The ugly truth behind virtue signaling

[Machismo]

An across the board cut of government programs by 10% would mean how much less work for companies? How many people would lose their jobs in the process? And what was that about social security and medicaid? I don´t need to read every detailed law just what the things you just wrote would lead to.



You do understand that you just cut demand by the US biggest spender by 10% and say that people losing their job in the process could find other work. I do agree with the last sentence though, that is ridiculous, as ridiculous as having "smaller government" for the sake of size.

Why couldn't they find other work? is it the role of government to create jobs? Fuck no. There's nothing wrong with expecting people to be responsible for themselves.

Large cuts to government spending would kill government and government contractor jobs. Millions of jobs would be lost. Tens of millions of people would save a ton of money, and would have more purchasing power. The people who lost their jobs could go into the markets that would inevitably grow with the increased spending power, or they could start their own companies.

I have stated the reason for smaller government, increased freedoms. You have more personal and economic freedom when government gets out of your way. People should stop being so reliant on government (and other people's money), and do things for themselves.

[JohnBrown1917]

No worries, no Trump here to deport them.

[Mayhem]

Why couldn't they find other work? is it the role of government to create jobs? Fuck no. There's nothing wrong with expecting people to be responsible for themselves.

Because millions just lost their jobs and don´t have social security? So there is significantly LESS demand?

Large cuts to government spending would kill government and government contractor jobs. Millions of jobs would be lost. Tens of millions of people would save a ton of money, and would have more purchasing power. The people who lost their jobs could go into the markets that would inevitably grow with the increased spending power, or they could start their own companies.

The gained spending power by the many will not make up for millions of jobs lost and certainly will not create enough demand for them being employed again. You have not thought this through, not one bit.

I have stated the reason for smaller government, increased freedoms. You have more personal and economic freedom when government gets out of your way. People should stop being so reliant on government (and other people's money), and do things for themselves.

Increased freedoms leads to making the highest possible profit leads to using the cheapest parts leads to people dying. But who cares, they should be responsible for themselves. What you can´t know what is in this thing you just bought because there is no regulation that says companies have to tell you what is in it? Well tough luck, hope you don´t have allergies. Oh btw. asbestos is totally fine again to use. Hooray for economic freedom.

[JohnBrown1917]

Same thing with Rowling, someone even offered to personally buy tickets for up to 100 refugees she could house in one of her mansion but it's just been crickets so far from her.

Living with refugees and helping them are different things.

[Phlegethon]

Whatever little tax you're paying are going to ship an orange buffoon to mar-a-lago every friday for 3 days rest.

I have no idea what you just said. But as I live in the country with the highest or close to the highest taxes in the world, it's not "little" at all

[Independent voter]

This church group sets water barrels out in the desert for illegal immigrants. They would house illegal immigrants and probably are doing so right now.

[Machismo]

Because millions just lost their jobs and don´t have social security? So there is significantly LESS demand?



The gained spending power by the many will not make up for millions of jobs lost and certainly will not create enough demand for them being employed again. You have not thought this through, not one bit.



Increased freedoms leads to making the highest possible profit leads to using the cheapest parts leads to people dying. But who cares, they should be responsible for themselves. What you can´t know what is in this thing you just bought because there is no regulation that says companies have to tell you what is in it? Well tough luck, hope you don´t have allergies. Oh btw. asbestos is totally fine again to use. Hooray for economic freedom.

Millions lost their jobs, you lost Social Security, and you have a lot more money that you can spend. The money is all still there, it's just not being spent by the government, it's in the hands of the people.

A push for higher profits leads to increased efficiency, which is a good thing. If you don't like the parts a company uses, then choose a different company. It is entirely possible to be an informed consumer. Stop being lazy.

[Halyon]

So wanting to support a good cause makes you a bad person if you're not also an activist? Really? That's the stupidest reasoning ever...

Wanting to help refugees doesn't mean you personally want to house them, wanting to save the whales doesn't mean you personally have to be on one of the Greenpeace ships for 4 months straight to help them.

[Zolaris192]

... so if you´re for the death penalty you´re also ok with killing someone yourself.

Am i doing it right?

no actually, and the two have nothing to do with each other lmao

- - - Updated - - -

So wanting to support a good cause makes you a bad person if you're not also an activist? Really? That's the stupidest reasoning ever...

Wanting to help refugees doesn't mean you personally want to house them, wanting to save the whales doesn't mean you personally have to be on one of the Greenpeace ships for 4 months straight to help them.

it does when you are more than capable of providing assistance but refuse to do so lol

[Hiricine]

So wanting to support a good cause makes you a bad person if you're not also an activist? Really? That's the stupidest reasoning ever...

Wanting to help refugees doesn't mean you personally want to house them, wanting to save the whales doesn't mean you personally have to be on one of the Greenpeace ships for 4 months straight to help them.

Well if a cause is important enough to steal people's money to spend on others, you'd figure it would be a big enough priority for the people advocating for it to do it themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean housing refugees, but people could be donating to help people, or even just fronting the money to care for them.

The point being, how much do you REALLY want to help people if you only want everyone else to make a sacrifice and not yourself?

[Alydael]

Same thing with Rowling, someone even offered to personally buy tickets for up to 100 refugees she could house in one of her mansion but it's just been crickets so far from her.

That's what I have said from the beginning. All of these multi millionaire liberals have been very vocal about supporting refugees. As long as it is not near their homes and in the same schools as their children.

If all of the these hollywood types got together, they could probably buy the refugees their own island and they would still have plenty of money left over.

What about people like Zuckerberg too. Facebook only paid .7% taxes last year. .7%!!! Then he offers about some globalist manifesto? Pay your taxes like everyone else first pal....

We also have very vocal, multi millionaire politicians like Nancy Pelosi. Talks a lot about helping refugees, as long as it is not on her back.

I am sorry, I won't listen to a word any of these people say until they put their money where their mouth is. Talk is really cheap guys and gals.

[Deleted]

So people should only be allowed to voice their opinion if they pay a price?

I knew hungary doesn´t care too much about rights anymore but that´s a bit far, don´t you think?

They are allowed. But they're not free from being called on their bullshit.
The issue is debating if that's fair or not. But allowed? give me a break, lol.

[Noxx79]

That's what I have said from the beginning. All of these multi millionaire liberals have been very vocal about supporting refugees. As long as it is not near their homes and in the same schools as their children.

If all of the these hollywood types got together, they could probably buy the refugees their own island and they would still have plenty of money left over.

What about people like Zuckerberg too. Facebook only paid .7% taxes last year. .7%!!! Then he offers about some globalist manifesto? Pay your taxes like everyone else first pal....

We also have very vocal, multi millionaire politicians like Nancy Pelosi. Talks a lot about helping refugees, as long as it is not on her back.

I am sorry, I won't listen to a word any of these people say until they put their money where their mouth is. Talk is really cheap guys and gals.

Most have given more to charity than you will ever make in your lifetime.

Also, you want stronger borders? Put your money with your mouth is and join customs or ICE.
Talk is really cheap. I guess nobody has to listen to a word you say.

- - - Updated - - -

no actually, and the two have nothing to do with each other lmao

- - - Updated - - -



it does when you are more than capable of providing assistance but refuse to do so lol

Why haven't you applied for a job in border control?

[Macaquerie]

Millions lost their jobs, you lost Social Security, and you have a lot more money that you can spend. The money is all still there, it's just not being spent by the government, it's in the hands of the people.

A push for higher profits leads to increased efficiency, which is a good thing. If you don't like the parts a company uses, then choose a different company. It is entirely possible to be an informed consumer. Stop being lazy.

Social Security money ends up in the hands of people anyway, all that gutting it would do is to make saving for retirement the one and only thing anybody ever thinks about. This would in all likelihood lead to massive oversaving and actually shrink the economy considerably due to diminished consumer spending. As for regulations, getting rid of those only shifts the burden of maintaining health and safety standards from the producer to the consumer, which is a fucking awful trade since it's much easier and cheaper to catch the defects at the factory rather than waiting for shit to go south before doing anything about it.

[Mayhem]

Millions lost their jobs, you lost Social Security, and you have a lot more money that you can spend. The money is all still there, it's just not being spent by the government, it's in the hands of the people.

Millions lost their jobs not evenly spread out through out the country but clustered in specific places, but that a lot amount of money is evenly spread out through out the country, can you see the problem?

A push for higher profits leads to increased efficiency, which is a good thing.

On an even playing field, but you just got rid of the referees and teams don´t have to play by the rules anymore.

If you don't like the parts a company uses, then choose a different company.

Great, so now you have to first buy stuff to know about it. Well at least that will increase demand significantly.

It is entirely possible to be an informed consumer. Stop being lazy.

How are you going to be an informed consumer if there is no rule for companies to put out any information?

Also, have you ever heard of price rigging? Going to be super fun paying 2 to 3 times the amount you´re paying now for services where there is no or can´t be any competition.

[Deleted]

What about the reverse, if you are against taking in refugees, what kind of action should you be doing?

[Mayhem]

What about the reverse, if you are against taking in refugees, what kind of action should you be doing?

Standing at the nearest border crossing voluntarily helping the feds, obviously.

[Halyon]

it does when you are more than capable of providing assistance but refuse to do so lol

I'm fully capable of working at the local soup kitchen for the homeless, I am not obligated to do so, nor are you, your argument is invalid. Being capable of doing something you VOLUNTEER for, and not doing it is your own prerogative. Being forced to do it because "oh you can easily do it" defeats the entire purpose.

Well if a cause is important enough to steal people's money to spend on others, you'd figure it would be a big enough priority for the people advocating for it to do it themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean housing refugees, but people could be donating to help people, or even just fronting the money to care for them.

The point being, how much do you REALLY want to help people if you only want everyone else to make a sacrifice and not yourself?

Stealing money? If the money goes to what it was advertised, what's the problem? Donating or organizing money for a charity is still doing something. You don't have to be an activist for it to count.

[Deleted]

Standing at the nearest border crossing voluntarily helping the feds, obviously.

Ehhh, I will stick to bitching and moaning on the internet

[Mayhem]

no actually, and the two have nothing to do with each other lmao

The death penalty has nothing to do with killing a person?