3 ms·

What's wrong with welfare, "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group" ? [1] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/we

What's wrong with welfare, "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group" ? [1] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/welfare https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

tialaramex 5y ago
I don't find anything to be wrong with this, I think it's a good idea. But millions of Americans don't like it. They should like to see others suffer as much as possible. An amazing insight by the modern Republican party was that a big demographic are so enthusiastic about the suffering of others that they will choose, eyes open, misery for themselves just to be assured that it's visited upon others. "Kick me in the head, but make sure to kick those people I don't like too" is more popular with swathes of Americans than "Don't kick anybody in the head" as a policy.
- deregulateMed 5y ago
  This is silly. The concern is that government chooses winners and losers. I lose, you win. This isn't fixing global warming, this is giving some people discounted internet and leaving the rest of us with nothing. How should we decide who gets my taxes for Internet?
  - rualca 5y ago
    A government isn't picking who wins or loses if it builds a road or a sewer line. It is in fact providing infrastructure that benefits and improves the lives of all citizens. Why do you place greater importance on how a hypothetical business can in theory not be benefited by the government over the quality of life of all citizens?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > A government isn't picking who wins or loses if it builds a road or a sewer line. Very often it is, quite deliberately. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3539889 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3539889
imgabe 5y ago
Look at definition 2 and 3. Don’t be obtuse.
- thebradbain 5y ago
  "practical or financial help that is provided, often by the government, for people or animals that need it" "money that the government pays regularly to people who are poor, unemployed, sick, etc." I still don't see the problem? A social safety net is good for everyone. Human compassion and lofty ideals of a just government aside, the rich are benefitting from it, too, in the sense that you can't have a functioning economy if there's no one to actually do the labor, rather than just collect the dividends.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    And that is a valid argument that could lead to a discussion. Deliberately misinterpreting the word to pretend someone said they hate health and happiness is not.
    - thebradbain 5y ago
      I am sorry, but I genuinely do not see a difference in meaning between the first example and the second two. They all concern the social well-being of the whole (in fact, they’re all part of the _same_ definition). Nevertheless, I just picked the very first definition that came up (literally, the one that Google presents on search), without any editorializing. Maybe you’re the one who is deliberately picking and choosing a narrow reading?

tialaramex 5y ago

I don't find anything to be wrong with this, I think it's a good idea. But millions of Americans don't like it. They should like to see others suffer as much as possible. An amazing insight by the modern Republican party was that a big demographic are so enthusiastic about the suffering of others that they will choose, eyes open, misery for themselves just to be assured that it's visited upon others. "Kick me in the head, but make sure to kick those people I don't like too" is more popular with swathes of Americans than "Don't kick anybody in the head" as a policy.

deregulateMed 5y ago
This is silly. The concern is that government chooses winners and losers. I lose, you win. This isn't fixing global warming, this is giving some people discounted internet and leaving the rest of us with nothing. How should we decide who gets my taxes for Internet?
- rualca 5y ago
  A government isn't picking who wins or loses if it builds a road or a sewer line. It is in fact providing infrastructure that benefits and improves the lives of all citizens. Why do you place greater importance on how a hypothetical business can in theory not be benefited by the government over the quality of life of all citizens?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > A government isn't picking who wins or loses if it builds a road or a sewer line. Very often it is, quite deliberately. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3539889 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3539889

imgabe 5y ago

Look at definition 2 and 3. Don’t be obtuse.

thebradbain 5y ago
"practical or financial help that is provided, often by the government, for people or animals that need it" "money that the government pays regularly to people who are poor, unemployed, sick, etc." I still don't see the problem? A social safety net is good for everyone. Human compassion and lofty ideals of a just government aside, the rich are benefitting from it, too, in the sense that you can't have a functioning economy if there's no one to actually do the labor, rather than just collect the dividends.
- imgabe 5y ago
  And that is a valid argument that could lead to a discussion. Deliberately misinterpreting the word to pretend someone said they hate health and happiness is not.
  - thebradbain 5y ago
    I am sorry, but I genuinely do not see a difference in meaning between the first example and the second two. They all concern the social well-being of the whole (in fact, they’re all part of the _same_ definition). Nevertheless, I just picked the very first definition that came up (literally, the one that Google presents on search), without any editorializing. Maybe you’re the one who is deliberately picking and choosing a narrow reading?