From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:36:33 -0500   
   Boron Elgar  wrote:   
      
   > On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:59:05 -0500, Michael Trew   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >On 12/1/2021 10:45, Howard wrote:   
   > >> Boron Elgar  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:10:39 -0000 (UTC),   
   > >>> Howard   
   > >>   
   > >>>> 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.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Huzzah!   
   > >>   
   > >> Reporting on these issues drives me crazy because there is so much   
   > >> ridiculous framing that goes on which includes certain things and   
   > >> excludes others.   
   > >...   
   > >> I'm fine with both things. But the moral panic over a portion of   
   > >> lower income beneficiaries using drugs is fanned to a red hot   
   > >> level by propogandists.   
   > >   
   > >I hear what you are saying, and perhaps my view point is small as it   
   > >pertains to the poor mid-western/rust belt region that I live in.   
   > >That being said, I'd be interested to know if tests have been done   
   > >before, what the numbers compare to in other regions.  I purposely   
   > >try to avoid these types of people, but there are so many of them   
   > >near me, that they are difficult to completely avoid.   
   > >   
   > >Basically, you are posting from a very generalized national   
   > >perspective, but I see a VERY different thing to what you are saying   
   > >where I live. Well over 3/4 of the people that I know that take   
   > >benefits abuse them, don't need them, and could easily work.  Many   
   > >work side gigs and don't report that income.  I know for a fact that   
   > >roughly a third of them do drugs.  No, not pot, I'm talking about   
   > >cocaine, etc.   
   > >   
   > >Also, my point is a lot more involved than "lower income   
   > >beneficiaries using drugs", and my outlook is not related to any   
   > >kind of propaganda, it's what I experience in person.  My concern is   
   > >actually less with these people buying drugs, and more with these   
   > >people being bottle-fed; people who could easily work, but chose not   
   > >to.  No, not propaganda; again, personal experiences.  Many of them   
   > >admit it and don't care; they take the benefits, because they are   
   > >easy for them to obtain.   
   >   
   > You are too big an asshole to live.   
   >   
   > Anti-vax, sexist, anti abortion, right wing twat.   
      
   IMO You'd be better off refuting his arguments, or saying that his   
   experience is perhaps too narrow an observation of outliers and isn't   
   what generally pertains, or whatever, rather than create a total   
   polarisation.   
      
   TLDR: Abuse rarely wins arguments.   
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)