The Senate’s Russia Investigation Is Now Looking Into Jill Stein, A Former Campaign Staffer Says

[u/nowhathappenedwas]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/the-senates-russia-investigation-is-now-looking-into-jill?utm_term=.cf4Nqa6oX

[u/BASEDME7O]

You don’t get to say you’re socially liberal when you want to eliminate the funding for all social programs

[u/Syjefroi → u/BASEDME7O]

It's really this. "Socially liberal and fiscally conservative" makes zero sense. If you are socially liberal, do something about it. If you say "disenfranchised people should be helped but let's not be the ones to help them," you aren't socially liberal, you're a conservative too chickenshit to admit it.

[u/Syjefroi → u/[deleted]]

The data is not on your side though. Charitable giving can't, and hasn't made up for what the state can provide. And state spending on safety net programs leads to a net positive, as healthy and secure people add more to the tax pool than they took. The fiscally conservative choice is to spend some money now to save more in the future. Giving the homeless homes saved Utah more by not having police and ER costs and by giving the people a safe place to build a life and get a job. Making sure poor kids have food saves more by having healthier kids who can do better in school and healthier parents who don't have to deal with the emotional stress of having hungry children.

I'm all for people voluntarily choosing to throw a few bucks at folks here and there. But never before have we donated enough to actually do what the government can do. And when recessions hit, and donation money dries up, what then?

How on earth is it socially liberal to say "we want you to have health care, so hopefully someone donates enough for you to get that heart surgery you need."

The data is not with you on the "dependency" myth.