re: #12 imp_62

1. Striking is a choice. A legal choice, but a choice, nonetheless. Choices bring consequences.

So what? That’s what we’re talking about— whether or not cutting of food stamps is in any way a proper consequence.

I wish to avoid having to enquire into every recipient of aid. That is why the circumstances should be strictly delineated. Unable to work, insufficient income, temporary illness. Shown upfront, supported by documentation. Periodic refiling of documentation. I don’t think the public should support a choice to fall below the aid threshold.

Why? Is this just a moral ground for you?

If someone quits their job because they feel it was unsafe— say, someone at the Massey mine quit— you feel that they and their family should not be eligible for food stamps?

Caring for a sick relative may be a legally valid reason with desirable, generally applicable public policy underpinnings. Making other subjective decisions may not be.

Great. Do you realize this completely goes against what you were saying before about validating subjective choices?

Are you proposing that everybody get whatever they ask for, sight unseen?

Oh for fuck’s sake. If you can’t bother to avoid ludicrous hyperbole, don’t even bother. Jesus.