https://twitter.com/s_m_i/status/1472927211833413634?t=NRq3qZYkKxqdR4nHXF6Few&s=19

https://nitter.net/s_m_i/status/1472927211833413634?t=NRq3qZYkKxqdR4nHXF6Few&s=19

  • discountsocialism [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Economically, direct subsidies are universally better. Imagine having a moral problem with giving money to the poor.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      The American outlook is if some people use public welfare other than intended then there shouldn't be welfare at all. It's a brazen contempt for the poor under the guise of not aiding "immoral" behavior. It's considered common sense here that one shouldn't give money to homeless people directly since they'll spend it on alcohol and drugs. So the answer is give them nothing at all, which is somehow the higher ethical position

      • dave297 [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        also rich people take loads of drugs. Don't produce value the bourgeoise will only spend it on drugs