@moonbus said
You're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope; that is why your world looks so distorted. If you look at this as an individual's entitlement, then it does indeed seem that Ann has gotten an underserved benefit (namely govt largess) at Sue's expense. But if you look at it as a public policy issue, you realize that Sue has actually benefitted from Ann's receiving g ...[text shortened]... poorer education for their parents' tax dollars, and this degrades the entire system for the future.
What a great post, it qualifies as an issue maybe presented on an ethics exam, or theories in logic. Very good.
Allow me one observation first, please. Should Ann get full benefits like this, or, do you think that maybe she should pay some deductible’ for the PRIVILEGE (it is not a right, as Bernie would say) of receiving this money, which in efffect contributes to HER (we are talking about her, not Sue, nor public policy) lot in life, her success, her gratis-free child education??? Your Public Policy crutch reeks of ‘we all are our brother’s keeper,” and maybe a bit if Marx.
Can you rewrite the above, separating these pesky problems, since the USA has been a land of individuals (not groups) for 250 years,7 last I heard.
It is not my intent to 'goalpost' or modify your question....but in fairness, you premise is predicated on the 'public good' . or policy, which cannot be a level playing field platform when a lib and a conservative are bantering. That would be a liberal concept, which we do not necessarily adhere to. Can you not at least subscribe to self-reliance, choices, and independent thinking? (all that Sue did, but Ann did not)?