Firewhiskey

when rich people take out massive loans scam us and run away its fine. when they sit at home and collect rent as landlords its fine. bit the moment the poor are given money for help somehow it’s ‘freebies’. unemployment is a systematic failure not a personal one.

2. I asked a question about where he would get the money from, because as of now TN is in ₹10.71 lakh crore outstanding debt. So, if u understand social welfare so well, then perhaps you can enlighten me about where he’s gonna get the money from!?

And i never said people taking loans and running away is fine

• the poorest households spend nearly all additional income they receive, creating demand in local economies. economists call this a high marginal propensity to consume. cash transfers typically generate more immediate economic activity than tax cuts for the wealthy.

• according to the World Bank and UN agencies, women are more likely than men to spend income on children's nutrition, healthcare, and education, improving long-term human capital.

• after the introduction of free bus travel for women in states such as tamil nadu and karnataka, studies and state data reported substantial increases in women's ridership, improving access to work, education, and public services.

• the WHO estimates household air pollution from solid fuels causes millions of premature deaths globally. cleaner cooking fuel reduces healthcare costs and time spent collecting fuel, especially for women.

• UNESCO estimates each additional year of schooling increases individual earnings by roughly 8–10% on average, making education support an investment rather than pure expenditure.

• unemployment benefits are standard across most developed economies because they help stabilise consumption during downturns and improve job matching rather than forcing workers into the first available low-paying job.

• agriculture still employs roughly 40%+ of India's workforce while contributing around 15–18% of GDP. debt relief and income support can prevent rural demand collapse and reduce distress migration.

the question isn't "can the government afford welfare?" it's also "can the economy afford mass poverty, malnutrition, debt traps, and low productivity?" poverty itself carries enormous fiscal and economic costs.

nobody said you hate poor people because you asked where the money comes from. i said your assumption that unemployed people will stop looking for work because of ₹6,000 a month reflects a stereotype about the unemployed.

and "the state is in debt" isn't an argument against every welfare programme. governments constantly choose where to spend money. the question is whether helping unemployed people survive is a better use of public funds than subsidies, tax breaks, loan write-offs, or prestige projects. this argument never came up when the nda gov was building the statue of unity no one wants to visit.

as for landlords, "they own the property" explains why rent exists; it doesn't explain why earning income from ownership is considered more legitimate than someone receiving temporary support while looking for work.

The issue is specifically about direct monthly cash payouts to unemployed youth and school students.

when exams reward only 10% of students with lowcost highquality education, the 90% will end up scrapping by.

The rich may get admission into good colleges through management seats but the smart people definitely dont get good education they deserve!

The cutoff for entrance exams like cat, jee and neet is the perfect example for this.

The cutoff for each exam is

NEET UG

(A general / EWS category student who scores 609 wont get a seat because another student who got 505 will get it)

2. JEE mains

(A general / UR student who has 93.0 percentile wont get a seat because a student with 52 percentile will get it)

3. CAT

(A gc student with 89% wont get a seat because again, another student with 75% will get one)

the weirdest part of anti-reservation outrage is how it treats opportunities historically monopolized by upper castes as if they were the natural property of general category students. when dalits, adivasis, and obcs were excluded from education, government jobs, land ownership, and positions of power for centuries, nobody cried about ‘merit’ being harmed. suddenly a fraction of seats are reserved to partially correct that exclusion and we’re expected to believe this is the real injustice. if your idea of fairness only begins the moment marginalized communities start getting access, you’re not defending merit, you’re defending the advantages caste already gave you.

also, can we stop pretending that reservations somehow explain the entire education system?

im a general student, I got into mumbai's best gov mbbs college with 5L spent on coaching. my peers who have reserved category seats iterally come from impoverished families, they're the first in their families to even have a degree.

student scoring higher on a multiple-choice exam does not magically prove that the system is meritocratic. it mostly proves they performed better on that exam after years of unequal access to coaching, schools, english education, study environments, parental support, and money.

and it's always amusing how people suddenly discover 'unfairness' when reservations are mentioned, but become completely blind when a kid's parents spend lakhs on coaching, private schools, management quotas, donations, networking, and internships. apparently buying advantages is merit, but compensating for centuries of exclusion is where the line gets drawn.

in central educational institutions, the standard reservation structure is 15% sc, 7.5% st, 27% obc and 10% ews. that's 59.5% reserved and 40.5% open category. importantly, reserved-category students who score high enough can and do enter through the open category as well, meaning 'general' seats are not exclusively for general-caste students.

the overwhelming majority of india's higher education seats are not in iits, aiims, iims, nits or central institutions. they're in state colleges and private institutions. many private colleges either have limited reservation requirements, management quotas, nri quotas, or admissions heavily influenced by who can afford the fees. money opens far more doors than a caste certificate ever will. 

so every time someone says 'a guy with 609 lost to a guy with 505,' they're acting as if the biggest distortion in education is reservations and not the fact that an entire coaching industry worth thousands of crores exists to help people buy better odds.

the argument basically boils down to: 'i can see the seat reserved for a dalit student, therefore that's the problem.' meanwhile the management quota kid strolls past carrying a suitcase full of privilege and somehow becomes invisible.

that's not a critique of elitism. that's being so focused on the guy below you that you completely miss the guy standing on your shoulders.

when rich people take out massive loans scam us and run away its fine. when they sit at home and collect rent as landlords its fine. bit the moment the poor are given money for help somehow it’s ‘freebies’. unemployment is a systematic failure not a personal one.

2. I asked a question about where he would get the money from, because as of now TN is in ₹10.71 lakh crore outstanding debt. So, if u understand social welfare so well, then perhaps you can enlighten me about where he’s gonna get the money from!?

And i never said people taking loans and running away is fine

• the poorest households spend nearly all additional income they receive, creating demand in local economies. economists call this a high marginal propensity to consume. cash transfers typically generate more immediate economic activity than tax cuts for the wealthy.

• according to the World Bank and UN agencies, women are more likely than men to spend income on children's nutrition, healthcare, and education, improving long-term human capital.

• after the introduction of free bus travel for women in states such as tamil nadu and karnataka, studies and state data reported substantial increases in women's ridership, improving access to work, education, and public services.

• the WHO estimates household air pollution from solid fuels causes millions of premature deaths globally. cleaner cooking fuel reduces healthcare costs and time spent collecting fuel, especially for women.

• UNESCO estimates each additional year of schooling increases individual earnings by roughly 8–10% on average, making education support an investment rather than pure expenditure.

• unemployment benefits are standard across most developed economies because they help stabilise consumption during downturns and improve job matching rather than forcing workers into the first available low-paying job.

• agriculture still employs roughly 40%+ of India's workforce while contributing around 15–18% of GDP. debt relief and income support can prevent rural demand collapse and reduce distress migration.

the question isn't "can the government afford welfare?" it's also "can the economy afford mass poverty, malnutrition, debt traps, and low productivity?" poverty itself carries enormous fiscal and economic costs.

nobody said you hate poor people because you asked where the money comes from. i said your assumption that unemployed people will stop looking for work because of ₹6,000 a month reflects a stereotype about the unemployed.

and "the state is in debt" isn't an argument against every welfare programme. governments constantly choose where to spend money. the question is whether helping unemployed people survive is a better use of public funds than subsidies, tax breaks, loan write-offs, or prestige projects. this argument never came up when the nda gov was building the statue of unity no one wants to visit.

as for landlords, "they own the property" explains why rent exists; it doesn't explain why earning income from ownership is considered more legitimate than someone receiving temporary support while looking for work.

The issue is specifically about direct monthly cash payouts to unemployed youth and school students.

when exams reward only 10% of students with lowcost highquality education, the 90% will end up scrapping by.

The rich may get admission into good colleges through management seats but the smart people definitely dont get good education they deserve!

The cutoff for entrance exams like cat, jee and neet is the perfect example for this.

The cutoff for each exam is

NEET UG

(A general / EWS category student who scores 609 wont get a seat because another student who got 505 will get it)

2. JEE mains

(A general / UR student who has 93.0 percentile wont get a seat because a student with 52 percentile will get it)

3. CAT

(A gc student with 89% wont get a seat because again, another student with 75% will get one)