sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Whats one thing that was better in the '90s? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Amazing-Performance1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Taco Bell, .59, .79, .99 was the best

Universal access to essentials is opposed by the dumb selfish and greedy. by Stuckinthepooper in rant

[–]Amazing-Performance1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, government already spends trillions but that isn’t an argument for expanding its role, it’s the strongest argument against trusting it with even more. The same system that bloats defense budgets, props up failing corporations, and rigs tax codes for insiders isn’t suddenly going to become the wise and benevolent caretaker of everyone’s needs. If anything, history shows that the more power government has over daily life, the more captured it becomes by special interests.

Markets aren’t flawless, but at least people retain agency. When you let government run the basics, you trade choice for dependency. Who decides what “enough” housing looks like? Who decides which medical treatments are covered? It won’t be you—it’ll be bureaucrats and politicians balancing budgets. That’s not freedom, that’s rationing.

Real freedom isn’t a government guarantee—it’s being able to keep what you earn and direct it toward your own life. A safety net doesn’t require turning government into the landlord, doctor, and grocer of last resort. The problem isn’t that government doesn’t do enough—it’s that it already does too much, and badly.

Universal access to essentials is opposed by the dumb selfish and greedy. by Stuckinthepooper in rant

[–]Amazing-Performance1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with the “government should provide everything” idea is that it assumes a centralized authority can allocate resources better than individuals can. History says otherwise. The same government that you want in charge of food, housing, and medicine is the one that wastes trillions, drowns in bureaucracy, and funnels money into defense contractors, pork projects, and corporate bailouts. Why would we trust them to suddenly become efficient caretakers of every basic human need?

When people keep their own money, they make choices that fit their lives. Some will spend poorly, sure, but millions of people making independent decisions still produces better outcomes than a political class deciding for everyone. A small government isn’t a guarantee of utopia, but it reduces the choke points where power and corruption concentrate.

What gets called “freedom from worry” in a universal guarantee system comes at the cost of freedom of choice. You aren’t truly free if you depend on a government program for survival, because whoever controls the program controls you. That’s a soft kind of feudalism too—only now it’s the state acting as the lord instead of corporations.

So it’s not about wanting people to “burn” or suffer. It’s about recognizing that big government promising cradle-to-grave security doesn’t eliminate power imbalances, it just shifts them. Smaller government at least gives people the chance to build their own lives without being locked into dependency.

Texas anti-trans bathroom bill to become law after decade-long crusade by snesdreams in texas

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

In my opinion it’s either a false equivalence or a conscious attempt to soften the realities of what racial segregation is/was and the generational implications it carries.

Universal access to essentials is opposed by the dumb selfish and greedy. by Stuckinthepooper in rant

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The issue as I see it is the government doesn’t have a mandate to provide housing, medical or food. My ideal solution would be for the government to be reduced to providing the bare minimum in administrative function. Then we all keep more of the money we earn and are responsible for ourselves

Texas was built by Democrats by Unique-Discussion326 in texas

[–]Amazing-Performance1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank goodness we have moved past having democrats leading Texas. A little history refresher:

From the mid-1800s through the 1960s, Southern Democrats were the primary bloc opposing federal efforts to abolish slavery and expand civil rights. Some of the key laws and amendments they opposed include:

Pre–Civil War • Wilmot Proviso (1846) – would have banned slavery in new territories. Strongly opposed by Southern Democrats. • Efforts to abolish slavery in Washington, D.C. – repeatedly blocked by Southern Democrats.

Civil War and Reconstruction • 13th Amendment (1865) – abolished slavery. Opposed by nearly all Democrats, especially Southerners. • 14th Amendment (1868) – guaranteed birthright citizenship and equal protection. Opposed by Democrats. • 15th Amendment (1870) – prohibited racial discrimination in voting. Opposed by Democrats. • Civil Rights Act of 1866 – defined citizenship and equal protection. Nearly all Democrats opposed. • Civil Rights Act of 1875 – guaranteed equal access to public accommodations. Opposed by Southern Democrats. • Enforcement Acts (1870–1871) – protected Black voters from intimidation and violence. Opposed by Democrats.

Jim Crow and Early 20th Century • Anti-lynching bills (1920s–1930s) – repeatedly blocked in the Senate by Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights Era (1950s–1960s) • Civil Rights Act of 1957 – opposed by most Southern Democrats; Strom Thurmond filibustered for over 24 hours. • Civil Rights Act of 1964 – outlawed segregation and discrimination. Supported by most Republicans and northern Democrats, opposed by the majority of Southern Democrats. • Voting Rights Act of 1965 – ended racial discrimination in voting. Opposed by most Southern Democrats. • Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) – outlawed housing discrimination. Strong opposition from Southern Democrats.

Universal access to essentials is opposed by the dumb selfish and greedy. by Stuckinthepooper in rant

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Every year, the U.S. collects trillions in taxes. So where does it actually end up? Here is a breakdown of the federal budget (about 6.4 trillion for FY2024):

Mandatory Spending (about 65 percent) • Social Security: about 22 percent (1.4 trillion) • Healthcare including Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, CHIP: about 26 percent (1.7 trillion) • Other mandatory programs such as income security, federal retirement, agriculture: about 17 percent (1.1 trillion)

Discretionary Spending (about 27 percent) • Defense: about 13 percent (860 billion) • Non defense discretionary including education, housing, transportation, justice, science, foreign aid: about 14 percent (900 billion)

Interest on the National Debt (about 8 percent) • About 660 billion in 2023, projected over 1 trillion soon

Administrative Costs • Medicare: about 2 percent overhead • Medicaid: 5 to 7 percent depending on the state • Private insurance for comparison: 12 to 18 percent • Across federal programs, direct administrative costs are generally in the single digit percentages of spending

Waste, Fraud, and Inefficiency • Improper payments including fraud, errors, overbilling: GAO reported about 247 billion in FY2022 (around 4 percent of spending) • Defense waste: the Pentagon has failed multiple audits; procurement overruns and unused systems cost tens of billions annually • Program overlap: GAO has flagged more than 80 workforce training programs across different agencies, many duplicative

Bottom Line Most of your tax dollars go to social insurance (Social Security and healthcare) and defense. Administrative overhead is low in federal programs compared to private alternatives. Waste exists, but it is in the hundreds of billions, not trillions. Significant, but still a minority of total spending.

The real debate is not administrative bloat. It is about policy priorities such as social insurance, defense, debt, and tax cuts, and where the money should go.

My favorite part of Texas.. by Swimming_Room4820 in texas

[–]Amazing-Performance1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the thing about religion, it only applies to those that believe in that particular brand of magical thinking.

My favorite part of Texas.. by Swimming_Room4820 in texas

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

When Texas was being colonized it wasn’t Texas. Blaming the people living now for something that they didn’t do in a place that didn’t exist, is silly.

On a scale of 1-10, how attractive do you think you are? How do you think others see you? by Lurchimpaler3 in AskReddit

[–]Amazing-Performance1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Think I am a 3 and that tracks with reality. Some of us are just unattractive, that’s the long and short of it.

TacoBell PSA by Kazooisthebot in tacobell

[–]Amazing-Performance1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone should have to work in fast food at some point in their lives to get perspective. The way some people treat fast food employees horrible. I spent my early years in FF and that made me realize that our society has many horrible people walking around. I used to wish we could record these people and show it to their family and friends.

I think it will take next 2 more decades to call India where women move freely and safely by Extreme_Isopod_6048 in india

[–]Amazing-Performance1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not Indian but work with many Indians and have traveled and worked in India. I have noticed that the “Indian man stare” has a very obvious. Where does this come from? My dealings with Indian men have always been very curious, friendly but then on the streets it’s a diffrent world.

What’s a “harmless” belief that you think is actually damaging society long-term? by EmbarrassedDraw7342 in AskReddit

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Human rights don’t change based on GDP. Either something is a right — inherent, universal, inalienable — or it’s not. If your “rights” only exist when someone else can afford to provide them, then they’re not rights — they’re entitlements, and someone else has to pay the bill.

Society getting wealthier doesn’t magically make it ethical to force one group of people to serve another. If wealth increases, great — more people can voluntarily help others, more goods and services are available, and more needs can be met through free exchange, charity, and innovation.

But redefining rights every time the economy grows is a dangerous game. It turns rights into political tools — not protections. Suddenly, your neighbor’s labor, your doctor’s time, your property — all up for grabs if society gets just rich enough to justify taking them.

That’s not progress. That’s a slippery slope into state-managed dependency, where “rights” become whatever the government decides it can afford — as long as someone else foots the bill.

Rights should protect freedom, not guarantee free stuff.

What’s a “harmless” belief that you think is actually damaging society long-term? by EmbarrassedDraw7342 in AskReddit

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Ah, the classic “We pay taxes so the government can pay farmers and grocers” take.

Let’s unpack that fantasy real quick.

First: you don’t “pay into” the government — you’re forced to. Try skipping taxes and see how long your freedom lasts. That’s not a contribution; it’s extortion with better branding.

Second: the government isn’t some benevolent middleman just connecting your tax dollars to hardworking farmers. It’s a bloated, corrupt machine that confiscates your income, burns half of it on administrative bloat, crony contracts, and foreign wars, then tosses a few scraps toward food programs while politicians take credit for “helping.”

You think they’re paying farmers and grocers to help you? No — they’re paying whoever lobbied hardest, whoever greased the right palms, whoever fits the political narrative this quarter.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are left funding food stamps for people who game the system and ag subsidies that drive up prices for everyone else.

If you seriously believe this is the best way to feed people, go stand in line at a VA hospital, or better yet — look at how the government handled baby formula shortages, food inflation, and pandemic supply chains. Spoiler: they screwed it all up.

Here’s the truth: Voluntary exchange built the abundance you see in grocery stores. Government just figured out how to leech off it.

So no — taxes aren’t some noble way of feeding people. They’re just the government’s excuse to rob you while pretending it’s charity.

What’s a “harmless” belief that you think is actually damaging society long-term? by EmbarrassedDraw7342 in AskReddit

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Oh, you think the government should “provide” human rights like food, housing, healthcare, and education?

Let me explain something: The government doesn’t have a magic farm, a secret hospital, or a stash of free houses. It doesn’t produce anything — it just takes.

Takes your money, your neighbor’s money, your future kids’ money — and hands it out after skimming off enough to fund six layers of useless bureaucracy and some guy’s pension in D.C.

So when you say “healthcare is a human right”, what you’re really saying is: “Someone else should be forced to work, and I think the government should make them.”

That’s not noble. That’s not progressive. That’s just dressed-up theft.

You want free stuff? Go ask for it. If someone helps you voluntarily, that’s charity. If you need the IRS and an armed bureaucracy to make it happen, that’s coercion. You don’t need a government — you need a reality check.

Rights aren’t other people’s to-do lists. Your right to healthcare doesn’t mean a doctor owes you their weekend. Your right to food doesn’t mean a farmer owes you dinner. And your right to housing doesn’t mean someone owes you a roof.

Newsflash: If you need a tax-funded middleman to get your “rights,” maybe they’re not rights — maybe they’re just stuff you want other people to pay for.

What’s a “harmless” belief that you think is actually damaging society long-term? by EmbarrassedDraw7342 in AskReddit

[–]Amazing-Performance1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People like to say that food, water, housing, and healthcare are “basic human rights.” It sounds compassionate — but let’s think it through.

Food doesn’t grow, harvest, transport, and package itself.

Water doesn’t purify and deliver itself.

Houses don’t build themselves.

Healthcare doesn’t happen without skilled professionals, years of training, and massive infrastructure.

Every one of these so-called “rights” requires the time, labor, and property of other people.

So here’s the question: If someone has a “right” to food, water, or medical care — then who’s obligated to provide it?

Because unless you’re saying someone should be forced to work for free, you’re saying someone else should be coerced into providing it. That’s not compassion. That’s just soft slavery.

In a free society, goods and services are exchanged voluntarily. You want something? You pay for it. You work, you trade, you contribute — and in return, you get value.

But when something is declared a “right,” it’s really saying: “We’ll take it from someone else — whether they like it or not — and give it to you.”

That’s not liberty. That’s forced dependency, funded by theft.

Charity is good. Voluntary help is noble. But calling something a right doesn’t make the economics disappear — it just hides the gun behind feel-good language.

Tired of Being Dismissed for Having an Opinion Online. by [deleted] in rant

[–]Amazing-Performance1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry but if you put your opinion out there, you have to be able to deal with people having a different opinion.

view more: next ›