Captain America did this kind of thing all the time.
Alright, apparently I was subtle and didn't get my point across, so let's try again.
I'm not trying to divert the conversation to cutting safety nets, food stamps, and cutting taxes for the rich. You presented those issues as an example where it'd be impossible to have them without having bad motivations, I was trying to point out it's actually pretty easy to make an arguments in favor of either. That's why I didn't bother sourcing the 3x, although btw it's a basic fact of the program. Each of them deserves a 100+ post page by themselves.
The point I am making is that, even on an example you picked to show an instance where you could safely assume bad motivations because the argument is impossible, that's not the case.
There is no counter argument for "bad motivations" because all it does is paint yourself in a white hat and whoever as the villain. Bad motivations is the answer for any argument, because it's avoiding all issues and data.
IMHO arguments stand or fail by themselves, it should matter very little who is making them or why.