The C Suite types aren't willfully ignorant. They know full well they have under compensated labor for its contribution to corporate growth, sometimes for decades. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they have now been caught in their own webs. What's more disturbing to me is the long standing pattern of undercompensating labor and lying about it.
But that article says zero, absolutely zero, about people willingly staying out of the workforce BECAUSE of government incentives. Parental incentives perhaps, but not governmental ones.
Now I agree with you that for good or ill there’s a burden of making the case for why some crackhead getting freebies is a rare and ultimately small beans topic of misdirection.
This case has been made, and made, and made. we have almost 30 years of statistics that its been made. Most of the ardent conservatives here - Jaybird included - still think the case, as made, is a lie.
It’s not that they *ARE* drug abusing fraudsters. It’s that the benefit is predicated on them not being such.
Yes, it is. That's how the program has been set up for almost 3 decades. And states are scrupulous to the point of absurd obsession to keep it that way. And yet we are STILL debating whether the people using this aid DESERVE it and whether we should FURTHER TIGHTEN the already tight noose around their necks. The existence of that debate serves someone. Who do you think that is?
The problem with that argument is the assumption that welfare is paying people not to work. Which it has been illegal to do since 1996 or so. Which, like the SNAP benefit fraud "issue," means you have an argument about imposing a solution to a non-existent problem.
That aside, where welfare recipients have been drug tested, the compliance rate/positive test rate has been such that the cost of the program far exceeds the benefits that any state has been able to deny.
So that being the case, why do you think there's this persistent myth that welfare recipients are drug abusing fraudsters? Who benefits from perpetuating those myths?
And from inside government, wasted dollars - at least to politicians - are dollars spent on something they don't like. The merits of the expenditure are pointless in that debate.
In other words they did not actually want to operate in a regulation free, government agnostic free market. They wanted American tax payers to keep them from reckoning with their decisions.
They want the federal government to shoulder their infrastructure burden through FAA funding for airport construction; they want federal bailouts which they can spend bulking up their stock prices and they want federal no fly bans on unruly passengers.
But as an industry segment, they don't want to be seen wanting these things. Because if they are seen wanting these things, government might impose thing son them for the greater social and economic good. They want to cloak themselves in the myth of the free market while operating in a captive regulatory environment.
Abuse of SNAP seems to have a long history of angering American voters (even among users of SNAP, ironically enough).
But generally speaking, more conservative people will worry about the SNAP budget and more liberal people will worry about the military budget.
SNAP has a documented fraud rate of 0.9 to 1%. Is that good? Probably not. Could we get it lower? Probably not. All the documented instances I can find of prosecutions are for trading benefits for cash, not getting benefits you aren't entitled to. My conclusion is that SNAP fraud, much like in person voting fraud, is a myth in search of a constituency.
Defense fraud is much harder to find statistics on. DoD IG runs roughly 20% of its investigations on contracting fraud. How much that translates into dollar wise or percent wise is not something I can run down.
I’d guess that rich con men are more hated than middle-poor con men. On the other hand, stealing food is more visceral than a debate about the F-22 versus the F-35.
This is certainly true, at least based on the vitriol heaped on "welfare queens" by politicians and pundits. Unfortunately its based on a lie whose perpetuation is pernicious.
Airlines aren't people. They are companies. They made decision in an ostensibly free market. They didn't and don't deserve taxpayer support. I said so at the time and say so now.
I see it as wildly inaccurate to try and construct an argument about free riders on government programs with two examples of people who aren't free riders on government programs. With substantial savings - or substantial parental support - you weren't actually incentivized the same way a person on welfare would be.
If you do the work at the state level through non-partisan commissions which everyone then accepts yes it can be done in a less detestable way, providing the legislature is not a supermajoritarian one. The states being litigated now are states where either the legislature does the drawing, or the state commission output is being ignored by a legislative body.
And as to the "good" Dr. Harris - yeah I feel your pain. Canning off Wayne Gilchrest was one of the Republican party's worst moves, but until the residents of the First decide to vote for a Democrat, you won't have any good options.
Most of the state agencies, commissions and committees that do this work chugged on during covid. The only thing slowing them down was the Census Bureau being late delivering numbers. What Burt is referring to above is the process created by the states is designed to intentionally deliver maps late in the first major election cycle after the Census to prevent litigation being a success.
we consider the other guy's opinion. it generally fails for two reasons - lack of actual data to back it up (except extreme edge cases in very small numbers) and it also flies in the face of he values the other guy claims for himself. Align those three things better and we can have a great discussion.
Airlines are not, contra the supreme court, people. They are businesses. Businesses flush with cash before covid, who prioritized paying higher and higher dividends and higher and higher CEO salaries over paying employees and even in some instances modernizing their fleets. They did that because of internal business decisions not government regulation. When COVID hit they stuck out their hands in order to keep their profit margins up, not to survive. Even when they were told their "help" was conditional on keeping employees on the payroll, they prioritized paying dividends over people. In other words they did not actually want to operate in a regulation free, government agnostic free market. They wanted American tax payers to keep them from reckoning with their decisions.
Individual people deserve to receive aid because they are people. They are humans. their mere existence imputes dignity, regardless of their decisions. They deserve assistance, they deserve not being poor, simply because they are.
Based on the experience of the financial sector before the Great Recession, no airlines didn't "deserve" bailouts. We knew what corporate airline behavior would be; and we were largely right.
Two things stand out for me form that article - firs is that video game playing is alluded to as a barrier. That's an old conservative trope going back well into the 1980's that's not backed up by a shred of evidence.
The other thing that I notice is the strong correlation with pain killer use . . . But that article says zero, absolutely zero, about people willingly staying out of the workforce BECAUSE of government incentives. Parental incentives perhaps, but not governmental ones.
See the rapidly escalating stats on young healthy males dropping out of the workforce for an example.
I'd love to see those stats for the US. So far I think they are a myth.
I am offended by free riding welfare recipients and so called disability claimants who avoid work.
I would be too if such people were the norm. They are not. Welfare recipients have been required by the federal government to work since 1996. States rigorously enforce this. And fraudulent disability recipients are, in fact, routinely caught and prosecuted. but they are a tiny fraction of claimants, and really shouldn't be held against the rest of the recipients, even though they clearly are.
On “Supreme Court Allows Alabama Redistricting Plan, Overturns Lower Court 5-4”
The actions of those third parties set the legal stage that Roberts presently labors under. Were it not so he might have a point.
On “Of School Lunch, Farm Bills, Free Riders, and Book Clubs”
The C Suite types aren't willfully ignorant. They know full well they have under compensated labor for its contribution to corporate growth, sometimes for decades. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they have now been caught in their own webs. What's more disturbing to me is the long standing pattern of undercompensating labor and lying about it.
"
"
Progressives don't say that. If anything we want the people creating the works to be way better compensated then they are under the current system.
On “Getting A Read On The Book Of Boba Fett”
Well spit, now I have to get Disney+ so I can watch it.
Thanks a lot @Andrew Donaldson. I didn't have this in my new years budget.
On “Of School Lunch, Farm Bills, Free Riders, and Book Clubs”
This case has been made, and made, and made. we have almost 30 years of statistics that its been made. Most of the ardent conservatives here - Jaybird included - still think the case, as made, is a lie.
"
Yes, it is. That's how the program has been set up for almost 3 decades. And states are scrupulous to the point of absurd obsession to keep it that way. And yet we are STILL debating whether the people using this aid DESERVE it and whether we should FURTHER TIGHTEN the already tight noose around their necks. The existence of that debate serves someone. Who do you think that is?
"
The problem with that argument is the assumption that welfare is paying people not to work. Which it has been illegal to do since 1996 or so. Which, like the SNAP benefit fraud "issue," means you have an argument about imposing a solution to a non-existent problem.
That aside, where welfare recipients have been drug tested, the compliance rate/positive test rate has been such that the cost of the program far exceeds the benefits that any state has been able to deny.
So that being the case, why do you think there's this persistent myth that welfare recipients are drug abusing fraudsters? Who benefits from perpetuating those myths?
"
And from inside government, wasted dollars - at least to politicians - are dollars spent on something they don't like. The merits of the expenditure are pointless in that debate.
"
This is indeed true, and its one of the only policy failings in this arena by the government.
"
You'd sound an awful lot like Eisenhower.
"
Really? You are disturbed that businesses can't grok employees acting in the exact same manor as c-suiters have for decades? Really?
"
I don't:
They want the federal government to shoulder their infrastructure burden through FAA funding for airport construction; they want federal bailouts which they can spend bulking up their stock prices and they want federal no fly bans on unruly passengers.
But as an industry segment, they don't want to be seen wanting these things. Because if they are seen wanting these things, government might impose thing son them for the greater social and economic good. They want to cloak themselves in the myth of the free market while operating in a captive regulatory environment.
"
SNAP has a documented fraud rate of 0.9 to 1%. Is that good? Probably not. Could we get it lower? Probably not. All the documented instances I can find of prosecutions are for trading benefits for cash, not getting benefits you aren't entitled to. My conclusion is that SNAP fraud, much like in person voting fraud, is a myth in search of a constituency.
Defense fraud is much harder to find statistics on. DoD IG runs roughly 20% of its investigations on contracting fraud. How much that translates into dollar wise or percent wise is not something I can run down.
This is certainly true, at least based on the vitriol heaped on "welfare queens" by politicians and pundits. Unfortunately its based on a lie whose perpetuation is pernicious.
"
Airlines aren't people. They are companies. They made decision in an ostensibly free market. They didn't and don't deserve taxpayer support. I said so at the time and say so now.
"
I see it as wildly inaccurate to try and construct an argument about free riders on government programs with two examples of people who aren't free riders on government programs. With substantial savings - or substantial parental support - you weren't actually incentivized the same way a person on welfare would be.
On “Supreme Court Allows Alabama Redistricting Plan, Overturns Lower Court 5-4”
So you support the Democrats federal election bills then? This was a major issue they addressed.
"
If you do the work at the state level through non-partisan commissions which everyone then accepts yes it can be done in a less detestable way, providing the legislature is not a supermajoritarian one. The states being litigated now are states where either the legislature does the drawing, or the state commission output is being ignored by a legislative body.
And as to the "good" Dr. Harris - yeah I feel your pain. Canning off Wayne Gilchrest was one of the Republican party's worst moves, but until the residents of the First decide to vote for a Democrat, you won't have any good options.
Sincerely,
A former Maryland 4th resident
"
Most of the state agencies, commissions and committees that do this work chugged on during covid. The only thing slowing them down was the Census Bureau being late delivering numbers. What Burt is referring to above is the process created by the states is designed to intentionally deliver maps late in the first major election cycle after the Census to prevent litigation being a success.
On “Of School Lunch, Farm Bills, Free Riders, and Book Clubs”
we consider the other guy's opinion. it generally fails for two reasons - lack of actual data to back it up (except extreme edge cases in very small numbers) and it also flies in the face of he values the other guy claims for himself. Align those three things better and we can have a great discussion.
"
Airlines are not, contra the supreme court, people. They are businesses. Businesses flush with cash before covid, who prioritized paying higher and higher dividends and higher and higher CEO salaries over paying employees and even in some instances modernizing their fleets. They did that because of internal business decisions not government regulation. When COVID hit they stuck out their hands in order to keep their profit margins up, not to survive. Even when they were told their "help" was conditional on keeping employees on the payroll, they prioritized paying dividends over people. In other words they did not actually want to operate in a regulation free, government agnostic free market. They wanted American tax payers to keep them from reckoning with their decisions.
Individual people deserve to receive aid because they are people. They are humans. their mere existence imputes dignity, regardless of their decisions. They deserve assistance, they deserve not being poor, simply because they are.
Its nowhere near the same thing.
"
Neither you nor your friends were living off government assistance. Its not actually the same thing.
"
Based on the experience of the financial sector before the Great Recession, no airlines didn't "deserve" bailouts. We knew what corporate airline behavior would be; and we were largely right.
"
Two things stand out for me form that article - firs is that video game playing is alluded to as a barrier. That's an old conservative trope going back well into the 1980's that's not backed up by a shred of evidence.
The other thing that I notice is the strong correlation with pain killer use . . . But that article says zero, absolutely zero, about people willingly staying out of the workforce BECAUSE of government incentives. Parental incentives perhaps, but not governmental ones.
"
I'd love to see those stats for the US. So far I think they are a myth.
I would be too if such people were the norm. They are not. Welfare recipients have been required by the federal government to work since 1996. States rigorously enforce this. And fraudulent disability recipients are, in fact, routinely caught and prosecuted. but they are a tiny fraction of claimants, and really shouldn't be held against the rest of the recipients, even though they clearly are.