From: howdHol@yaooho.com
Michael Trew wrote:
> MANY of these people, will spend ANY money that they get on themselves
> while their children go without. They buy toys for themselves, drugs,
> and worse. No, I'm not generalizing, I have first-hand experience. I
> know all to many people that would blow every bit of that money on
> their own selfish wants, while their children live the same way that
> they did before.
No. Evidence just don't bear that out. For example, multiple drug
testing programs of TANF recipients finds just a small fraction of
positive results, comparable to what the general population has --
meaning that middle and upper income people who get, say, deductions for
charitible donations, property tax payments, or offsets of capital gains
taxes for paper losses on other assets.
I've known plenty of well off people who use drugs, and tax credits they
get arguably are feeding their use. I don't think they should be run
through the ringer on drug tests either.
There is a huge mote/beam problem with the poor where people extrapolate
from the worst to all of the rest, and ignore the much more extensive
populations by insisting that the issue has to be taken as a whole. It's
like complaining that there is a broken Dorito problem by citing the
average of a couple of broken chips in every bag, and when confronted
with the fact that most chips are just fine, responding that it's the
*bag* that's the problem.
Complicated voucher programs with means testing and verification and all
of that overhead don't fix problems and only keep people from things
like health care, education and housing. They make the programs so
expensive that people want to shut them down because of the overhead
costs per recipient. It's like opening every bag of Doritos in a store
to find the broken chips, breaking more chips in the process, and then
banning Doritos from a store because all of the bags are open.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
