695
To Pay for Trump Tax Cuts, House GOP Floats Plan to Slash Benefits for the Poor and Working Class
(www.propublica.org)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
695 points (99.3% liked)
News
24249 readers
4026 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not quite.
For starters it didn't use to be a choice of "who would you rather see killed" - or in other words, nothing was forever lost if one side won instead of the other - and beyond that it has always been a cyclical choice, so it made sense for voters who felt insufficiently catered to, to punish a side on one cycle to try and get it to offer a better deal on the next cycle.
Whether that remains the case - i.e. will Trump make himself dictator for life - is the big question.
That's true but I didn't mean it as a choice of who you'd rather see killed, just that the system is set up in such a way that as a rational voter you are forced into a situation where you must act to prevent the worst outcome rather than voting for your interests and what you believe in.
I think I used a wrong methaphor (sorry!) because the whole death thing carries a lot more implications than what I meant to convey.
In a Trolley Problem the A/B choice is fixed, is a once-only choice and its effects cannot be undone. My point is that, unlike a Trolley Problem, even in the US deeply flawed voting system the choice is (so far) not an irrevocable one time only choice - there is a new choice every 4 years, most effects from the previous choice can be undone (the chosen one of the next cycle always has the option to undo most of what the chosen one of the previous cycle did) and the actual choices available at voting time are not fixed and can be influenced before the actual vote (Parties can be convinced to field different candidates).
My theory is that in part Presidential Elections in the US system are a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, in that for each Party a candidate is fielded whose political offerings are a certain approportioning of the "cake" amongst different societal interests and the voters who care about such societal interests can chose to Accept or Reject, and given the cyclical nature of the choice, one can use Reject to Punish a party for fielding a candidate who is offering a specific approportioning of the "cake", the difference between a mere Reject and Punish being that the latter is done with the intention of affecting the choice of "cake" approportioning of the other side of the game (i.e. the Party whose candidate is being rejected) that they offer on the next cycle.
Or in common language, in the US system it's a logical strategy to, on one election, reject the candidate of one's "natural" Party who is offering an unacceptable approportioning of the "cake", to incentivise that Party to offer a better candidate in the next electoral cycle - the decision tree in the system is a lot deeper than merelly the single unrevocable choice of a Trolley Problem.
Had most Democrat voters actually been following this logic for the last couple of decades, rather than treating each vote as an independent event from all other votes, the situation in the US would be totally different, IMHO, not least because somebody like Trump would be facing Democrat candidates who actually would be trying much harder to appeal to the common people (as they otherwise would be rejected and hence never win).
Further, the mob here claiming that "natural" Democrat voters who refrained from voting Democrat in this election are losing everytime Trump does one of his extreme measures are totally missing the picture - those people did not reject Democrat to get Trump, they Rejected Democrat to get a better Democrat next time around and a Trump presidency was the risk they were taking for it. That choice will only be a "loss" if the Democrats do not field a better candidate next time around (or if Trump somehow manages to make it so that there is no "next time around").
Thanks for taking the time to come back and clarify your position in detail like that, I think I see where you're coming from here and I have to disagree with you. I think the trolley problem is still the best analogy and I'd go so far as to say some of the assumptions underpinning your view here are very dangerous.
Firstly, I would say voting is absolutely an irrevocable one time only choice from the simple fact that the past is immutable. Trump will always have been the president from 2016 - 2020 and now he's going to be the president for another term. No amount of voting in the future can ever change that. Roe v Wade is still overturned for example and the supreme court is still stacked as far as I understand.
Just ask Josseli Barnica's loved ones how easily the damage of some of Trump's decisions can be undone.
If someone thinks that the price is worth it for sending a message to the Democrats then that's up to them. Let's not be under any illusions though that we can simply change anything in the present day to undo history. That's why the trolley problem is the more apt analogy in my view because you must choose between two different bad outcomes irrevocably.
I'm also not from the US.
I would say that the full picture is somewhere in the middle - generally most actions of a President are not irrevocable but many do have consequences which are irrevocable (for example, Bush's decision to invade Iraq after 9/11 has as a consequence destroyed many lives and created ISIS and that will never be undone, especially the deaths, even if the president after him had immediatelly pulled the troops out from Iraq).
As you say, Trump might very well turn what was mainly (IMHO) not a Trolley Problem, into much more of one by (in "more likelly" to "less likely" order):
The time for Punishing the Democrats to try and influence the approportioning of the "cake" they put forward in the next round of the "game" was before in elections before this one, but that was not done hence the "quality" of the candidate offered by the Democrats. The wisdom of Punishing it in this election was, with hindsight, not so great, but it's still understandable that some people chose to Punish the Democrats by refraining from voting, even if one thinks their estimation of the associated risks of doing so was very wrong.
I suppose I agree with your original idea that in this cycle the US elections have turned into a Trolley Problem (though I see it as a high probability rather than absolute certainty), though I disegree with the wider portrayal (maybe not by you, but many others) of people who chose to not vote Democrat as responsible for what Trump is doing - I strongly suspect they merelly erred by underestimating the risk they were taking, which is understandable since in the Propaganda Heavy US environment the extreme warnings about Trump coming from Democrats were self-serving and very much a repeat of their propaganda techniques in previous elections, so many simply did not believe they were true or at least that they were not purposeful exagerations (i.e. a "boy who cried wolf" situation).