There was an interesting experiment on deterrence. It isn't exactly conclusive and there are a lot of variables, but the evidence is telling.
Two daycare centers, similar demographics (family income, ethnicity, religion, etc). One, the parents were charged a fine for picking their children up late, the other maintained it's policy of no fine.
The daycare that charged a fine, saw an increase both in the frequency and length of time that parents showed up late.
What we think is a deterrent, is not always a deterrent. Sometimes, it just becomes the 'price'.
Kind of like the LIBOR scandal. When Barclay's previously received a fine of $450 million, it's just the 'price' to pay out of the gross they made over pulling those stunts in the first place.
Exactly. Who cares. In the meantime, that mom's pumping out kids while getting cigs and beer with her WIC card. Apparently if one follows the media & political rhetoric, she's the greater offender; damn the fiscal equivalency of where the damage and insolvency really lies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Democracy died when lobbies formed.
If thats the case it was never born, because Benjamin Franklin was a lobbyist.
Its not that there's anything wrong with presenting your case to an elected representative, its presenting a case full of cash that's the problem.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To recap:
1. It's better to have an increase in taxes to increase the size and scope of the welfare administrative bodies to eliminate ANY fraud or theft. If we need to raise taxes to decrease fraud, so be it.
2. People who have benefits eliminated either magically vanish or become upright, income produing citizens. There are no additional costs created by them being homeless/committing crimes/ete.
Sounds nice. How do I travel to this magical land again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orcs are a stereotype of black people.
You should hear what they say about goblins!
Down with Paizo!
Vive le Galt!!
Will do, Chris. However, it is getting harder and harder to know what is OK to post lately. For example, calling someone a "crypo-racist" made the cut, but mild sarcasm didn't? "Aggressive overtones" is pretty vague.
Will do, Chris. However, it is getting harder and harder to know what is OK to post lately. For example, calling someone a "crypo-racist" made the cut, but mild sarcasm didn't? "Aggressive overtones" is pretty vague.
Man, I hate it when I decide to not go the full-on attack road and instead say aomething funny and non-confrontational which gets favorited by others...and it gets deleted anyway!
It should be noted that posts quoting posts that were removed, or respond to them, also get removed for the sake of continuity.
Edit: But seriously, when did we start talking about American Freedoms in favor of Rights? I blame Norman Rockwell, and i'm only half joking.Nah. Rockwell was cool. He painted the Four Freedoms along with several pieces in support of the civil rights movement.
Blame the right wing nutjobs who took those paintings and used them without context to make themselves feel good.
I find it funny that every collection of Rockwell art I see commonly available never has Southern Justice (Murder in Mississippi) in it.
But that one makes me feel weird when I look at it; didn't he paint some happy pictures, with boy scouts, and families having Thanksgiving Dinner? Also, I'm pretty sure that one called Freedom from Want was just a typo; I heard it was meant to read "Freedom from Taxation."
|
To recap:
1. It's better to have an increase in taxes to increase the size and scope of the welfare administrative bodies to eliminate ANY fraud or theft. If we need to raise taxes to decrease fraud, so be it.
2. People who have benefits eliminated either magically vanish or become upright, income produing citizens. There are no additional costs created by them being homeless/committing crimes/ete.
Sounds nice. How do I travel to this magical land again?
So your answer is just to go commie and pay for everyone? Worked out so well for russia after all
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your answer is just to go commie and pay for everyone? Worked out so well for russia after all
Are you a masochist?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your answer is just to go commie and pay for everyone? Worked out so well for russia after all
Yes, that's exactly my answer. If you read my posts, you'll note how often I talk about the importance of everyone getting along and working together. I've explained multiple times that humans are naturally cooperative and kind beings, and that they would take care of each other, the planet, and kittens if only the government would get out of their way.
When pressed, I've noted that everyone has good in them, and that this good can be brought out through the forces of kindness and love. I also believe deeply that there is more than enough wealth, resources, and love for every human.
Oh wait...that's a bunch of idealistic b!&$%*%$, which is as impossible, unachievable and naieve as the belief that it's easy to differentiate the worthy poor from the unworthy poor. I didn't offer those arguments, or any others which assume miraculous changes in human behavior or the benevolent oversight of an all-seeing government, because they are stupid, not supported by any meaningful evidence, and fly in the face of the sum total of human civilization and experience through the date of this post. In fact, I didn't even bother pretending as though my ideals have anything to do with reality, and instead pointed out multiple times the logistical and financial problems and short-sighted nature of the "I don't want to pay for them bums, let em eat dirt and rot on the streets" arguments presented thus far.
I've explained numerous times the practical implications of the various "policies" (I use the quotes because "dreams" or "delusions" sounds overly harsh despite being more accurate descriptions) presented, but those have been ignored in favor of further simplifications and childish notions of how the world operates and people actually behave. I'm more than willing to discuss the reality of poverty, the practical implications of assistance, and how we might want to strike a balance as a society between the direct costs of providing assistance vs. the indirect costs of increased crime, starvation, and administration involved in (not) providing such assistance.
In short, I've operated and debated as if we were talking about reality, a place painted entirely in shades of grey and in which compromises must be struck and practicalities must be addressed.
But, I understand that these concepts are far too complex and don't feel as good or self-righteous as saying "let them bums starve." If that's the level you'd like to have the debate (and you've shown no sign otherwise), then, sure, you can summarize my position as "go commie and pay for everyone" because it's about as accurate and truthful as anything else you've had to say in this thread.
So your answer is just to go commie and pay for everyone? Worked out so well for russia after allTo recap:
1. It's better to have an increase in taxes to increase the size and scope of the welfare administrative bodies to eliminate ANY fraud or theft. If we need to raise taxes to decrease fraud, so be it.
2. People who have benefits eliminated either magically vanish or become upright, income produing citizens. There are no additional costs created by them being homeless/committing crimes/ete.
Sounds nice. How do I travel to this magical land again?
Yay hyperbole!! you do realise this is the same as someone saying to you "oh you must like watching people starve in the street." Guess what? Sebastian (probably) doesnt want everyone paying for everyone in a communistic system that Russia pretty much never was. Conversely, I dont think that you (probably) want to watch people die in the street.
Edit-tried to save you from Sebestian-rage, but was ninja'd.
indeed
I am picturing the illustration that it would have in my head and smirking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your answer is just to go commie and pay for everyone? Worked out so well for russia after allTo recap:
1. It's better to have an increase in taxes to increase the size and scope of the welfare administrative bodies to eliminate ANY fraud or theft. If we need to raise taxes to decrease fraud, so be it.
2. People who have benefits eliminated either magically vanish or become upright, income produing citizens. There are no additional costs created by them being homeless/committing crimes/ete.
Sounds nice. How do I travel to this magical land again?
Welcome to the party, Comrade Sebastian.
|
|
People choosing to care for each other is great, being robbed by big brother is not. Making the programs about real food and shelter instead of free fun money is the key as i see it, take the fun out of abusing it and the problem will sort itself out. they want more they can earn it and no one dies in the street. Even if some deserve it.
I'd like to thank this thread for (once again) reminding just how pointless the Off-Topic forum can be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pointless?!?
OTD rawks!!!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People choosing to care for each other is great, being robbed by big brother is not. Making the programs about real food and shelter instead of free fun money is the key as i see it, take the fun out of abusing it and the problem will sort itself out. they want more they can earn it and no one dies in the street. Even if some deserve it.
Yes, we all understand and agree that abuse exists and the world would be better if it didn't. Getting rid of abuse is an aspiration, not a solution, so I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make (though words like "cancer," "communism," and "big brother" lead me to believe you're trying to scare us). You might as well say "if everyone would agree, no one would fight." That's a true statement, it just doesn't do anything to solve the actual problems associated with people who don't agree and do fight.
Personally, I enjoy the dichotomy of choosing to care and robbed by big brother. It seems to me that it's the same thing: We're all robbed by big brother because the state is choosing to care for the least among us. Every job I've worked I've paid my taxes, and the one time I needed surgery a little state aid (which I did not receive) would have really helped out; YMMV.
Personally, I don't believe "I want to keep my whole paycheck and nuts to the rest of you," is a principle that the US was founded on.
Personally, I don't believe "I want to keep my whole paycheck and nuts to the rest of you," is a principle that the US was founded on.
Well, the US broke from England on the principles that
1) taxes suck and
2) We don't want to be part of a planned economy that exists to make you and your international megacorp (the dutch east india company) wealthy beyond avarice.
After the revolution, the federal government quickly found out that "holy bleep running a government is freaking expensive" and started taxing in the exact same manner those same leaders had decried against the British.
Personally, I don't believe "I want to keep my whole paycheck and nuts to the rest of you," is a principle that the US was founded on.Well, the US broke from England on the principles that
1) taxes suck and
2) We don't want to be part of a planned economy that exists to make you and your international megacorp (the dutch east india company) wealthy beyond avarice.After the revolution, the federal government quickly found out that "holy bleep running a government is freaking expensive" and started taxing in the exact same manner those same leaders had decried against the British.
No blame BNW, but an honest question here: do you think our Founding Fathers looked around on day one and said, "But it turns out running a nation is expensive," or do you think it was an agenda they had from day one: "let's just institute an Income Tax?"
My personal opinion? The jury is still split on this and won't even have an opinion for another half century or so. (Y'know, art history style, we have to take the longer view...)
Yes, that's exactly my answer. If you read my posts, you'll note how often I talk about the importance of everyone getting along and working together. I've explained multiple times that humans are naturally cooperative and kind beings, and that they would take care of each other, the planet, and kittens if only the government would get out of their way.
We have some vastly different views of the way that people work. Perhaps it's that I deal with those who would prey upon others on a daily basis that makes me so cynical.
DM Barcas, you need to talk to someone, man. Not any of us on the interwebz messageboards, but someone who has real power over you, in your real life.
It sounds like you would be a whole lot happier with a desk job, no insult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my policy proposal.
1) Tie all the welfare programs, of which there are a few hundred, into a single umbrella program. Eliminate the redundancies. The 2011 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance has 2,167 programs and runs 2,289 pages long. There's a lot of redundancy and a lot of overlap. None of them check with each other. There's a lot of room for waste. This single umbrella would be in charge of all means-testing, rather than having separate means-testing by each separate programs (as is the status quo). Many of these programs have an automatic-eligibility clause in them, so that if you qualify for one, you qualify for many more regardless of your means.
2) What is commonly referred to as "food stamps" is actually a patchwork of 24 separate programs that each have a separate management system. Their aggregate budget is $95 billion, assisting approximately 51.8 million people at a cost of $1844 annually. (That's assuming zero overlap between the programs, which is false as some of these programs actually make the recipients eligible for other programs. The government, however, doesn't actually publicly keep track of how much overlap there is. It's your guess if they keep track internally.) Roll them all into a single budget with a single administrative setup. You could save around $20 billion through consolidation.
3) The SSI (Supplemental Security Income) budget has increased by 54% in the last ten years. Interestingly, it has shown a nearly-exact inverse relationship with TANF, the new version of AFDC, following the mid-1990s influx of welfare-workfare rules. The penalty for intentionally overstating symptoms to gain SSI benefits is $25 on a first offense. You read that correctly. Twenty-five dollars. The third offense jumps to a whole $100, and stays at that level for all subsequent offenses. Of the recipients deemed "overpaid" by the fraud investigators, only 3.5% of them paid any penalty whatsoever. 2011 estimates placed the amount lost to fraud to be 6.5% of the budget, which currently stands at $51 billion. The GAO deemed this program "high-risk" in 2002. No attempts to fix it have been implemented to my knowledge. Actual means-testing (see point #1)
4) Speaking of TANF, the states are required to put 50% of their participants in some level of employment. However, instead of actually doing that, many of the states simply remove them from TANF rolls and place them on state rolls with the exact same benefits but no requirements. Thus, the states continue to receive TANF cash. (This may change with Obama's unilateral decision last week to grant waivers for work requirements.)
5) Housing assistance is 13 programs with an aggregate budget of $31 billion, costing roughly $6250 per person annually. (Of course, some programs have drastically higher costs per capita - the Indian Housing Block Grants costs taxpayers $158,097 per person assisted annually.) Elimination of the inefficient programs by consolidating them into a single program could save $8 billion.
6) We need to actually count all these benefits as income. As it is, all the in-kind benefits are not counted at all. As a result, our poverty rate stands at around 15%. If we were to start counting the in-kind benefits as income, at least for calculating the poverty rate, the poverty rate would drop to almost nothing.
7) If we had a centralized source for means-testing and cross-reference, we could actually have an outreach program that does its job for the people who need it while simultaneously ensuring that a person's benefits are capped at a certain level (see #6). We could simply check the database to see how much an individual has received in benefits and for how long.
8) For those who are deemed as temporarily-in-need (i.e. the non-elderly, non-truly-disabled), benefits would receive diminishing returns over a reasonable period of time (two years, perhaps) to deter dependency. These benefits would reset after a certain period of being off the rolls - two years, for instance. Maximum benefits would be locked in at the time of enrollment - we should not incentivize having more children.
9) Recertification, or the process of going through the means-testing again, would be done on a staggered, semi-annual basis to ensure that the help is getting to those who actually need it. Considering the manpower freed up by consolidation, we could do this. Additionally, randomized checks of the recipient's living conditions and possessions would help deter fraud.
All facts and figures come from the GAO.
There we have it. Some reasonable, non-draconian solutions that don't force people on the streets and don't allow the lazy to exploit the taxpayers.
DM Barcas, you need to talk to someone, man. Not any of us on the interwebz messageboards, but someone who has real power over you, in your real life.
It sounds like you would be a whole lot happier with a desk job, no insult.
I love my job. I'm also incredibly happy. I have a beautiful wife, healthy baby, good friends, fulfilling work, and a strong family.
Just because I think that people are inherently selfish, bordering on evil, doesn't change any of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No blame BNW, but an honest question here: do you think our Founding Fathers looked around on day one and said, "But it turns out running a nation is expensive," or do you think it was an agenda they had from day one: "let's just institute an Income Tax?"
The agenda they started with was pretty clear in the articles of confederation: The elite in america were being kept in their place by the big Whigs in England and they wanted a free hand to get even richer. Britains plan for the States: as a producer of raw materials and consumer of manufactured goods, didn't have a place or a need for a truly wealthy american aristocracy.
I don't think an income tax was really planned because.. well.. how do you tax a field to table agricultural economy accross an entire country that it takes months to traverse? It wasn't that they had any moral objections to it it just wasn't feasible. They had the constitutional ability to do it, they decided not to until the civil war.
The founding fathers, collectively and individually, aren't any different than any other group of politicians before or since.
My personal opinion? The jury is still split on this and won't even have an opinion for another half century or so. (Y'know, art history style, we have to take the longer view...)
Just because I think that people are inherently selfish, bordering on evil, doesn't change any of that.
I'm curious...do you believe your wife to be "inherently selfish, boardering on evil?" Yourself?
Obviously some people are that way, but I'd submit that the nature of your job puts you disproportionally in contact with those sorts of folks.
You are completely ignorant of what programs exist, what they do, and who they support and how long. Suffice it to say, no welfare program anywhere has ever made it fun to be poor.
The people that I deal with who live on welfare are quite comfortable. They seem to enjoy their life, though I don't really get it. I'm not sure if I'd call that "fun," but it's definitely not hard.
DM Barcas, you need to talk to someone, man. Not any of us on the interwebz messageboards, but someone who has real power over you, in your real life.
It sounds like you would be a whole lot happier with a desk job, no insult.
I love my job. I'm also incredibly happy. I have a beautiful wife, healthy baby, good friends, fulfilling work, and a strong family.
Just because I think that people are inherently selfish, bordering on evil, doesn't change any of that.
I would be glad to continue this conversation on PM (just click my icon) but I think you would be much happier if you didn't have to answer all those calls from douche-bags, right? It's great to practice your grammar here on the interwebs, but don't be afraid to take the sargeant's exam. Maybe you'll pass, maybe you'll fail, but you'll be satisfied knowing which way it went.
I'm curious...do you believe your wife to be "inherently selfish, boardering on evil?" How about yourself? Obviously some people are that way, but I'd submit that the nature of your job puts you disproportionally in contact with those sorts of folks.
I'd say it's a general rule. Most people are not particularly altruistic, and look out primarily for themselves (and sometimes a small group, though that's not always a given). I like to believe myself to be good, and my wife as well, but I think that we'd circle our wagons if the chips were down. Most people who consider themselves "good" would likely do the same.
I would submit that I have gotten to know a much, much wider cross-section of the American public than most get the opportunity to. Do I deal with pain, horror, and misery on a far more regular basis? I won't deny that. But I meet a lot of people, and in a much wider variety of situations than most.
I would be glad to continue this conversation on PM (just click my icon) but I think you would be much happier if you didn't have to answer all those calls from douche-bags, right? It's great to practice your grammar here on the interwebs, but don't be afraid to take the sargeant's exam. Maybe you'll pass, maybe you'll fail, but you'll be satisfied knowing which way it went.
I actually am a detective, not a patrol officer. Still, patrol is just about the most fun you can have and still get paid for it. Some of my favorite memories are from calls for service. It's a blast, and I loved every minute of it. However, I wanted to become an investigator. I am well on my way to Homicide Division, where I plan on applying next set of openings.
I plan on taking the sergeant's exam next time it comes up, as I will be eligible for it. However, I would want to return to investigations as soon as possible as a well-paid investigator. I don't think I'd fail. I'll be finished with my Master's degree by then, with enough seniority points to not move far down on the list from my raw score.
Again, don't take the cynicism as a sign that I dislike what I do. I love what I do. I wouldn't do anything else.
Interesting perspective, Barcas. Not sure I agree with your perspective, but we work in different fields. I wish you the best of luck with your exam.
|
Here's the setup:
you have a "wife," but whatever you do, do not get actually married.
You get the AFDC that way, you get rent comped;......all sortsa stuff.
Then, you work (on and off maybe).
You're not being a total flea bitten unicorn, but you get the government to subsidize your breeding program that way. And you get more disposable income than somebody making whatever you make plus what that sap is paying to subsidize your kids.
I knew a lot of people who did this kinda thing. I lived out in the boonies; lotsa rakish types. I didn't pay it too much attention because from looking at these people in action, working the system is actually kinda like a job in and of itsself, and not a really......noble pursuit from my standpoint.They used to get food stamps. Take the kids down to the lil champ to buy bazooka bubblegum with a food stamp dollar, get US money in change, and get beer $ that way, because you can't buy alcohol with foodstamps.
Now you get food stamps on a card, so you have to buy food product and sell it at a reduced rate for beer $.
It probably varies state by state, but you can't do that in New Jersey, at least not any more. In New Jersey you don't get food stamps, you essentially get a dedicated debit card (it's got some "Familyish" name by what it's known by) which can only be used at stores equipped with the readers to use them. Everything bought on those cards is documented. And no cash is given in change, it's just debits of a card. And while a store might try shennanigans with it, transactions made with this card have a long digital trail that goes all the way to Trenton.
I was raised in a family that had to live on public assistance for some period of time. There's a heck of a lot I'm willing to do to avoid a repetition of that existence.
Dude, they sell or trade the food for beer money or beer. I used to hang out with a hippie dude in Austin who had a Lone Star card (the Texas equivalent of your Jersey thing), and I'd stand in line right behind him with the beer I was trading for the ribs and stuff for my weekend barbecue. Trust me, a paper trail isn't stopping anyone from gaming the system.
|
|
Yes, that's exactly my answer. If you read my posts, you'll note how often I talk about the importance of everyone getting along and working together. I've explained multiple times that humans are naturally cooperative and kind beings, and that they would take care of each other, the planet, and kittens if only the government would get out of their way.We have some vastly different views of the way that people work. Perhaps it's that I deal with those who would prey upon others on a daily basis that makes me so cynical.
Yeah, I have yet to meet a cop that didn't have a very messed up view of people.