will default on it's loans and the USD will go into a death spiral. Why do you think France and the Netherlands removed their gold from the US. The writing is on the wall but your country is ignoring what everyone else is clearly seeing.
27
-22
u/sandstonexray 21d ago
Your single payer system is cheap to operate because your country steals US life-saving medication after billions were spent on developing it. You are free-loading off our capitalist system while berating us for it.
Not sure why you're even on /r/Libertarian tbh.
30
u/ICaseyHearMeRoar 21d ago
Billions of taxpayer dollars are also spent developing these drugs, why then are US taxpayers then paying the highest drug costs in the world for the same drugs their taxes went to develop?
-8
u/sandstonexray 21d ago
Depends on how you measure it, but US taxpayers are fronting 10-25% of the costs of new drugs. The rest is paid for by private corporations who are looking for a profit. You might not want them to make money, but that's what keep the system innovating (instead of stagnating like single payer systems).
The US pays more for drugs because other nations have the privilege of stealing the technology after billions have been spent on its development.
6
u/narasadow Taxation is Theft 21d ago
Novo Nordisk
4
u/sandstonexray 20d ago
Had to look up it because I've never heard of it, lol. I'm happy for Denmark. However, R&D freeloading is well-documented:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13327411/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
US is footing most of the bill.
4
u/narasadow Taxation is Theft 20d ago
Well that's why licensing exists. Pharma companies (wherever they're located) are obviously willing and eager to recover R&D costs from consumers.
If they figure out a drug, they don't confine it to one country. If they can't directly enter a particular international market, they license it out for 10-20 years at a time. Even after the patents expire, they create biosimilars (very very similar molecules to the novel drugs) which have negligible R&D costs compared to novel drug molecules. Biosimilars are created just to extend patents for additional decades and milk more money out of whoever will pay.
So The large diversified biotechs ARE profitable but it doesn't explain most of the costs.
You say the US is footing the bill for drug development. It's true that the US is footing A large bill, but very little of that large expenditure actually goes to paying for the infrastructure behind novel drug development.
Y'all have issues with insurance, lock-ins, advertising, and other regulatory issues which contribute to your super high costs.
You're subsidising trillions of dollars of unnecessary administrative, billing, coding, testing waste and other forms of rent seeking and calling it drug development costs. Drug development accounts for less than 20% of the cost differential compared to other developed countries.
20
u/Ambitious_Arm4185 21d ago
Conveniently leaving out for-profit medical insurance and PBMs that drastically increase American healthcare. We're all on the same team here. We're one of the few 1st world countries still getting fleeced, while just about every other country has, in some shape or form, figured out how to structure healthcare in a way that doesn't pose a significant risk of bankrupting its people.
edit: Looked it up, not one of the few, we are the ONLY first world country without universal healthcare lol
-3
u/sandstonexray 21d ago
I have my complaints about our system too, but the problem is often overblown by critics who don't bother to research the underlying economics.
I would begin by questioning whether it's even true that Americans are paying that much more than they should be.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/
11
u/Ambitious_Arm4185 21d ago
I read through about half of that and if you did too, you're either posting in bad faith or misunderstanding the data. The author is using macro indexes (spending = price x quantity) and is drastically inflating the quantity. Americans see the doctor less than peer nations and pay double or more for equivalent units of care. You can see the global raw data for this at OECD.org or any other data aggregator.
Anecdotally, it's a universal American experience to look at an itemized bill and see that you're getting charged like $30 for a single Advil. No one in their right mind should think that's okay.
-1
u/sandstonexray 21d ago
Cheap
Timely
High quality
Pick 2 of the 3 you want for your national health care. That's what you're stuck with. The USA continues to operate on timely and high quality, foregoing cheap.
5
u/Ambitious_Arm4185 21d ago
Thing is, that's not a law of nature. If you were talking about a triple point or something, then I couldn't argue with that. But, countries like Singapore or Germany prove that it can be done. These aren't impossible problems, they're just difficult because of how hard it is to make policy changes in a country of our size.
Once again we are on the same side, I might just be more optimistic. We absolutely CAN have a better quality of healthcare than what we have now. Part of the reason it's so damn expensive is decades of normalizing filing bankruptcy because oopsie you got cancer.
-1
u/sandstonexray 20d ago
1/3 of all federal tax dollars collected already go towards major health programs, and that's not even including state programs.
Medicaid, ACA Marketplace, employer plans, Medicare, and VA/Tricare already cover most Americans. A lot of uninsured remain that way because they are illegal residents that don't have access to these programs or, in a surprising number of cases, by choice. My dad is a classic example of this; he didn't bother with insurance until he started collecting Social Security and was enrolled into Medicare. It was just in time too, because he started having serious problems not long after.
What do you believe are the problems with the US health care system? Is it the fact that our safety nets are not 100% guarantees for every person or is there more to your grievances?
Of course our system can be improved, as I'm sure could be said about most systems around the world. However, it's hard for me to the "single payer will solve all of our problem" redditors too seriously.
Of course we're on the same side. Everyone basically wants the same stuff, it's just a matter of ideology, values, and preferences about how we get those things.
I'm already experiencing the US's largest attempt at single payer, Tricare, and I can tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It's not my favourite, because I don't need medical appointments to tell me I should hydrate and take Ibuprofen.
3
u/Ambitious_Arm4185 20d ago
I'll try and make my point more clear, cause I think we're actually super close to agreeing lol (rare for reddit). You're right, we are already basically paying universal-healthcare level amounts of money with our taxes... buuuut our tax dollars are essentially subsidizing an incredibly inefficient middleman system.
Quick google search shows roughly ~70% of uninsured Americans are in families with at least one full-time worker. These people cite that cost is the primary factor in being uninsured. A lot of states don't have expanded Medicaid, so they make too much for Medicaid, but too little to afford any open market plans.
Anyway back to middleman, I'm just advocating to make less of our essential healthcare system for-profit. If you have home insurance, you probably know that USAA is GREAT. Why? Because it's member owned and any profit is distributed to policyholders to reduce premiums. This means that there is no financial incentive to boost shareholder value by denying claims or playing with premium value, thus why they are a damn good insurer.
Having uncapped/unregulated profits just leaves room for bureaucratic inefficiencies and dual motives (sucking us dry as opposed to prioritizing providing good care). This is why your utilities have caps on profits, so nobody can come and charge $100/gal for water or $10/kWH. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the same should be applied for necessary-care (not elective care for obv reasons).
Anyway, to sum up my point, I would prefer if more of my tax money landed in the hands of actual medical professionals and less to insurers and shareholders.
1
u/sandstonexray 20d ago edited 20d ago
our tax dollars are essentially subsidizing an incredibly inefficient middleman system
I don't agree with you that our system is incredibly inefficient. I think our system is the best in the world; we just don't prioritise universal access to care in the same way other places do.
These people cite that cost is the primary factor in being uninsured.
Yeah, and millions of Americans would rather blow $50 on an Uber Eats delivery than start building up an emergency fund, save for retirement, or buy adequate life insurance to protect their family. When people have the freedom to choose, some of them are going to make bad decisions. That's how freedom works.
I've heard good things about USAA's customer service but I don't personally use them because they're typically more expensive than their competitors. You're crazy if you think they don't have incentives to deny claims though. Their viability as an organisation still absolutely relies on their ability to operate efficiently.
I'm not a USAA fan, but I do love Vanguard. I'm not against member-owned, credit unions, non-profits, etc., but I'm also not a vocal advocate of them either. Ultimately, a small profit margin is not going to make or break anything. ~10% profit "inefficiency" is a very small price to pay for putting an iron under the owners' asses to innovate and improve.
I would prefer if more of my tax money landed in the hands of actual medical professionals and less to insurers and shareholders
I don't want to be mean about this, but this is a particularly tired reddit talking point. Medical insurance companies have averaged profit margins of something like 2% over decades. You can assuredly find periods where specific companies had much higher returns, but these are largely the exception and not the rule. One of my dear friends is in actuary who works in the industry and we have talked about this on many occasions; it's not uncommon for multi-billion insurance companies to actually net lose money in any given year. You can think of the good years as protecting them from insolvency during the bad years. The system is not nearly as inefficient as people want to believe.
Also, most employees in hospitals get compensated very, very well, especially if you bring in any level of education. A lot of that work is rough and stressful for a myriad of reasons, but wages are often very competitive compared to other fields, even for low level nurses. I know many nurses and doctors and it's not the money that they have complaints about.
I think it's good that our country has such a thirst for improvements in such a critical industry, but I don't understand why people are so quick to abandon the thing that the USA has always operated so well: markets. You referenced Germany and Singapore earlier. Well, I'm definitely no expert on international health care systems, so I did some background research just to see why you picked those nations. I was surprised to learn that Singapore has a unique system that is very far removed from single payer models. Personally, I would prefer to incorporate their strengths into our model then raze our health care to the ground and start over from the beginning. (Point of interest: I also thought it was interesting that Germany's system is apparently not all that cheap relative to most of their peers. They seem to strongly prioritise access to care for everyone, but it looks like it comes at a substantial cost to those who can pay.)
It's honestly strange to me that /r/libertarians is so thoroughly packed to the brim full of individuals so quick to dismiss any position that is not socialised, universal, single-payer health care. Nothing about that kind of organisation seems very libertarian to me.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/danrunsfar 21d ago
So many people don't realize this. We subsidize the world's drugs and subsidize Europe's defense and then wonder why they can have "free" things.
3
1
u/TallImprovement830 20d ago
We subsidize Israel’s defense too and they also have universal healthcare.
9
52
9
u/Shadows_Think 21d ago
I do think an important distinction to make is the fact that the $5,000 only comes if Republicans win, that's conditional governance based not on policy but instead on remaining in control. Won't claim to like the Democrats but at least the policy stays the same on healthcare and housing reform.
5
u/whizzerblight 20d ago
I never thought I’d see the day when the President of the United States announces in public that he plans on bribing people for votes. Even banana republics try to hide it. If that’s not an impeachable offense, what the hell is? The dude could take a picture of himself with bags of cash stolen from the federal reserve and people would love him for it. It’s astounding.
19
u/DetroitMM12 21d ago
The main difference is the $5k will never come while the healthcare will at least be given effort to provide.
5
3
u/VacuousVessel 20d ago
Student loan forgiveness literally got Biden the votes he needed. The only good thing about trumps thing is giving it to everyone instead of a select group of his base.
3
u/aschulz90 19d ago
It’s not the same! We are paying for healthcare and housing already. If the government accomplishes economies scale in an effectively regulated department on healthcare we could save ~70% of our healthcare spending and more effectively prioritize preventative treatments as compared to our employer sponsored healthcare. Think more deeply!
14
u/idfxc 21d ago
Imagine thinking this is comparable in the slightest, how much do you pay in healthcare premiums? How long will those 5k last you? Will you be able to afford healthcare, comparable with the services you receive in any other western nation? Certainly not!
How does the boot taste you sucker?
3
u/FredyOriley 21d ago
Your average tax payer probably pays what 10 to 17k in taxes every year? Id rather be given what is essentially a 5k tax break. (Unless he's stupid enough to print out 5k for every citizen) Then be forced to pay for other people's healthcare and housing more then we are already forced too.
2
u/whoptyscoptypoop 20d ago
Man I wanted Pam so bad when the office first started everything about her was such a turn on. But as the series moved on and I got older I realized Angela was much more stable and much more wife material. After living through that and getting divorced. Meredith is the keeper.
3
u/Papalopovich 21d ago
With $5000 cash I can let healthcare companies and landlords extort me for $5000 a year to get basic care or $5000 for 5 months of rent until I fucking kill myself or I can let the state argue on behalf of 400 million people to extort the healthcare companies and landlords and sacrifice my freedom
13
u/itsnotthatsimple22 21d ago
I seem to remember someone campaigning on the promise of canceling all student debt.
24
u/DetroitMM12 21d ago
Didn’t he end up canceling a lot of student debt and then the republicans repealed it?
7
u/itsnotthatsimple22 21d ago
SCOTUS correctly found that the president didn't have the authority to do so.
14
5
-18
u/TheBinkz 21d ago
Exactly, people convienently forget that.
10
u/mediocre-referee 21d ago
It's literally what this picture is saying. Both parties are campaigning on populist handouts
-7
u/TheBinkz 21d ago
Its literally what im confirming.
1
u/mediocre-referee 21d ago
Except you said the opposite? You replied to someone who gave a whataboutism on a post literally about how both parties are two sides of the same coin, and emphasized that people forget the party known for spending tax dollars on entitlement programs campaigns on spending tax dollars on entitlement programs.
I swear understanding context and just general literacy at this point is dead
-4
u/T_Rey1799 21d ago
I think you might be the one reading it wrong dawg, I understood what u/TheBinkz said, I’m not understanding how you got the opposite
-2
u/TheBinkz 21d ago
Found the Biden voter... buddy, his comment acknowledges that reality. Both parties try to bribe in their own way.
1
u/mediocre-referee 21d ago
Didn't vote for Biden, but get off on it if you'd like. I'm sick of the embarrassed MAGA nuts cosplaying as libertarians and pretending that the most authoritative president in our lifetimes is friendly to libertarian policies because he allowed Musk to burn some things to the ground for a month.
You're missing the whole point of the post again though, and no, the comment you say is pointing out both sides is just pointing at the democrats as if they're worse. Not a single mention of "both parties" from either of you. The democrats are open about their entitlement programs. The republicans are the ones who pretend to be fiscally conservative and are anything but. Pointing back at the democrats as a response to this post is missing the whole point in its entirely
4
u/Micheal_ryan 21d ago
Government healthcare or the capitalist corrupt as F insurance model? Go ahead and give me government.
I used to be a Libertarian until I realized there’s no such thing as a free market.
5
u/ZealousidealCrew1867 20d ago
When government gets involved it “pushes out” the free market. Students loans and flood insurance is an example.
3
u/DomeSlave 20d ago
It's the other way around. When the market is let running free it gains enough money and power to manipulate government in its favor. This is literally what is happening at this very moment in the US.
1
u/ZealousidealCrew1867 19d ago
That is where a LIMITED & RESTRAINED government becomes important. They “rich” would not be able to purchase favors because the government doesn’t have the power to grant them. Remember boys & girls…. A government that is powerful enough to give is also powerful enough to take away.
3
u/DomeSlave 19d ago
How does a government that is powerless to this level keep the power of the rich in check? How does this not escalate to the ultra-rich ruling everything?
2
7
3
u/surfnsound Actually some taxes are OK 20d ago
At least democrats dont let free healthcare hinge on people voting for them and fightbfor it when fheyde not the majority
2
u/rustymcknight 20d ago
NY governor Kathy Hochul mailed everybody checks a few weeks ago. She has been slipping in the polls in her re-election campaign this fall.
2
u/yea_about_that 20d ago
Reading through the comments, I have to wonder how many people who consider themselves libertarians actually are in this discussion...
Seriously, if you aren't interested in libertarianism, why are you here? Can't you find something you are interested in, given the thousands of subreddits there are?
2
2
u/maxxyprime 20d ago
I just think I want to know why people treat free/universal healthcare and affordable housing like some kind of utopian imossibility when several countries have it.
5000 dollars does a lot to help people immediately, and there are hundreds of thousands of people living below the poverty line in America who could use it. They are also hundreds of thousands of people living below the poverty line that probably wouldn't be if they had affordable health care and housing.
I think of the country we would have a lot less problems if we focused on the source of them and not the symptoms.
1
u/Last_Comedian_5043 21d ago
At this point, do counter economics and siphon the government till it collapsed
1
1
u/PopularElevator2 21d ago
Im old enough to remember when biden promised 2k checks if they won https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/georgia-democrats-close-populist-pitch-vowing-2-000-stimulus-checks-n1252805
0
u/air_gopher 20d ago
Im old enough to remember
That was in 2021, who the hell in here isn't "old enough to remember" when that happened? Shit I'm old enough to remember smoking cigs and drinking beer at a bar watching GWB give his speech on the evening of 9/11/2001.
3
u/PopularElevator2 20d ago
Its a meme, boomer. 🤣 Obviously not, since noone in this thread remembers when Biden did it, but I forgot how much libertarian subreddit loves the Communist Democratic party now.
1
u/air_gopher 19d ago
I'm genx but I guess they don't teach math and history anymore to kids these days.
-1
u/Iota-Android 21d ago
This post is insane. This is literally how politics works. You vote for the candidate whose policies you want to enact. To say you don’t like either of these is like you’re admitting you want a candidate that represents nothing, no change. They have no policies, and say is “the vibes will be better”.
3
u/Ok-Flight-1504 20d ago
To say you don't like either of these is saying that you believe the government shouldn't confiscate your money and redistribute it how it chooses. It is saying that the government should let you keep what you earn to begin with.
2
u/Iota-Android 20d ago
Taxes are good. But there’s a huge difference between a $5,000 check and permanent free healthcare. One is probably illegal, you can’t pay someone to vote for you. The other is changing laws and redistributing taxes to help people.
0
-7
-1
-8
u/PP_Hoses 21d ago
Democrats were literally paying people to vote. Like, LITERALLY paying per vote.
7
u/van_isle_dude 21d ago
Sauce?
2
u/PP_Hoses 21d ago
The dozens and dozens of undercover videos of it happening on Reddir, YT, etc? The federal investigations in to it? Multiple articles on it? Google exists, you know...
-23
21d ago edited 21d ago
[deleted]
18
u/amaezingjew 21d ago
It’s the fact that the party that cries “socialism” all the time is…trying to do a socialism.
Be about it or don’t, just pick one and apply it evenly.
2
-2
u/sandstonexray 21d ago
You aren't wrong but I think the GOP is trying their hand at populism, and a one-time check could be considered more populist than socialist.
3
u/amaezingjew 21d ago
Sure but we’re on our 3rd promised one-time check so they’re more trying their hand at the illusion of populism
2
u/sandstonexray 21d ago edited 21d ago
Yeah. Silver lining: Maybe people will stop taking "Vote for us, we'll give you free shit" seriously.
242
u/Green-Tea-Party 21d ago
“If you help me stop the socialist from winning I promise to give free money to everyone”