# Requiring kindergardeners to share things is now apparently a "socialist" idea **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372 "2011-04-22T16:29:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/161 "2011-04-28T03:54:34Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, there’s another problem - what the heck are they buying? Mr Curl and I eat fairly well and buy food in a pretty expensive area, and outside of fast food and restaurants, we don’t spend that much on the two of us each month. And actually, that includes things like paper towels, beer, cigarettes, shampoo and other non-food items. I’m not even going to speculate. And that’s not what the site I read led me to understand, as it was discussing specifically costings related to food stamps which doesn’t include any of that. > [@](#): > > I hope they aren’t buying furniture, and really even toys & clothes, every month. Plus you listed savings here and below. Yes, yes I did. $500 a month for whatever the heck needed or wanted, $500 a month in short/medium-term savings, out of around $1000. > [@](#): > > Why not? Having children is as much a luxury item as anything else someone _wants_ rather than needs to survive. Why do you feel that people who are not likely to be able to support their child(ren) without outside help have more right to make selfish decisions than those who want anything other long term expensive item? Remember, I’m talking about before they have the kids, so no bleating about “think of the innocent children who didn’t ask to be born”. Why do you feel that the only two options are “perfect planners who can survive any storm” and “worthless, selfish deadbeats”? I’ve already demonstrated how it’s possible, even plausible, on the median household income in the US to be doing everything as responsibly as possible and still get wiped out in the selfsame situation that you and your husband found yourselves in, through no fault other than bad luck. Your response is to either call someone doing very well on average means “selfish” for not scrimping every penny and planning perfectly, or to nitpick the spending decisions in a vain attempt to do what? Prove, somehow, that they’re unworthy? I can see why you come here at least–the way you talk about your spending, I doubt you’re having much fun even when you DO lay out cash on something. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/162 "2011-04-28T05:57:58Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > BTW, I checked the US statistics, and it’s estimated that people in that income bracket spend about $2100 per person on food. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, there’s another problem - what the heck are they buying? Mr Curl and I eat fairly well and buy food in a pretty expensive area, and outside of fast food and restaurants, we don’t spend that much on the two of us each month. And actually, that includes things like paper towels, beer, cigarettes, shampoo and other non-food items. I can’t find the statistic Zeriel is referring to, but I’m going to guess that that’s $2100 per \*year \*per person on food. That’s $175 a month, an eminently reasonable amount. I highly doubt you’re spending less than that, especially if you’re buying cigarettes and booze with it. Even the hungriest of children don’t eat $2100 worth of food in a single month. Incidentally, did you and hubby give up the ciggies and beer when you were living off the government dime? Because I’m thinking your countrymen might not appreciate paying for that kind of crap, and I’m thinking they’ll appreciate it even less when they have to shell out for health care due to those things when you’re a senior. But I suppose that it’s moral and right for you to use government resources for whatever you please. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/163 "2011-04-28T06:00:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I resent the implication that beer is a non-food item. Beer is the breakfast of champions. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Also, **curly** , you should really get around to forgiving your own parents at some point. Just let go of the hate, man. It’s a huge drag on your karma and shit. I don’t hate my parents - I really have no feeling positive or negative towards them. For the most part, I don’t even think about them. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/164 "2011-04-28T06:16:44Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > . . . I really have no feeling . . . I don’t even think . . . The root of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/165 "2011-04-28T06:40:48Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m not even going to speculate. And that’s not what the site I read led me to understand, as it was discussing specifically costings related to food stamps which doesn’t include any of that. No, what I meant was we don’t spend that much a month at the grocery store even tho it includes a bunch of non-food items, so I just can’t see what these folks are buying. > [@](#): > > Yes, yes I did. $500 a month for whatever the heck needed or wanted, $500 a month in short/medium-term savings, out of around $1000. At that point, you had $1400 so you lost $400 someplace. > [@](#): > > Why do you feel that the only two options are “perfect planners who can survive any storm” and “worthless, selfish deadbeats”? I don’t, that is just what you all like to jump to. > [@](#): > > I’ve already demonstrated how it’s possible, even plausible, on the median household income in the US to be doing everything as responsibly as possible and still get wiped out in the selfsame situation that you and your husband found yourselves in, through no fault other than bad luck. Actually, no you didn’t. If nothing else, you have yet to explain why it is OK for people to take on even one 18-21 year high cost debt without having backup should someone lose a job. It’s not like it’s unusual for people to get laid off, why is it OK with you that people take so many chances with their kid(s) future? > [@](#): > > Your response is to either call someone doing very well on average means “selfish” for not scrimping every penny and planning perfectly, No, I didn’t. > [@](#): > > I can see why you come here at least–the way you talk about your spending, I doubt you’re having much fun even when you DO lay out cash on something. I come here for the same reason other people do - to kill time. However, the fact that you think we cannot possibly be having any fun here simply because we are responsible with our money certainly says a lot about you. > [@Meyer6](#): > > I can’t find the statistic Zeriel is referring to, but I’m going to guess that that’s $2100 per \*year \*per person on food. That’s $175 a month, an eminently reasonable amount. I highly doubt you’re spending less than that, especially if you’re buying cigarettes and booze with it. Don’t know since there wasn’t a cite. $2100 a month does seem like a hell of a lot. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, did you and hubby give up the ciggies and beer when you were living off the government dime? I don’t smoke or drink beer, and he did try to cut down as much as his addiction allowed, on the cigarettes. I don’t even think we bought much in the way of beer back then, can’t remember. Not that it was actually the government’s dime anyway. > [@](#): > > Because I’m thinking your countrymen might not appreciate paying for that kind of crap, and I’m thinking they’ll appreciate it even less when they have to shell out for health care due to those things when you’re a senior. But I suppose that it’s moral and right for you to use government resources for whatever you please. Somehow, it’s OK for all these parents to make majorly expensive selfish choices, but you expect the husband to kick cigarettes cold turkey simply because he took a whole nine months of his unemployment insurance back? Oookay… ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/166 "2011-04-28T10:19:31Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > They might, their mothers don’t. How in hell do you support a minor child without giving the required funding to their parent(s)? > [@](#): > > Quit handing mommy money, start handing her food stamps that will _only_ buy food for the children. Hand her a Medicaid card for the kids. She wants food and clothes? She can jolly get a job. Darling, insular, hate-blindered welfare case, where the hell are there family-supporting jobs right now? Do tell. And why do you hate other women so much? Where are the fathers and what is their responsibility in this fantasy deadbeat dole-scrounging family of your maggot-laden imagination? I understand that your father was a neglectful, abusive jackass, but your situation is not everyone’s situation. Try harder. > [@](#): > > The children are suffering because we _are_ supporting the parents - the money, the EBT, the food - it all goes to the parents and they decide what to do with it. One thing they do with it is buy cigarettes and booze and use the EBT at fast food outlets. How is that helping these children you claim to love? This is unadulterated bullshit. > [@](#): > > Do you even have a clue as to how these kids live? Have you ever lived the way these folks do? I know better than you do. I know well better than you do. You’ve got a fairy tale in your brain of what poor families look like. I have reality in my own community. I could walk out my front door and look at a dozen houses where the residents are recipients of all manner of benefits. I see what they’re doing to survive. I’m helping them survive. You don’t know jack fucking shit living in your pitiful little Orange County suburban enclave. > [@curlcoat](#): > > There are several of them on the Lifetime channel alone, so I don’t know which one you are talking about More bullshit. If you’re going to try to cover your nonsense, can you at least try something we can’t blow apart with 20 seconds of searching on [tvguide.com](http://tvguide.com)? > [@](#): > > When I was of that age, one could get a cheap (relatively) abortion from Planned Parenthood. Do you watch the news at all? I mean you don’t have anything else to do so I’m sure that you could manage a half hour of nightly news in the evenings. Have ya noticed anything happening lately about Planned Parenthood, maybe? Have you noticed anything about the 900+ bills all attacking the ability of women to access abortions lately, maybe? Are you aware that teenagers’ access to abortion is next to nil in most states because of parental notification laws? Do you know that the average cost of a first trimester abortion right now is more than $600? > [@](#): > > As for the rest of that, having an abortion is not the only solution, there is also adoption. There are more than half a million adoption-ready children in foster care as we speak, right now. What makes you think that every child born to those you deem inappropriate to parent (because you are, of course, the arbiter) could possibly be adopted? And once again, you’re trotting out the complete fallacy that the money you’re getting in disability payments is the money you put into the system. That this is entirely false has been explained to you at least three times that I can think of, yet you keep trying to drink from that dry well. I know it makes you feel better to think that you’re still self-sufficient via the courtesy of the social security system, but face it honey, you’re living off of other people’s labor, just like the welfare mommies you so decry and deride. You live courtesy of me, and everyone else who’s still managing to work in this country. So you need to simmer the fuck down about who we should and shouldn’t be supporting. At least a young mother and her children will work and contribute to society in the future, unlike some people. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/167 "2011-04-28T13:19:41Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, what I meant was we don’t spend that much a month at the grocery store even tho it includes a bunch of non-food items, so I just can’t see what these folks are buying. It was $2100 per year. Given that I subtracted it from the yearly rate, y’know. > [@](#): > > At that point, you had $1400 so you lost $400 someplace. Try reading it again. $14000 per year. So around $1000 per month (well, $1100, but I was allowing $600 savings and $500 everything else anyway). > [@](#): > > Actually, no you didn’t. If nothing else, you have yet to explain why it is OK for people to take on even one 18-21 year high cost debt without having backup should someone lose a job. It’s not like it’s unusual for people to get laid off, why is it OK with you that people take so many chances with their kid(s) future? So what’s the acceptable risk, then? Suppose someone prepares for 75% of likely situations? 90%? What about unlikely ones? In this country, if some misfortune or calamity hits 0.1% of households, that’s still 130,000 families. > [@](#): > > I come here for the same reason other people do - to kill time. However, the fact that you think we cannot possibly be having any fun here simply because we are responsible with our money certainly says a lot about you. It’s not the fact that you’re “responsible”, it’s the fact that you’re obsessed with the idea that anyone who is not perfectly planning for every possible disaster is “selfish”. You appear to be operating under the assumption that all catastrophes are surviviable and all contingencies are able to be planned for to a pathological degree. I imagine you buying a case of beer and thinking “Oh fuck, what if my husband is out of work for ten years and sixty-FIVE days, instead of sixty-FOUR. This money could keep us from being selfish deadbeats for that extra day!” ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/168 "2011-04-28T13:43:08Z")
curlcoat, you will agree, of course, that you are a living example of how the socialist education system has failed. No? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/169 "2011-04-28T17:22:28Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I didn’t mean to imply that no one actually lived up to their philosophy, but specifically the ones who seem to rant and rave about the parasites leeching off everyone are the ones who end up taking assistance with no irony. Blalron is probably right about the motivation in most cases. Or just a general feeling of “oh, well, yeah, it’s okay when _I_ take help, because I’m awesome and not abusing it at all and I’m worth saving. Not like those filthy, inferior parasites who normally use these programs…” And I’ve yet to hear someone make an actual argument that a libertarian who takes public assistance is being hypocritical. It’s always stated as a given (as you have here) and heartily agreed with by the liberal douche echo chamber. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/170 "2011-04-28T17:26:14Z")
Certainly a person who rails about how public assistance sucks because IT ONLY HELPS ALL THOSE FILTHY FREELOADERS!!! EXCEPT ME… CAUSE IT’S JUST TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN MY CASE is a hypocrite, right? I’ve actually given serious thought to whether or not I should use services which I oppose. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/171 "2011-04-28T18:36:10Z")
I’ve known libertarians who collected public assistance of various types To a one, they all offered the explanation that since they had to live under the system and had paid into the system, they would be foolish not to collect the food stamps/welfare/social security. What was required, you see, was the abolition of the system, not for individual libertarians to take principled\_if symbolic\_stands. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/172 "2011-04-28T18:52:06Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Certainly a person who rails about how public assistance sucks because IT ONLY HELPS ALL THOSE FILTHY FREELOADERS!!! EXCEPT ME… CAUSE IT’S JUST TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN MY CASE is a hypocrite, right? > > I’ve actually given serious thought to whether or not I should use services which I oppose. And the record remains unbroken. If you want to make an argument that it is hypocritical to both (i) oppose broad government social programs and (ii) accept help from such a program, then I will show you the error of your ways. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/173 "2011-04-28T19:31:33Z")
You couldn’t find an error in a divide-by-zero factory, Randy. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/174 "2011-04-28T19:42:12Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And the record remains unbroken. If you want to make an argument that it is hypocritical to both (i) oppose broad government social programs and (ii) accept help from such a program, then I will show you the error of your ways. So wait, I’m only right if I stick by what I said, and not the argument that you decided to re-engineer on my behalf? Okay. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/175 "2011-04-28T19:47:27Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > So wait, I’m only right if I stick by what I said, and not the argument that you decided to re-engineer on my behalf? > > Okay. Huh? Seems to me you said such a person was a hypocrite. If you don’t believe that, and just think that such a person is bad or yucky or gross in some generalized sense, then OK, you don’t need to justify your emotional responses to me. But if you think they are a hypocrite (a position I have often seen on these boards, including in your post above), then I’m inviting you to actually make an argument to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/176 "2011-04-28T19:51:37Z")
What I said was that I’ve yet to see a libertarian type **who rails against the the parasites who use public services** refuse to become one themselves, and when they do, it doesn’t even register with them. So I’m not saying someone who says “I don’t think medicaid should exist” and then uses medicaid is necesarily a hypocrite. But someone saying “the only people who use medicaid are parasite scum” and then becomes on themselves and is completely oblivious to it because - oh, well it doesn’t count when we’re talking about **ME** are hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/177 "2011-04-28T19:54:44Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > So I’m not saying someone who says “I don’t think medicaid should exist” and then uses medicaid is necesarily a hypocrite. OK, fine. > [@](#): > > But someone saying “the only people who use medicaid are parasite scum” and then becomes on themselves and is completely oblivious to it because - oh, well it doesn’t count when we’re talking about **ME** are hypocrites. What I find is that someone will say “I don’t think Medicaid should exist” and the part about “people who use medicaid are parasitic scum” is shoved into their mouth (i.e., they don’t say it, but other people think they do). But YMMV. I’ve certainly never said a single word about parasitic scum (I reserve my vitriol for liberal douches, mainly), but I’m sure some people put me in the category of people you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/178 "2011-04-28T19:58:23Z")
Are you trying to use that second quote as evidence that I contradicted myself? Because it’s consistent with what I said. The important part here, essentially, is that you have to be a dick who would hate anyone on some sort of public assistance and then still use it. Curlcoat is undoubtedly that style of dick, right? Or you - if you went on welfare or something, I’d consider it hypocritical. The key here is that you’re making a judgement about anyone who’d use those services, except when it’s you yourself that are using those services, then you’re oblivious that either a) you’re a filthy parasite scum or b) not everyone using those programs is filthy parasite scum. For anyone to continue to rail on about the filthy parasites while using the service is even worse. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/179 "2011-04-28T20:04:39Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Are you trying to use that second quote as evidence that I contradicted myself? Because it’s consistent with what I said. Read the edited version of that post–I see what you are saying. > [@](#): > > The important part here, essentially, is that you have to be a dick who would hate anyone on some sort of public assistance and then still use it. Curlcoat is undoubtedly that style of dick, right? Or you - if you went on welfare or something, I’d consider it hypocritical. Thus proving what I said above–I’ve never said anything about “parasitic scum,” but you certainly think I have. > [@](#): > > The key here is that you’re making a judgement about anyone who’d use those services, except when it’s you yourself that are using those services, then you’re oblivious that either a) you’re a filthy parasite scum or b) not everyone using those programs is filthy parasite scum. For anyone to continue to rail on about the filthy parasites while using the service is even worse. I guess you mean “you” in the general sense, and not me, right? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/180 "2011-04-28T20:08:14Z")
For clarity Rand Rover edited post #177 which I responded to in #178. Now my asking about the second quote doesn’t make sense because that second quote was removed (and what is now the second quote was the third quote when I posted). It was edited while I was writing the response so I didn’t see it. I’d be using the general you in that sense, yes. I don’t want to go digging around all day in which you explicitly call people who use social programs freeloading scum and such. I’d be surprised if you didn’t generally feel that way and I’m misremembering. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372.md?page=10)