@BrinkerHarding Me: That doesn't make sense but I don't want to go to jail. Wait, why are you taxing me twice when I fill up my gas tank? I already paid taxes on what I earned, now I have to pay more tax with already taxes money?
@BrinkerHarding Business: we earned $100,000 but had $90,000 in expenses.
IRS: okay, you owe taxes on $10,000
Me: I earned $50,000 but had $70,000 in expenses.
IRS: Okay you owe taxes on $50,000
The House Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly yesterday to support Section 224 and in support of the only democracy in the Middle East. The conspiracies and anti-Semitism were thrown in the trash where they belong.
Excuse me? A majority of Republicans voted to fund transgender surgeries for minors in the BBB. Then turn around and attack Massie for having principles.
American tax dollars should not fund gender reassignment surgery.
Under Biden, states used Medicaid to cover these procedures. His ACA rule threatened to strip federal funding from any provider that refused to perform them.
I co-sponsored the No Subsidies for Gender Transition Procedures Act to end federal funding for these surgeries. Not one taxpayer dollar should pay for these procedures.
Democrats don't want American children going to the school of their choice but claim illegals should get to use taxpayer money to go to college. Like what in the actual fuck? How can you have such opposing views?
I'll never understand Republicans not supporting young people wanting to go to college, not go into debt and improve their lives...these are kids who were brought to America as babies, raised in America, wanting to go to school in the state they were raised in and the Republicans treating them like villains.
@janekleeb You don't want American children going to the school of their choice but here you are claiming illegals should get to use taxpayer money to go to college. Like what in the actual fuck? How can you have such opposing views?
Since the government moves at a snails pace (when it doesn't involve the military) they can simply give us Gas Tax Rebates and then indefinitely suspend that terrible policy.
🚨 OMG. Secretary Bessent just BRUTALLY EMBARRASSED this RUDE Democrat congressman
LARSON (D): Are you in favor of eliminating the gas tax?!
BESSENT: We have moved to—
LARSON: —Are you IN FAVOR of ELIMINATING the gas tax?! Answer!
BESSENT: Well if I'm NOT INTERRUPTED I CAN!
LARSON: I'm waiting for your answer!
BESSENT: We ASKED CONGRESS to eliminate the gas tax. That's done through statute.
*Pause*
LARSON: ...you moved that? You're in favor of eliminating the gas tax?
BESSENT: We have ASKED for that.
LARSON: You're in favor to eliminate the gas tax?
BESSENT: AGAIN, the White House ASKED for it.
LARSON: They have?! Why isn't it before the committee for a vote?
BESSENT: I don't run the agenda. 😂💀
Clueless dolt!
🚨Smithfield threatens state lawmakers?
Nebraska Sen. Eliot Bostar recounts Smithfield Foods' "thinly veiled threats" to potentially disrupt Nebraska operations and America's food supply.
CCP-controlled companies use political and economic bullying to avoid accountability.
If “enforcing morality” is a legitimate function of government, then whichever group holds power gets to decide whose private life gets outlawed and whose families get broken up. The interracial parallel shows this clearly. Many people at the time sincerely believed it was morally wrong and harmful to children, and the state enforced that view.
The consistent libertarian position is that government power should be limited to protecting people from actual harm and rights violations, not imposing one group’s moral or religious code on peaceful adults. That standard doesn’t change depending on whose private behavior offends the current majority.
If moral disapproval is enough to outlaw private acts and control who can raise children, limited government is gone.
Should it be legal for an interracial couple to raise a kid? At one point, many people made the exact same argument about interracial marriage and relationships.
Child welfare is serious but the tool for that is case-by-case protection of the actual child, not blanket rules about which adult arrangements are allowed. That's the state acting as a moral enforcer again.
We already let single parents, divorced parents, and extended family raise kids. The principle doesn't change because the adults have a different private life.
You have a very simplistic and incorrect view of libertarianism.
Libertarians aren't "dishonest Democrats." We consistently oppose the expansion of coercive government power from both parties.
The country was built on a moral framework of natural rights and limited government. Jefferson stated it plainly: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Peaceful, consensual choices adults make in private life aren't injurious. That's ordered liberty, not moral relativism.
"Live and let live" for non-aggressive behavior creates the space where real morality can develop voluntarily.
We share deep ground with conservatives on free markets, property rights, and limiting centralized power. We simply don't believe the state should be the primary tool for anyone's moral vision.