and a woman (and thus more statistically likely to have to sacrifice wages/earnings, advancement, FT labor participation, etc - or abandon them entirely - to perform reproductive work). If someone can't relate to that (and tbf, maybe you can, I don't know you lol), I'm not going to be surprised if they don't get where I'm coming from.

Respectfully tho, that still doesn't put you in any position to dictate what I (or somebody like me) should consider 'truly' empowering. To some, the extra cash/mth might just be a 'stack', but in the life of the friend I mentioned it would have been transformational in contrast to the assistance she (is still grateful to have) received.

I think we might have gone back and forth on this before, so I already know we disagree and that's totally ok (and at least you don't hurl insults to communicate your disagreement lol).

But ya I do think the concern about choice (in this context) is overblown and paternalistic. And if the disagreement really boils down to universality v. means-testing... I'm not wedded to either approach bc the population in question definitely matters as does the scope, context, goals, and financing of a program. I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. So maybe that factors in to my clash with yall on this as well.

I mean if you guys think it's stupid for people receiving prescribed gov benefits to choose whether they'd instead prefer 1000/month in cash, are you also outraged that people earning above the FPL cutoff can't access benefits?? Because the means-testing kinda works both ways, no? It's not like food insecurity disappears once folks clear that cutoff.

Also: he proposed taxing the most capitalized corporations on the planet, capital gains, and high-earners to redistribute money to Americans - this is regressive?? lol come on. Yall are just throwing around these words (libertarian, regressive etc) like they don't have definitions


>If I get an extra stack from the Fed, so should anyone who is
>worse off than me. Regardless of what other benefits they get.
>
>
>That would be truly empowering. To get the same benefit
>everyone else gets without having to choose.
>
>
>Making them choose is not empowering. That is some bullshit
>right wing bootstrap talk.
>
>If its universal, make it universal.
>