A poor person is not to be seen as a victim of unjust society or even a fellow human being down on his luck. If you are poor it must be somehow, however indirectly or even ontologically your fault and you are automatically in morally questionable state by being poor. While a rich man must be by his earthly wealth blessed and among the god’s elect. Rich man can and should be left to do what he wants because he is inherently virtuous/capable, while with the poor the attitude should be at least that of scrutiny or be that of educating them to be better or at the worst end make sure they suffer more because they deserve it.
This is pretty much the philosophical/theological underpinning of the thinking of these people.
And often they employ the same view to disparities in race/gender. If you think that the system is a meritocracy, then a difference is outcomes becomes a personal failing. Nevermind the unjust history of red-lining, loan-denial, patriarchal expectations, and overall denial of access.
Why are they even offended by the misuse of taxpyer’s money? Pax Americana have the victim blaming policy unless you can blame the Communist governments for everything. You could also follow the teaching by Victim of Communism from China that repressions and social problems will magically go away by ignoring them unless it personally offend the authority who endorse repression.
Anyway, this trick by Liberal politicians to focus too much on trivial issues and claim that a person’s stance on a trivial issue determines that person’s trustworthiness is effective in Pax Americana. The practice to blame other people for trivial act without considering their circumstances while disregarding more severe crimes that are unjustifiable regardless of the cricumstances is too common in Canadian schools as well.
Nominative determinism
i thought you already couldn’t? or it was that way in the state i lived in when i was getting food assistance. i’d scan everything and run a second payment for the ineligible items.
