You're viewing a single thread.
I thought they were opposed to "hand outs".
It's the daily mail. Anyone successful with a shade of skin darker than lightly-toasted white bread sends them scrambling to their keyboards in a race to see who can get their subscribers rage-reading the quickest.
Yeah but only to poor people and whenever it fits their narrative
In this case the narrative is "rich black girl (implicit: she received help and/or votes for people who want to help others) refuses to help her own family! (so why should we give our tax money when they don't even want to help their own?!)"
Disgusting right wing manipulation as usual.
The readers can use this story to justify opposition to social welfare policy.
The implication is
If mega-millionaire Simon Biles won't stoop to help her own mother, why should my tax dollars cover the difference?
I suppose it depends on their overall attitude. For me that's a perfect example of why we should support assistance for the needy. If someone with millions of dollars won't even help their own family, then we obviously can't rely upon people's own generosity, and the need exists regardless.
Right, Simone should have to help people regardless, because she should pay a lot of taxes that go to that because she's wealthy. She shouldn't get to pick and choose who her money helps, that should apply to everyone
There's no conflict here. Hand outs are when the government gives money to undeserving people. Giving money to people and organizations of your choice is encouraged and laudable. Which sounds sensible on the surface.
And this is why governments have to provide the social safety net, no one is excluded and the rules aren't bendy.
Well yes. Consent is important.
"they"?
Republicans.
Only when it's white people giving.