Lol oh my god alright, why don't you go ahead and put a percentage on how many people on welfare you believe are abusing the system or taking money instead of trying to get a job if you want to be so literal in everything you say. Also, what would be an acceptable ratio for you for welfare abusers vs people who actually need it? Are you cool if 5 people abuse the system to help every 1 person that needs it? Since you can't think straight until specifics are laid out, go ahead big dawg.



I feel hurt. My name is Dylan. Though you're right on with my point. I think social programs drive down motivation and encourage people to continue the cycle of not working. The more it's normalized, the more people who don't feel the guilt of abusing the system.

After Bill Clinton's PRWORA was implemented in 1996, unemployment dropped heavily because people were forced to work 20 hours a week to get their benefits at first, then after 2 years on it, 50% of all families work 30 hours/week. Now people can be slugs and still get paid due to changes in the law and TANF.

This post was edited by AspenSniper on Jun 16 2017 08:23am

Yeah lemme take a few hours to define his ideas of subjunctive definitions for thing like "lazy", then evaluate how serious he is on all individual points, and differentiate the effects on those subjective definitions for each social program and alternatives 1 by 1.

Orrrrr, maybe I can realize Austin is speaking generally for less social programs because he thinks in general it drives down motivation. Maybe it's just because I've had it out with him for years on the topic of UBI. or maybe it's my "critical reading skills".

I do not understand. Why do you want me to put a percentage on it, after I have just spent ten posts repeating that I do not claim to know what the percentage is?

Your questions are good ones though. I personally don't think there's a particular number of abusers I'd be okay with. This is something you could calculate by estimating the tax money lost per abuser, versus the tax money required to follow up and sanction said abusers. That part of the equation is a purely mathematical one in my opinion, but I have no idea about the actual numbers. The result of the equation is that you do allow some of the abusers to get away with it, because sanctioning them would cost you even more money than letting them go their way.

Point is, I would not compare the number of abusers to the number of valid users. This would simply lead towards "allowing the bad apples to ruin it for everyone".

Hahaha okay so you rip me for giving anecdotal information, then you go oh, well no no no, I don't have percentages and I'm not going to give an estimation of what I feel would be acceptable. This is the same as every leftist who wants to argue with logic and pull the "show the specific stat that shows this" card on a question where it really can't be exacted to a stat.

To your "estimate the tax money lost vs tax $ required to sanction abusers" point. I have a better solution, just make welfare really difficult to get so that you don't have to spend money on sanctioning abusers. Welfare/unemployment recipients notoriously do their required 2-3 applications/week or whatever their state requires (which is almost never checked) and that's it, even if they apply for a high level job they'd never get. These people should have to apply to minimum wage or through employers that connect with the government. That way, these abusers can't say "ah well, I applied, here's my papers showing I did." Make them prove that they applied to minimum wage jobs or jobs through government programs that have a higher likelihood of giving them jobs. That's a huge problem. It's just wayyyyy too easy to get welfare/unemployment and it's becoming easier to stay on it long term. I'm all for incentivizing employers to work with their local municipalities to put welfare/unemployed recipients to work. Make those employers report back to the government when they make an offer to a person, but they say no.

It just shows that you're leading with your heart by saying "allowing the bad apples to ruin it for everyone." Yeah, it's sad, but there need to be heavy restrictions that make it difficult to actually get unemployment/welfare.

hit both sides with that lol. the number of times i've watched Milo (more so) or Shapiro (less so) pull out a shit methodology hack study on an unprepared person in a "debate" then claim "lefties are afraid of facts" makes me queezy.

basically the embodiment of endlesscry's trouble to understand what methodology even is.

If you were being tried in court you would probably take every legal advantage.

Because of both things going on, I,think the penalties should be harsher.

Milo, definitely. Shapiro, not so much. Shapiro almost always has ways to back up what he says, but I agree that when he does get tripped up he pulls the "I don't have the study in front of me" card. That's the only time he gets taken for a ride.

It's like the gender gap question. Do women make less than men overall, sure. When you dig deeper into taking say a female project manager in the biotech industry with a 4 year degree from a state school with 8 years of experience vs a male project manager in the biotech industry with the same degree and same years of experience, women generally make more when compared like for like. It's actually not that different for blacks either.

The left does this more than the right. They'll pull a very general stat like "there are X million women working an X million men and women make less, thus women are underpaid, DONE!" and not realize that it's a bullshit stat once you take in years of experience and the fact that women often have gaps in their resume due to kids, etc. Simple minded and not critical minded logical thinkers are dangerous.

I'd generally say that welfare is strict enough when a wealth-gap overall is increasing and un-employment below (a debatable) ~10%

i think both sides fear monger with stats fairly evenly. the left has a smug indignation of "lying for a good cause" though. rather than pulling out fake stats to demonize minorities or non-religious people then throwing up your hands and saying "i dont hate blacks these are just facts".

Basically politics uses statistics to get ppl angry, preferably from a loss, blame someone and then give a "solution".

The bias is on every side.

This post was edited by Knaapie on Jun 16 2017 09:16am