Explain to me the American mindset around work, entitlement, and earning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

Careful there. Nobody is just sitting around not working at all. You’re trying to imply that *those* people are “living it up”…you know what you really mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

I’m sure you hate alimony though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

I’m sure you hate alimony though.

Alimony is between you and your spouse. If you weren't smart enough to get a pre-nup that's also between you and your spouse. But the rest of taxpayers do not owe you a lifetime paid vacation. Fund it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

I am on the left, but I agree that the student loan forgiveness is totally different from everything else you listed and has broader opposition. It is the "fairness" issue.

I don't understand this. How is student loans a gamble but having kids you can't afford not a gamble? Both decisions are taken with full information and the latter is usually made at point of time when you are at least half a decade older than the 18-year-old forced to sign on the dotted line for six-figures in debt.

I am not for one over the other - I'm for neither - but your logic is curious.

One difference is that child credits are given to the child, who is a person. So it's a benefit given to a new person, managed by another person, the parent.

Borrowing money doesn't create a new citizen. If you incorporated that debt, then maybe it becomes a person. Check citizens united, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

I am on the left, but I agree that the student loan forgiveness is totally different from everything else you listed and has broader opposition. It is the "fairness" issue.

I don't understand this. How is student loans a gamble but having kids you can't afford not a gamble? Both decisions are taken with full information and the latter is usually made at point of time when you are at least half a decade older than the 18-year-old forced to sign on the dotted line for six-figures in debt.

I am not for one over the other - I'm for neither - but your logic is curious.

One difference is that child credits are given to the child, who is a person. So it's a benefit given to a new person, managed by another person, the parent.

Borrowing money doesn't create a new citizen. If you incorporated that debt, then maybe it becomes a person. Check citizens united, though.

Except the child credits are not given to the child. The child does not have a bank account. A trust fund or baby bonds account is not set-up for the child's future use.

The parents were getting cash deposits, often on unearned income as there was no requirement to actually earn money, and using it for everything from car payments to food to debt reduction to clothes shopping.

At least an educational loan has a singular purpose and defined effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

I am on the left, but I agree that the student loan forgiveness is totally different from everything else you listed and has broader opposition. It is the "fairness" issue.

I don't understand this. How is student loans a gamble but having kids you can't afford not a gamble? Both decisions are taken with full information and the latter is usually made at point of time when you are at least half a decade older than the 18-year-old forced to sign on the dotted line for six-figures in debt.

I am not for one over the other - I'm for neither - but your logic is curious.

One difference is that child credits are given to the child, who is a person. So it's a benefit given to a new person, managed by another person, the parent.

Borrowing money doesn't create a new citizen. If you incorporated that debt, then maybe it becomes a person. Check citizens united, though.

Except the child credits are not given to the child. The child does not have a bank account. A trust fund or baby bonds account is not set-up for the child's future use.

The parents were getting cash deposits, often on unearned income as there was no requirement to actually earn money, and using it for everything from car payments to food to debt reduction to clothes shopping.

At least an educational loan has a singular purpose and defined effect.

That's a constraint in the management, but if we're giving out aid, I'd feed the babies first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

I am on the left, but I agree that the student loan forgiveness is totally different from everything else you listed and has broader opposition. It is the "fairness" issue.

I don't understand this. How is student loans a gamble but having kids you can't afford not a gamble? Both decisions are taken with full information and the latter is usually made at point of time when you are at least half a decade older than the 18-year-old forced to sign on the dotted line for six-figures in debt.

I am not for one over the other - I'm for neither - but your logic is curious.

One difference is that child credits are given to the child, who is a person. So it's a benefit given to a new person, managed by another person, the parent.

Borrowing money doesn't create a new citizen. If you incorporated that debt, then maybe it becomes a person. Check citizens united, though.

Except the child credits are not given to the child. The child does not have a bank account. A trust fund or baby bonds account is not set-up for the child's future use.

The parents were getting cash deposits, often on unearned income as there was no requirement to actually earn money, and using it for everything from car payments to food to debt reduction to clothes shopping.

At least an educational loan has a singular purpose and defined effect.

That's a constraint in the management, but if we're giving out aid, I'd feed the babies first.

A constraint in the management? Nice way of saying it was a complete f&ck up. And babies if they need food are eligible for WIC which is expressly designed for this and ran concurrently with the CTC program as well as SNAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's because Republicans hate poor people who don't look like them. That's all there is to it.

Agreed. I remember watching a show on this topic and they asked a white woman why the US couldn’t be more like Scandinavia (more social spending, etc…) and I remember being so shocked by her answer. She basically said “all Scandinavians are “the same people”…implying…”white” and that she was okay paying taxes that benefited other white people. But the US is “different” and she would not be okay paying into such a system….Sad (and racist).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

I personally know two women who flew from Maryland to Miami for brazilian butt lifts on the public dime. Their "cards" had built up to $6000 so they had enough to pay for cheapo flights and the BBL.

I'm all for children not going hungry in America but paying benefits generous to cover elective plastic surgery is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids

1) So long as people realize that basic health care is not full access to the medical capabilities of the US. People will still have to purchase private insurance for additional coverage. 2) free universal child care must be performed by a public institution to be paid for by taxes, just like the current balance between public and private schools. Some sort of voucher system could be implemented, but I don't think that's going to fly. I don't think it's necessary to limit the number of children. I would like to see some population growth, which is a public good.

Oh please. Someone with 8 back-to-back pregnancies should not be able to take 10 years off with $100,000 in income annually on the public dime. You want to have long-term pregnancy leave, pay for it yourself. Its called stepping out of the workforce.

I personally know two women who flew from Maryland to Miami for brazilian butt lifts on the public dime. Their "cards" had built up to $6000 so they had enough to pay for cheapo flights and the BBL.

I'm all for children not going hungry in America but paying benefits generous to cover elective plastic surgery is ridiculous.

Florida, a republican state, has more generous welfare medical benefits than Maryland, a democrat state? fascinating

[Anonymous]

People don’t seem to mind others not working while living off the earnings of others — when they inherit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don’t seem to mind others not working while living off the earnings of others — when they inherit it.

If you want your student loan forgiven, just convince everyone that the economy will collapse without it. I'm still waiting for home equity loan forgiveness, and we really need it otherwise the construction industry will collapse. America's economy is driven in large part by construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don’t seem to mind others not working while living off the earnings of others — when they inherit it.

That's an entirely different concept or idea. An inheritance is received from a loved one as a voluntary gift, it's an act of the gift giver. A government-managed payment transfer is not voluntary on the part of the giver - those that pay more into the system than they receive in return.