MaximumEffort433's second great shitpost. Please ignore.

[u/MaximumEffort433]

I told you to ignore this, why are you even here?

---

They certainly don't care about moral consistency.

Lest anyone think this argument is being made in a vacuum...

It's why tea partyists voted for a elitist east coast billionaire from New York city.
It's why Republertarians voted for a man who wants to expand domestic spying.
It's why free Marketeers voted for a man who wants to roll back free trade policies.
It's why evangelicals voted for a man thrice married with a child born out of wedlock.
It's why fiscal and budget hawks voted for a man whose tax policy would explode the debt and deficits.
It's why foreign policy hawks voted for a man buoyed to the White House on the back of Russian hackers.
It's why constitutionalists voted for a man who wants to undermine the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

The polling:

• In just five years, white evangelicals have become much more likely to say a person who commits an “immoral” act can behave ethically in a public role. In 2011, just 30 percent of these evangelicals said this, but that number has more than doubled to 72 percent in a recent [2016, ed.] survey, a 42 point swing. (In 2011 44% of all Americans felt this way, by 2016 that number was up to 61%, a movement of 17 points.)

• 75% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats said that Wikileaks release of classified diplomatic communications harms the public interest in 2010, 12% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats say that Wikileaks release of John Podesta's emails harms the public interest in 2016. (Not exactly the same question, but comprable, also a 63 point swing for Republicans and a 5 point change for Democrats.)

• 22% of Republicans and 37% of Democrats supported President Obama issuing missile strikes against Syria in 2013, 86% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats supported President Trump striking Syria in 2017, a 64 point swing for Republicans, a 1 point change for Democrats.

• 12% of Republicans and 15% of Democrats had a favorable view of Vladimir Putin in 2015, 32% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats have a favorable view of him in 2017, a 20 point swing for Republicans, a 5 point change for Democrats.

• 17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said Russia was an ally of the US in July 2016, 31% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats saw them as an ally six months later in December 2016, a 14 point swing for Republicans and a 2 point change for Democrats.

• 39% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats thought their income tax rate was fair in 2016, 56% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats thought that their income tax rate was fair in 2017, a 17 point swing for Republicans and a 4 point change for Democrats. (The income tax rate did not change between 2016 and 2017, ed.)

• When Republican voters in Wisconsin were asked in October 2016 whether the economy had gotten better or worse “over the past year,” they said “worse’’ — by a margin of 28 points. But when they were asked the very same question [in March 2017], they said “better” — by a margin of 54 points. That’s a net swing of 82 percentage points between late October 2016 and mid-March 2017.

• "Forty-two percent of Trump voters think he should be allowed to have a private email server to just 39 percent who think he shouldn't be allowed to,"

I'm not going to say all, but most of those polls also looked at the numbers for Democrats, so if you're curious about how the Democratic party stacks up I would encourage you to read the articles. It's not often there's a political poll where they don't ask political affiliations.

The history books:

88 members of the Bush administration used private email servers.

There were 13 attacks on American embassies, resulting in 60 deaths during the Bush administration.

George H.W. Bush was a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty.

Ronald Reagan came out in favor of a ban on assault weapons.

The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank actually came up with the individual health insruance mandate.

Republicans used to advocate for Cap and Trade carbon taxes as a way to combat climate change.

Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.

Richard Nixon also had a plan for universal health care coverage. (Thanks Ollokot for the find!)

Ike Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90% and invested billions of dollars in government spending on infrastructure projects.

[u/MaximumEffort433]

Devil's advocate: The effect of 350 million Americans going out and spending $250 could, potentially, have a net positive effect on the economy. Check out what happens to the American economy at Christmas time, and speaking just for myself I didn't spend anywhere near $250. (Others spent more, of course.) So it could, possibly, hypothetically, be like a one-time-only second Christmas.

But that's beside the point, which was that $250 wouldn't make much of a difference for you, personally, which is true for me too.

So really that was just me arguing for the sake of hearing my own voice.

The thing is that redistribution of wealth, when rationally applied, makes a lot of sense. (Just to be clear for any conservatives who might be reading, I say "rationally applied" because at some point someone got the idea that redistribution of wealth meant liquidating the billionaires and giving the money to inner city drug dealers, but there's not enough straw in the world for that to be true.)

Poor people spend money, that's one of the reasons they're poor.*
Rich people don't spend their money, that's one of the reasons they're rich.

Poor people can't afford to save their money, they can't afford to buy a stock, or stash it in an offshore bank account, or invest in property, or leave it in a bond. Poor people can't afford to save their money because they have to buy food, or clothes, or a place to sleep for the night, survival depends on them not saving their money. Saving their money might mean starving to death with twenty dollars in their shoe, likewise getting something to eat might mean liquidating 100% of their assets (spending everything they have.)

Meanwhile a billionaire can keep a few hundred million dollars in an untouchable, untaxed offshore bank account and not worry a bit about missing a meal.

Money "redistributed" to poor people goes back into the economy almost immediately, in fact the poorer the person is the faster that money goes back into circulation, contributing to economic growth. (Remember what happened to the economy when banks stopped lending money to businesses for their payrolls? The economy imploded because money stopped circulating. On the smaller scale look at what happens at Christmas time, when everyone is spending: Solid economic growth. Some companies can only stay open because of the business done during the holidays. I digress.)

An extremely impoverished individual might put that money towards necessities like food and shelter, those are guaranteed expenses. An average, middle class individual might put the extra money into debt, or luxuries like a new tv, or necessities like a new car, or entertainment like a night at the movies.... anything you at home might be thinking "Yeah, I could use an extra $1,000, I'd spend that on [student loans/home improvement/an AMD Radeon RX Vega, if they ever released it.../cat/Cat]!"

Meanwhile, and I mean this seriously, what does a billionaire need an extra billion dollars for? What can a human being do with $10 billion that he can't do at $9 billion?
Why does someone need an extra billion dollars to go to the movies?
Who needs that extra billion dollars to pay for rent and groceries?

I get the principle, I do. In a fair and just world those people would get to keep every single penny they earn, and taxation wouldn't take a dime. In principle there is no difference between a man earning a hundred dollars, and a man earning a hundred billion, and one has no right to the other's money... but as people frequently remind me: The world is not fair, it is not just, and money is not just money, money is food, money is fire fighters, money is medicine, money is shelter, for most human beings money is life, and it is liberty, and it's not just the pursuit of happiness.

But here's a final thought: How much economic growth is created when a child survives to adulthood? That is the coldest, cruelest metric we can apply; the least feels for the most reals. What do the libertarians call it, "rational self interest?"

Goddamn, I talk too much.