Discussion on Welfare and other Social Programs

[AppleQueso]

I can understand the frustration when someone pays for food with food stamps and looks like they don't need them, but in reality we don't know whats going on in their personal life. Really, its none of our business. Unless you see them actively abusing their privileges, then you should call to report, but that's it. The system is being abused, but not as much as you think it is.

I think this is an essential element of understanding this. Everyone knows an exception. Everything thinks they know or have seen someone who's ripping off the system. In reality, the norm is hard-working folks in tough times. Most actual research (with data collection, proper methods, etc..., as opposed to anecdotal "but I saw x" kinda stuff) into welfare-type services is that fraud rates are incredibly low and cost the government relatively little. Most who receive aid don't want to have to and are hard-working and have simply fallen on bad times.

The idea that we're living at the edge of our means because of a social safety net is also patently false. There are a great many other nations with much more robust social safety nets than us, and their citizens are not disincentivized to work. Many of these nations save better than us, live more within their means, AND have a better system to fall back on in hard times. Our problems are, rather, cultural, and have a lot to do with rampant consumerism and the free reign companies have to lead us into financial obligations which are good for them and bad for us.

Bingo

[oxymoron]

Our problems are, rather, cultural, and have a lot to do with rampant consumerism and the free reign companies have to lead us into financial obligations which are good for them and bad for us.

But who's really to blame there, the companies who are selling things or the persons who voluntarily puts themselves in debt? I'm not speaking about the people that become unemployed and put debt on their credit cards as a last resort.

[Jmustang1968]

I can understand the frustration when someone pays for food with food stamps and looks like they don't need them, but in reality we don't know whats going on in their personal life. Really, its none of our business. Unless you see them actively abusing their privileges, then you should call to report, but that's it. The system is being abused, but not as much as you think it is.

I think this is an essential element of understanding this. Everyone knows an exception. Everything thinks they know or have seen someone who's ripping off the system. In reality, the norm is hard-working folks in tough times. Most actual research (with data collection, proper methods, etc..., as opposed to anecdotal "but I saw x" kinda stuff) into welfare-type services is that fraud rates are incredibly low and cost the government relatively little. Most who receive aid don't want to have to and are hard-working and have simply fallen on bad times.

The idea that we're living at the edge of our means because of a social safety net is also patently false. There are a great many other nations with much more robust social safety nets than us, and their citizens are not disincentivized to work. Many of these nations save better than us, live more within their means, AND have a better system to fall back on in hard times. Our problems are, rather, cultural, and have a lot to do with rampant consumerism and the free reign companies have to lead us into financial obligations which are good for them and bad for us.

While I agree it is cultural form some percentage of the population, lets not go all blaming companies and taking away personal responsibility. That is part od the problem that leads to this culture you speak of.

It is fairly difficult to detect who is gaming the system and no one is going to admit it filling out surveys. There is a robust food stamp black market and it has been growing.

I think you guys are also exagerrating painting us saying one needs to be wearing rags and look homeless to get food stamps. I honestly don't know what clothes are expensive or not.

[AppleQueso]

lets not go all blaming companies and taking away personal responsibility.

Oh those poor companies, who will defend them?

It is fairly difficult to detect who is gaming the system and no one is going to admit it filling out surveys. There is a robust food stamp black market and it has been growing.

No it hasn't.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239

USDA has cut “trafficking” — the sale of SNAP benefits for cash, which violates federal law — by three-quarters over the past 15 years. Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked. USDA has also permanently disqualified thousands of retail stores from the program for not following federal requirements. In fiscal year 2012, USDA’s retailer fraud investigations resulted in 342 convictions and $57.7 million in recoveries. When cases of SNAP fraud are reported in the news, it is because the offenders have been caught, evidence that states and USDA are aggressively combating fraud.
In addition, SNAP now comes in the form of an electronic debit card –– like the ATM cards that most Americans carry in their wallets — which recipients can use in the supermarket checkout line only to purchase food. This has been a key tool to reduce trafficking. Sophisticated computer programs monitor SNAP transactions for patterns that may suggest abuse. Federal and state law enforcement agencies are then alerted and investigate. Retailers or SNAP recipients who defraud SNAP by trading their benefit cards for money or misrepresenting their circumstances face tough criminal penalties.

They don't just use a survey to figure out who's committing fraud.

I think you guys are also exagerrating painting us saying one needs to be wearing rags and look homeless to get food stamps. I honestly don't know what clothes are expensive or not.

You're effectively painting a large portion of benefit recipients as likely fraudsters based on nothing more than pure anecdote and speculation. The actual research suggests a different picture. That's what I take issue with.

[marurun]

While I agree it is cultural form some percentage of the population, lets not go all blaming companies and taking away personal responsibility. That is part od the problem that leads to this culture you speak of.

OK, I don't want to suggest that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, but... personal responsibility is given too much weight. If there's anything psychology teaches us, it is that people are highly malleable, often without their knowledge.

Why do you think car salesman rank so low on the trustworthy scale? Because when you go to buy a car they fast-talk and manipulate, and the only reason we even deal with them is because we need a car, damnit! And yet, we often let them persuade us. In fact, salespeople of all stripes managed to persuade us to do all sorts of things we can't afford to do, because they tell us we can. They make the numbers look friendlier and more manageable than they are.

Look at the housing crisis. While some like to blame the buyers, and yes, the buyers do play a role, a lot of that was lenders telling us, "No, don't worry, you really CAN afford that. It just looks like you can't. Here, let me show you THESE numbers and now, look, you really CAN afford that house!"

There is no such thing as individual responsibility in asymmetric information warfare, which is what business is today. Any company that wants your money has FAR more information about you than you do about them and their product. They know all sorts of stuff about their car, their house, their service and its limitations, than you do. At the same time, they know your entire credit history (thanks to the credit reporting bureaus).

Balance in free markets is predicated on complete knowledge. Which is to say, you can choose between widget A and B because you know all the details of A and B. If they are the same, you get the one which is cheaper. If they are priced the same, you get the one which is better. But the desk is stacked so that it is VERY hard to determine which one is better. Maybe you've heard of paralysis of choice. It's when people just freeze up instead of making a decision because they are incapable of perceiving meaningful differences between the options. I get this in the grocery store all the time. Companies withhold from us whatever they can, because the less we know, and the more they do, the better able they are to manipulate our behavior. Companies benefit from us being unable to distinguish between actual qualities of products, because then they are in a position to tell us what's important instead of us discerning it for ourselves.

I don't mean to say that corporations are solely responsible for some of the cultural issues we have with social services, but they are certainly a large part of the picture, larger than I think most people want to believe (the whole myth of the self-made man and all that). By knowing so much about us but keeping so much information from us, they can manipulate our financial decisions in ways that we are incredibly hard-pressed to counter. This creates purchasing patterns and influences culture. Even if you are better able to resist that "buy, don't save!" message that comes not just from corporations but our own government (and presidents on both sides of the aisle), the people around you probably aren't, and when enough people fall into a pattern it starts to change cultural expectations.

It's a big puzzle, hard to figure out. But I, for one, think improved regulation of companies is necessary, including more openness about products and services and more transparency about what data of ours they have that they can use against us. I'm no fan of free market economics in a culture of asymmetric information warfare.

Oh, additionally, it's not this attitude that perpetuates our cultural issues with social services. Rather, it's the opposite. It's the mistaken cultural belief in upward mobility and self-made person-hood that is the problem. Because, statistically speaking, it's a myth. In fact, the US has far less upward social mobility than most other developed nations. We believe we CAN get ahead, sometimes just by "wanting it bad enough", but the truth is, the deck really IS stacked against us, at a fundamental, structural level. The sooner we accept that the powers that be, government and industry, have worked together to ensure the great American myth remains myth, the sooner we can fix it and get things in order. As long as we continue to believe we can achieve in the face of a system that isn't set up to allow that, we will continue to learn helplessness and fail to advocate for the change necessary to fix it.

And now that I typed all that, I'm wondering if I should spin this (and some of the previous posts) off into a separate thread so that this one can continue to be about smiling and ticking off.

[Jmustang1968]

Oh those poor companies, who will defend them?

Yay, way to add to the discussion...

No it hasn't.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239

They don't just use a survey to figure out who's committing fraud.

Quoting a self serving biased organization who tries to claim it is a unbiased think tank. I have seen other numbers that suggest otherwise.

They can also really only track reported cases or those who have been caught.

You're effectively painting a large portion of benefit recipients as likely fraudsters based on nothing more than pure anecdote and speculation. The actual research suggests a different picture. That's what I take issue with.

If you selectively read what I post, then there isn't much point in discussing. I am sorry welfare programs are beyond reproach to you and that any criticism of the program or some of the recipients is me accusing them of all being lazy or frauds when I have clarified otherwise.

[Jmustang1968]

While I agree it is cultural form some percentage of the population, lets not go all blaming companies and taking away personal responsibility. That is part od the problem that leads to this culture you speak of.

OK, I don't want to suggest that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, but... personal responsibility is given too much weight. If there's anything psychology teaches us, it is that people are highly malleable, often without their knowledge.

Why do you think car salesman rank so low on the trustworthy scale? Because when you go to buy a car they fast-talk and manipulate, and the only reason we even deal with them is because we need a car, damnit! And yet, we often let them persuade us. In fact, salespeople of all stripes managed to persuade us to do all sorts of things we can't afford to do, because they tell us we can. They make the numbers look friendlier and more manageable than they are.

Look at the housing crisis. While some like to blame the buyers, and yes, the buyers do play a role, a lot of that was lenders telling us, "No, don't worry, you really CAN afford that. It just looks like you can't. Here, let me show you THESE numbers and now, look, you really CAN afford that house!"

There is no such thing as individual responsibility in asymmetric information warfare, which is what business is today. Any company that wants your money has FAR more information about you than you do about them and their product. They know all sorts of stuff about their car, their house, their service and its limitations, than you do. At the same time, they know your entire credit history (thanks to the credit reporting bureaus).

Balance in free markets is predicated on complete knowledge. Which is to say, you can choose between widget A and B because you know all the details of A and B. If they are the same, you get the one which is cheaper. If they are priced the same, you get the one which is better. But the desk is stacked so that it is VERY hard to determine which one is better. Maybe you've heard of paralysis of choice. It's when people just freeze up instead of making a decision because they are incapable of perceiving meaningful differences between the options. I get this in the grocery store all the time. Companies withhold from us whatever they can, because the less we know, and the more they do, the better able they are to manipulate our behavior. Companies benefit from us being unable to distinguish between actual qualities of products, because then they are in a position to tell us what's important instead of us discerning it for ourselves.

I don't mean to say that corporations are solely responsible for some of the cultural issues we have with social services, but they are certainly a large part of the picture, larger than I think most people want to believe (the whole myth of the self-made man and all that). By knowing so much about us but keeping so much information from us, they can manipulate our financial decisions in ways that we are incredibly hard-pressed to counter. This creates purchasing patterns and influences culture. Even if you are better able to resist that "buy, don't save!" message that comes not just from corporations but our own government (and presidents on both sides of the aisle), the people around you probably aren't, and when enough people fall into a pattern it starts to change cultural expectations.

It's a big puzzle, hard to figure out. But I, for one, think improved regulation of companies is necessary, including more openness about products and services and more transparency about what data of ours they have that they can use against us. I'm no fan of free market economics in a culture of asymmetric information warfare.

Oh, additionally, it's not this attitude that perpetuates our cultural issues with social services. Rather, it's the opposite. It's the mistaken cultural belief in upward mobility and self-made person-hood that is the problem. Because, statistically speaking, it's a myth. In fact, the US has far less upward social mobility than most other developed nations. We believe we CAN get ahead, sometimes just by "wanting it bad enough", but the truth is, the deck really IS stacked against us, at a fundamental, structural level. The sooner we accept that the powers that be, government and industry, have worked together to ensure the great American myth remains myth, the sooner we can fix it and get things in order. As long as we continue to believe we can achieve in the face of a system that isn't set up to allow that, we will continue to learn helplessness and fail to advocate for the change necessary to fix it.

And now that I typed all that, I'm wondering if I should spin this (and some of the previous posts) off into a separate thread so that this one can continue to be about smiling and ticking off.

I agree with a good portion more or less of the above. But too often people just want to shift blame instead of looking inward. I think there is some fault for both sides, how much fault is usually a case by case basis.

I definitely believe in upward mobility. More personal and anecdotal evidence, but I was able to do it, and I have friends who have done it. I have also seen others given the same or similar opportunities as me or others who have succeeded fail to take the opportunity and squander it. Typically, these are the people who blame others for their ill fortune instead of learning from the mistakes and trying to better themselves. While some of us where going to school, earning a degree, working night jobs etc... others were more worried about partying and having fun. Is that society or the American way failing people or are they failing themselves?

[marurun]

No it hasn't.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239

They don't just use a survey to figure out who's committing fraud.

Quoting a self serving biased organization who tries to claim it is a unbiased think tank. I have seen other numbers that suggest otherwise.

Hold on, don't just do ad hominem. Just because the cpbb has an agenda doesn't mean that they aren't look at the data. Look at the sources they link at the bottom. Most of the data referenced in that article comes from the government. And quite frankly, government departments are pretty effective and even-keel with data. Unlike the House, Senate, Administration and Supreme Court, they are largely operated by employees and managers who are not subject to political turnover.

By and large, I'd trust data from a government agency over just about any other source.

[AppleQueso]

Yeah, I am fine with them if they stay respectful and thoughtful. But often someone becomes patronizing or insulting and it spirals away from there.

Yeah... It kinda strikes a very close nerve.

The arguments you're making are the same arguments from people who'd like to see the entire program dismantled. I don't think the case for especially rampant fraud has been made in any fashion, and I don't find the idea that the rampant fraud is just "unaccounted for" in statistics to be convincing either, especially as justification for getting rid of the program or significantly scaling it back.

You may not actually think we need to get rid of that program, and I'll admit that I'm responding to a more generalized idea of the arguments you're making, not necessarily against the point that you yourself are making. I probably could make that a bit more clear.

There's this narrative in this country that anyone on the bottom is there because they deserve to be there, and it's something I'm tired of.

Are there problems? Sure, but I also think they've been doing a perfectly fine job at improving the system by continuing to make it more efficient and fighting against abuse.

(Also, I was going to pull straight from the USDA's report, but the site is down because of the gov't shutdown.)

[Luke]

... but... personal responsibility is given too much weight.

I would say not enough weight.

If everyone was responsible for their actions most lawyers would be out of a job. But that's a different discussion.