324
submitted 1 year ago by khoplex@lemmy.one to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was about to respond to the points you were making in your prior paragraph, but you saved me a lot of time.

I’d argue that providing me with more free cash flow is better than someone with a low income job.

There it is. How surprising in your careful analysis its your specific circumstances that should benefit over those that have less than you, possibly living in poverty or those that have more than you.

We shouldn’t subsidize lack of motivation or irresponsible procreation by people that can’t afford it.

Ohhh, you need to be careful with this line of thinking. You're defining that higher income is the one metric for determining whether someone is worthy to receive benefits. By your own measure, as you listed here:

I’ve finally gotten to a good salary, but had to endure unnecessary financial constraints.

....and....

Definitely not having kids. Can’t afford that for sure.

... you took on irresponsible debt that made you poor, and you can't afford kids. By your measure you'd be irresponsible in procreating. By your own measures we should be giving money to people that are less irresponsible more motivated to receive benefits. Your logic argues that benefits would be wasted on you because of your past choices and income. Now, I don't buy into any of that.

I believe in quite a few areas of spending that benefits both everyone, and specific groups in certain circumstances which we are able to target with laws or regulation to affect positive change. That includes benefits you likely qualify for, but not to the exclusion of everyone else just because you don't benefit.

[-] porkins@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The government loan was predatory. Was too young to understand the implications of the decision and had no baseline data to judge other than some examples that they provided as to what the salary expectations of someone coming out of the school would be and how long it would take to pay off the loan based upon that. Lo and behold, the government examples were totally unreasonable. The whole thing was a scam by the government in cahoots with higher institutions. Universities are extremely expensive because they know the government will fund the loans. I would have rather the government said no to me than offering a loan that was the equivalent of taking on 100k in credit card debt. People that say that the government protects you by taking their loans are full of it. The government makes sure their loans supersede bankruptcy. You are right that everyone’s circumstances are different. I do feel that certain people are less deserving in the same way you feel that I am. The only thing that would be fair is to treat everyone equally. Fiscal liberals want equity over equality and that’s kind of annoying because it creates classes of people. If we go that route, expect there to be criticism that some classes are not as worthy. I don’t agree with that, but if you are not going to treat everyone equally, then let’s have fun deciding who is worthy enough of my tax money. In my opinion people who pop out babies with no remorse shouldn’t get handouts.

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
324 points (97.6% liked)

News

21897 readers
3390 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.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS