-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
rocketknight
Member
I think that, overwhelmingly, the people taking advantage of these programs need them. I think that it would have been better to focus on the traps we create for the poor (like these people who are scared of their children doing better or getting a job because they don't know if they could hold it down, or how in states not expanding Medicaid, it might be better not to work at all) rather than blaming them for falling in or focusing on the relatively few "welfare queens." My empathy is calibrated such that I much prefer false positive admissions to these programs than false denials from them. I expect that much more of this is due to economic phenomenon than malice or greed, and the program could have done a much better job of contextualizing this story in a way that didn't emphasize the negative or almost casually dismiss mental illness.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I like when he equates being gay with pedophilia and bestiality. That'll go over very well!
He'll be 2016's Herman Cain.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You didn't know there are millions of people who take advantage of welfare and fit every stereotype imaginable? They exist, especially in big cities (and rural towns, never forget that); I have 5 family members who are healthy enough to work yet get by on disability out of pure laziness. The problem arises when republicans paint all disabled people with the same brush. But I'm pretty sure most people have a family member like that.
I feel a good deal of people on disability should be working to one degree or another, and should be checked on more. There are plenty of jobs that aren't physically demanding that many of these folks can do. How the government would operate such a system would be the problem though. Do you hire more social workers to check on people, how do you get these folks jobs in a bad economy, etc. And all of those solutions cost money, whereas the alternative is to just cut benefits. We know which option republicans would support, but there's also a large group of democrats who wouldn't support any reforms either.
The alternative is to do NEITHER and to just improve the economy to the extent that disability is not a compelling alternative. This is really the worst post I have ever seen you make on multiple levels.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I stiilllll want to know how far he would've got without that scandal.
Cain train derailed way too early.
The Librarian
Banned
I still need to finish watching Wonkblog's on disability insurance, and I need to look more closely at this corresponding article.
I think in general we need to change the focus of our wrath and vengeance away from "welfare queens" who take advantage of the system. It's probably true that some likely don't need as much assistance is as given to them, but likely still need some depending on their needs. But I have a strange gut feeling that even if we could spot all the someones taking advantage of the system, and if we were to expel them from gaining any assistance that the combined savings would still be less than that of a single welfare corporation which is revered in the US as some sort of noble beast that deserves being on The People's dole.
We as a society don't even bat an eye when giant industries and corporations receive assistance. The only reason I can imagine people get upset at giving assistance to people is out of some sort of ill-informed jealousy.
We as a society don't even bat an eye when giant industries and corporations receive assistance. The only reason I can imagine people get upset at giving assistance to people is out of some sort of ill-informed jealousy.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Or we can reform the programs so that they work better regardless of the economy's situation. An idea that isn't exclusive to me so I must say I'm confused by your response.
The Librarian
Banned
Guys, I know like twenty people on disability insurance that don't need but are too lazy to work. Also, I bet everyone knows at least five people who are just the same.
Oh man, you know that's right. I still think of what could have been, all the comedy that has been lost to us.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Now's our chance to find out!
I kind of regret even responding because on consideration I think you're just trolling again. The idea that everybody probably has a family member who's a welfare queen is too absurd even for you.
Obviously reforming the programs to "work better" is a good idea. But the false choice between enforcement measures and cuts is not an approach designed to work better, it's an approach designed to reduce benefits. If people who aren't disabled are seeking out disability insurance, the correct solution is to fix the programs they should be depending on instead, because those programs are clearly not functioning correctly. I pretty much straightforwardly reject the idea that any meaningful group of people prefers living in desperate poverty and squalor to ever working, so I obviously don't think much of policy ideas that take that as read.
RustyNails
Member
He has a point. The NPR program said that 2/3rds of people on disability at a young age never do anything in life and depend on disability for the rest of their lives, and majority of people from families that use disability also grow up and use it for themselves. Doo you know how many government grants and programs there are to complete school and graduate? "Just improving the economy" does nothing for these folks. Government just giving out a blank check without any strings attached is problematic. And like PD I have heard of wealthy, Gas station owner exploiting the food assistance program because of loopholes in Chicago. Why can't the social security office simply check where the person is working, check his tax records and make a judgement, rather than just giving out free money? I know it's anecdotal, but it's there and it makes me sad. The social security department should establish a board and attach strings, such as college enrollment (with generous tuition grants and benefits) of able bodied young men and women, or programs to guide folks without much education on how to gain trade skills, and regular check up of health and employment situations. Just the other day my wife and I were discussing college degrees, and what she told me struck me. Some Associates degree programs are worth more in value than master's degree programs in terms of raw-money making opportunities and prospects. Like PT Assistant from a community college for example vs a Psych degree from a prestigious school. We need to channel right people for the right jobs. I know we will spend some money for these ideas, but at least it will deter long term disability problems. I'm not saying that there are people in need. There seriously are and it's an absolutely must-have social safety net program which I really admire. But the only way to dismantle the disability industrial complex is to fundamentally change how our tax dollars work.
Rocket Scientist
Member
You need funding and even bigger government to actually make a program work better. It's easier to just demonize and cut, cut, cut.
Hopefully they reform H-1B so that it follows similar rules to these new visas as well.
This might shock you, apparently, but many people on disability are DISABLED. Definitionally, this means they can't work. Some of them are permanently disabled and won't ever be able to work. This is especially likely if they get on disability at a young age as the result of a disorder as opposed to getting on it later as the result of an illness or injury! So what you're describing here is actually evidence that the disability program is working and that most of the people who are classified as disabled early on are, in fact, too disabled to ever lead normal lives.
It's not a blank check. It's a check with a number written on it. And that number is not very large. Do you consider Social Security a "blank check?"
Because it would cost more money to do that than to just occasionally give out an extra pittance to somebody who doesn't really need it.
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense.
The Librarian
Banned
There's a disability industrial complex now?
RustyNails
Member
I don't think you got my point. People with a debilitating injury are perfectly eligible for SS benefits. That's not my point. My point is to better manage the program so people don't use it as life support system. Didn't you listen to the TAL segment? People with mild blood pressure and back pain were getting in on the program, with varying degrees of pain. Like the reporter mentions, she herself suffers from back pain and her programmer has some disc injury in the back yet he's a hard worker. Disability is not a diagnosis. A doctor can't say, welp, you're disabled. Time to fill out SD 3368. Why can't we have medical professionals in social security administration to verify the medical reports?
Right. That not very large number is pretty good for people who make nothing, especially when the difference between the annual social security amount and working on minimum wage is few thousand dollars without job security and working 10 hour shifts and kids at home. This is why we need reform.
We waste millions of tax dollars in utter nonsense. It's futile to argue that reforming SS is waste of taxpayer money.
Ask NPR
The system is DESIGNED to be used as a life support system for people who need life support. This is really the largest imperative for having disability insurance in the first place, so don't just wave it away like that.
Because it would be a huge waste of money, because most people
Sure! We need LABOR reform, to improve job security, raise the minimum wage and limit essentially mandatory overtime. What you're explaining is that people choose disability insurance because their other alternatives are just as bad. It's astounding to me that your proposed solution is then to make disability insurance EVEN WORSE! Especially because, as noted, even if we assume some large number of cheaters, which I wouldn't do, there are certainly and unquestionably a large number of people who really need disability insurance in order to live! Your strategy just treats the life and well-being of these people as being essentially irrelevant compared to the necessity to punish people into working at Wal*Mart.
Care to produce some numbers?
To me that sounds like an indictment of how well (or rather, poorly) we compensate our bottom earners, not how extravagantly we support our disabled.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm just going to agree to disagree. The response to TAL has been disappointing thus far. There is abuse of the system, and there are people who shouldn't be on disability getting checks. You can call it projecting all you want, but I've grown up around enough people to know the culture of dependency exists. I have a cousin on disability due to a back injury sustained on the job; he collects checks and plays basketball at the park all the time, helped me move, etc. I know for a fact that he isn't injured anymore, and had four other family members with similar situations. In Detroit.
This isn't some anecdotal anomaly, as the report showed. Most folks on disability are indeed disabled, most people on welfare need it, etc. but there is also a large group of people who take advantage of a broken system that needs to be ushered into the 21st century as much as your local DMV and VA probably do too. I'm not advocating broad cuts, I'm advocating a more efficient government. Regardless of the economy's condition.
And if you're still mad over my blatant Romney trolling during the election cry me a river; I was open about what I sas doing to anyone who asked, and didn't get banned. God forbid we discuss policy for once.
This isn't some anecdotal anomaly, as the report showed. Most folks on disability are indeed disabled, most people on welfare need it, etc. but there is also a large group of people who take advantage of a broken system that needs to be ushered into the 21st century as much as your local DMV and VA probably do too. I'm not advocating broad cuts, I'm advocating a more efficient government. Regardless of the economy's condition.
And if you're still mad over my blatant Romney trolling during the election cry me a river; I was open about what I sas doing to anyone who asked, and didn't get banned. God forbid we discuss policy for once.
I'm not mad, I just don't really see the necessity to take your posts seriously when you might just disavow them at any time.
Avon Barksdale
Member
PhoenixDark
Banned
Which I haven't done since November 7th but hey, whatever. I don't think it's hard to gather that I'm a liberal who doesn't particularly like Barack Obama, even though I spend an unhealthy amount of time defending him on Facebook, work, etc.
Yeah but it doesn't work very well.
zero shift
Banned
Well it isn't like if the son got a job and they lost their checks they would all of a sudden be on the path to prosperity What would probably be overwhelming true would be that the son would get a working class job (at most) while the mother would be stuck being unemployed due to years out of the workforce or working at a or near minimum wage job. I don't mean to be apologetic but maybe its because I know how brutal the job market can be, even pre-recession, if you don't have any relevant education or experience.
I don't want to be "that guy" but I find some stereotypes to be often true. I see many stereotypes constantly where I work at. Unlike most people the solution isn't to just blame them but more so figure out why there are so many people who act this way to begin with. And when overwhelmingly the choices are benefit from a semi-livable wage plus health insurance from the state versus a semi-livable wage and long working hours while still being stuck in the system it isn't shocking to as of why so many people chose a certain path.
This is what I always tell people. I'm sure the peasants of the French Revolution fit the stereotypes of the rich back then, didn't mean that they didn't deserve freedom or better pay.
Just pay these people more. Either raise the wages or pull a Nordic/Venezuela and treat the government aid as wages. I don't mean to be a dick but are people really so perplexed to as of why people don't want to get a job that pays $7.25 an hour? I just made significantly more than I'd make under that wage in a week last night alone. The right always crys about small businesses wouldn't work as hard with regulation X or that the rich wouldn't work as hard with their pay too low, but when its the poor they say "tough luck", its ridiculous.
I'd like to point out that Food Share is one of the very small list of programs that really do just give out free money. But when it comes to welfare and food stamps it couldn't be more different. A vast majority of people I know who were on government aid freaked out because they'd be stuck in the hole again just because they got an extra two shift for the week. Even then so while my family definitely say some people take advantage of the system that didn't need it, we ourselves used it for a time in which I would be very sure the government would say "no" due to our income, yet lets just say it was a very special situation that we were in in which we were financially strapped.
jamesinclair
Banned
Stores like this make me so mad
Long story, worth reading.
Its not a democrat or republican issue - its a scum-bag rich people fucking over everyone else.
How do we solve this problem? Short of the guillotine, the ever increasing wealth gap and the corruption and abuse that comes with it is because an insurmountable problem.
Long story, worth reading.
Its not a democrat or republican issue - its a scum-bag rich people fucking over everyone else.
How do we solve this problem? Short of the guillotine, the ever increasing wealth gap and the corruption and abuse that comes with it is because an insurmountable problem.
To be fair, this kind of logic is currently being derided in the "contrarian's" view on gay marriage thread. You don't have to don't have to fix only policy X or only policy Y if fixing both would be beneficial.
I'm not really worried about the amount of money being given out in disability programs at the moment, but there are likely better ways in which to help some of the people currently living off these programs. This isn't an "oh my god everybody is cheating the system" concern so much as a "if disability benefits are increasingly being used as de facto welfare payments for people capable of working but struggling to find work, maybe there are more effective ways to increase their living standards and help them find work." Better worker retraining programs, increased investment into education (including early childhood education), a greater focus on stimulus/job creation policies, higher minimum wages, etc.
But sure, if the only available choice was "just cut disability benefits or do nothing," I guess I would do nothing.
RustyNails
Member
I'm gonna leave it at that...we will never reform Social Security with this attitude of "the problem is not the program". We can't even agree on sensible reforms on this program on a gaming message board, so what hope is there for the chambers of Congress.
Part of me is baffled at the response the program gets. It starts with "Hey, some places have a ton of people on disabled benefits. That's odd. Why?" and eventually goes into "Because while they might still be able to work in some jobs, those jobs aren't in their line of work or what they can get with their level of education. Rather than dealing with this problem as it is, many are just getting brushed out of the picture and into disability. It's an effect of a larger problem." How that translates to "DISABILITY IZ GOIN' WILD" I'll never know.
The subtext of how we've been mistreating our blue collar workers was also noteworthy.
The subtext of how we've been mistreating our blue collar workers was also noteworthy.
rocketknight
Member
We'd also have to get serious about providing or subsidizing child care, and we aren't even getting anywhere on Obama's Head Start proposal. So I dunno.
I find it likely that most people in this thread would be okay (or ecstatic) with means-testing Social Security and uncapping the payroll tax as the first reasonable step in that direction, but that doesn't play anywhere else because seniors.
The difference being is that the false choice in that thread is between making progress on a wider variety of social issues, while what we are talking about here all revolves around one single issue, that of economic distribution of resources. And the more time we spend talking about how we should fix small amounts of waste in a program that is vital for people who desperately need help, the more we really are taking attention away from the obscene upwards transfer of wealth going on. Where issues like marriage equality and feminism are important and worthy of discussion in their own right, stuff like this really is a complete distraction. Disability doesn't need to be "fixed". As others have already said, the economic forces that push people to choose disability insurance over employment need to be fixed. But it benefits Wall Street a lot more if we tut-tut over some guy with minor back pain getting a stipend instead of where the real problem lies.
Rocket Scientist
Member
The taxi business is corrupt everywhere. It would be a perfect field where a worker owned structure would work best yet it doesn't happen.
jamesinclair
Banned
But how can that be guaranteed?
Eliminate medallions? State owned taxis?
Meanwhile, in gaming-age....
Maxis are apparently hard core libertarians.
0% tax = infinite happiness
http://imgur.com/a/gW7F9
That's because you haven't proposed any sensible reforms! Only enforcement mechanisms.
The SimCity launch has really been heartbreaking. I really wanted to love and buy this game.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
City-owned taxi service makes sense. We have city-owned public transport, why not taxis. People make miserable pay working countless hours.
jamesinclair
Banned
Yeah I really do think its the right solution.
Anyone know how the taxi system in London works? I know the drivers go through a really rigorous testing system, and the cabs must be really clean and such. Who owns the cabs?
Also, happy Hugo Chavez day everyone!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/people-who-think-google-is-honoring-hugo-chavez
zero shift
Banned
I find it really sad how so many people on GAF, and other forums think of Chavez as the devil because of such a biased sample. I mean I'm no rabbid support of him but the hyperbolic people use with him is ridiculous. A friend of mine thought Google was honoring Chavez as well and went on a rant comparing him to Stalin.
Angry Fork
Member
The propaganda really took off with Chavez, they really believe he was a murderous tyrant, it's more frustrating than funny for me.
zero shift
Banned
I also blame much of Venezuela-GAF, few people realize that a vast majority of them tend to be very right wing. I mean if you ask them to back up their claims they either list some no-name rightwing blog or list amateur Youtube videos and spaz out when you call them out on it. I believe this is because this is well a gaming website. Most people have no idea how ridiculously expensive video games are in South America with games costing three times, or more, than they would in America. I'm sorry but its hard for me to take you seriously when you say you are in the "middle income" for such a modest income country, especially when you say that you'll be there "day one" for the newest hottest game release in another thread. I've talked with other Venezuelans, while none of them liked Chavez but they quickly noted that he is very popular in the country and many of the claims from many of the frantic anti-Chavez posters are either exaggerated or unfounded.
Its also amusing that such few people know of Venezuela's history. Chavez could be argued to be a champion of civil liberties compared to the guy he came before, the one that pretty much made protesting illegal.
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . if they knew who Cesar Chavez was they would probably be just as disgusted. Honoring that union thug.
They'd also probably think he was Hugo Chavez' cousin or something.
empty vessel
Member
I don't think it's sufficient to point to people who work through back pain as a reason to conclude that people with back pain who receive disability do so undeservedly. First, as you recognize, there are varying degrees of pain associated with back injuries, and some are indeed very debilitating, making it difficult to work whenever called upon to do so. Some professions are more accommodating than others, i.e., allow people to continue working even when suffering a higher degree of pain. For example, a friend of mine who was rear-ended at a stoplight over a year ago suffers significant back injury. When she was working as an employee, her inability to always maintain a normal work schedule began causing friction at work. She has since managed to become self-employed, meaning she has more control over her work schedule. This allows her to continue working despite her disability whereas if she were forced to answer to a boss, her ability to retain a job with her injury would have been severely compromised, even if she was physically capable of working. So there is a privilege element involved in being able to continue work while disabled. An unskilled worker will have a far harder time--potentially impossible time--retaining employment even with the same injury that an educated professional--like a reporter or radio programmer--might have.
It also stands to reason that retaining employment will be harder for the disabled during times of high unemployment than during times when an economy is humming along. This probably alone explains the rise in disability recipients.
But the bottom line is that people with disabilities are disabled, and we have a program intended to help people who are disabled. So I don't think pointing to people who are disabled but who continue to work despite that is a good argument. It's like pointing to the person who got laid off but refuses unemployment benefits as a reason for eliminating or reforming unemployment.
- Status