Look at definition 2 and 3. Don’t be obtuse.

"practical or financial help that is provided, often by the government, for people or animals that need it"

"money that the government pays regularly to people who are poor, unemployed, sick, etc."

I still don't see the problem? A social safety net is good for everyone. Human compassion and lofty ideals of a just government aside, the rich are benefitting from it, too, in the sense that you can't have a functioning economy if there's no one to actually do the labor, rather than just collect the dividends.

And that is a valid argument that could lead to a discussion. Deliberately misinterpreting the word to pretend someone said they hate health and happiness is not.

I am sorry, but I genuinely do not see a difference in meaning between the first example and the second two. They all concern the social well-being of the whole (in fact, they’re all part of the _same_ definition).

Nevertheless, I just picked the very first definition that came up (literally, the one that Google presents on search), without any editorializing. Maybe you’re the one who is deliberately picking and choosing a narrow reading?

This is silly. The concern is that government chooses winners and losers. I lose, you win.

This isn't fixing global warming, this is giving some people discounted internet and leaving the rest of us with nothing.

How should we decide who gets my taxes for Internet?

A government isn't picking who wins or loses if it builds a road or a sewer line.

It is in fact providing infrastructure that benefits and improves the lives of all citizens.

Why do you place greater importance on how a hypothetical business can in theory not be benefited by the government over the quality of life of all citizens?

> A government isn't picking who wins or loses if it builds a road or a sewer line.

Very often it is, quite deliberately.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3539889