Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Like I say, it's easy to moralise when you assume that it's all down to your own work and choices, and that luck had nothing to do with it.

And, it's easy to assume that luck has everything to do with it. That's how one becomes a liberal--one believes the system is rigged, that success is a matter of luck, and not of hard work.

Well the system is somewhat rigged. If you got deadbeat parents then your chances are diminished. If the school district you live in is broke then your kid gets to go to a crappy school. Big influence over what you can achieve ..
Now i'm not saying that the individual plays a very important role in this, but circumstances matter and i would argue that society profits from making sure that everyone gets as good a start into live as possible. I'm not even saying that current programs are doing a good job of achieving that goal, i just don't think that the answer is cut cut cut as the Republicans seem to think.

Doctor Fate wrote:As I said, there are exceptions--like your grandmother. I would never say she should get tossed out on the street. What I am saying is that she is an exception, not the rule.

I think that entirely depends on the definition of what welfare ought to cover. The thing is no matter what you do, you won't balance the budget with welfare. It's social security and medicare and the military and no one wants to touch those.

Tom

I know people are working the system and I know we have an entire culture of welfare survival, people that demand their payments that they are "entitled to". I make no claims about how it is in Europe, it is you and Ricky who make the claims you know how it is over here. All I said was I know how it really is and your statements show you clearly have no idea what you are speaking of.

Well, I can't speak for Danivon but I'm more than willing to amend my views when faced with actual evidence that contradicts my world view. But I'm unwilling to accept your anecdotes as indicative of anything other than the kinds of things Tom hears and retains...
That's the problem with uncorroborated, unchecked and unchallenged hearsay. It breeds myths and undeserving stereotypes.
I think its a good thing you claim no specific knowledge of European welfare. But, what you have is hearsay knowledge of US welfare. Until you can corroborate your claims with something substantial.
For instance Tom, over the course of this debate, I learned that 98% of Federal welfare goes to single women, usually with kids. And I learned from Steve's source, that less than 2% of UI payments are made fraudulently. What that suggests to me is that mostly fraud and abuse within UI and welfare is limited.
I've also learned that US welfare benefits aren't particularly generous which also indicates that the room for abuse is pretty limited. How could an individual welfare recipient be responsible for thousands of dollars worth of abuse when they receive hundreds?
The challenge for you is to find evidence for your preconceived notions. What do think are the possible reasons you have so much trouble finding any supporting evidence outside of a handful of scandalous anecdotes?

anecdotes?
You have not heard similar stories from any American you have ever spoken to?
I asked around here at work, I asked 8 different people if they knew anyone that has either not married to enable themselves to get more money as a single mother and/or had a baby simply to get more welfare, of those 8 people every single one of them knows of at least one person.
the breakdown
5 knew of 3 or more who have stayed unmarried
1 knew two people like that
1 knew of one person
of these 8 people, 2 knew 2 people who had a baby in order to gain more money, 1 knew of one such person.

anecdotes?
...Think again pal

Hey, There you go Ricky, I asked two more people and one knew of 1 such case, the other (1 out of ten now) knew nobody like that. Yep, the system works if you ignore 90% of the responses.

It is anecdotal unless you have a larger sample. I asked 10 people myself (2 knew of no improprieties, however)

danivon wrote:I guess I'm trying to get across the idea that it's not so simple.

So, we agree. You see, if I thought it was simple, I would prescribe a simple solution. I would say there needs to be a determination of ability to work and any welfare program should be designed around that ability. If someone cannot work, it's easy.

**As an aside, I strongly object to young people, especially young men, being given disability payments for "depression." I think I understand the cause of many such cases: the lack of physical labor.

Well that's 17 of 20 we happen to know
...oh and throw in my Nephew, I didn't count myself in that 10 person sampling (and I didn't ask any of our menial workers who get paid very little)
18 of 21 and growing!

But it's anecdotal, it doesn't really happen

GMTom wrote:No, if you would actually read what I said....
I said I do not pretend to think I know all about other nations systems, if I do not know too much about it, how can I claim "America is so different"?

I did read what you wrote. You said "But for you guys to pretend things are the same???" which seems to mean that you are incredulous that we could be the same (even though you trumpet your ignorance). You are trying to have it both ways.

I did say I know how it is over here, I know people are working the system and I know we have an entire culture of welfare survival, people that demand their payments that they are "entitled to". I make no claims about how it is in Europe, it is you and Ricky who make the claims you know how it is over here. All I said was I know how it really is and your statements show you clearly have no idea what you are speaking of.

Look, there is fraud, and there are people who take advantage. But (as we shall see when we come to your 'scientific study'), the evidence of the prevalence is somewhat overshadowed by assumption, prejudice and misinformation.

Because you have "more generous systems" means nothing to me. So what?

I dunno, perhaps you might want to compare things with other places? Or are you proud of your lack of knowledge, if it helps to assume that we are as ignorant of your country as you are of ours. I've been to the US more than once in the past 5 years. I have plenty of friends who live out there or who have moved over here from the US. I take an interest in the area as it affects both the UK and USA, and I find exactly the same attitudes from you as I see here, and yet the evidence of prevalence is also pretty similar (outright fraud is lower than people think, and much 'abuse' is subjective).

You want to jump to conclusions based on what you THINK, because you ASSUME it must be so, go right ahead, but you clearly show you have no clue when you make these accusations!

Better than making assumptions based on ignorance, Tom. But now let's see how you undertake a study...

GMTom wrote:anecdotes?

Yes, the plural of anecdote is not data, it's anecdotes.

You have not heard similar stories from any American you have ever spoken to?

Sure, and I've heard similar stories from people in other countries. Guess what - stories are not as valuable as proper data.

I asked around here at work, I asked 8 different people if they knew anyone that has either not married to enable themselves to get more money as a single mother and/or had a baby simply to get more welfare, of those 8 people every single one of them knows of at least one person.
the breakdown
5 knew of 3 or more who have stayed unmarried
1 knew two people like that
1 knew of one person
of these 8 people, 2 knew 2 people who had a baby in order to gain more money, 1 knew of one such person.

anecdotes?
...Think again pal

Oh good gravy man. It's not just a bunch of anecdotes, it's a bunch of anecdotes gained through hearsay. What we call on this side of the pond 'Gossip'. What you think is some kind of rigorous study is nothing more than that. I hear better constructed stuff from my mother-in-law...

Here are the simple flaws in your study:

1) Accuracy. You ask people if they know people who are doing x for reason y. But the responses are second hand. So how do they actually know that they have done x, or that they did it for reason y? How much do they really know about other peoples' welfare and financial arrangements? How well do they know them? Did you verify any of the cases? How much of their response is down to assumption and guesswork?

2) Duplication. Basically, you asked a bunch of people at work. Who, I guess, live and at least work fairly locally. Some of them, at least. As you all work together, perhaps you also have coincident social circles, live near each other etc. So how did you check that none of the people that they 'know' about are the same people across your sample? I see no workings or protocol here

3) Let's say that you got (1) and (2) right - you verified no duplicates and these people exist. You still don't have evidence of causation. Did a woman decide to get pregnant in order to get more welfare (and does the extra money really more than cover the costs of having another baby?), or did they become pregnant and then decide to keep it? Perhaps the existence of welfare helped them to decide to avoid an abortion or give the child away, but it's not the same a a premeditated decision to have a baby for the check. Similarly, people don't get married for all kinds of reasons, not simply due to money. It could be that the dad is a total @#$!, unreliable, adulterous, violent, whatever. It could be that the guy you assume is the dad is not at all. It could be all kinds of things. So, how did you verify that the causation you recorded exists, Tom?

4) Context. So, you establish that a number of people you know think they know people who are abusing the system. But without an idea of how many people are on the system, how many in total are actually abusing it (and how), you can't say anything about prevalence. Perhaps your study revealed the only dozen mothers in Upstate NY who are doing stuff you dislike? How would you be able to tell? Are you assuming that your sample of people are representative? Based on what - that they work at the same place you do? Sheesh!

I guess this is a brilliant exposition of your attitude to science. You probably think this is how it's done, standing around a water-cooler and gossiping about people you know nothing about...

[I will say this - there's nothing wrong with rules that treat cohabitation the same as marriage when it comes to benefits, that the income for the family should be considered in both cases. The case of fraud committed by a local Tory councillor here was largely down to him not disclosing that he had a new partner and that she had an income. They weren't married (he's still getting a divorce I think) and they were not permanently living together, but he was living on her income. So, I don't disagree with you changing that law, even if some moralists might think it equates marriage with co-habitation and so leads to Gomorrah]

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I guess I'm trying to get across the idea that it's not so simple.

So, we agree. You see, if I thought it was simple, I would prescribe a simple solution. I would say there needs to be a determination of ability to work and any welfare program should be designed around that ability. If someone cannot work, it's easy.

Ok. But what if they can work, and try to get it, but can't find work (because there's a recession, because the area is depressed, because they skills they have were useful 20 years ago, but obsolete now...)?

See, your solution is still too simplistic.

And GA's 2 year limit for life would have seriously screwed many people I know of who have had to claim more than once in their lives.

**As an aside, I strongly object to young people, especially young men, being given disability payments for "depression." I think I understand the cause of many such cases: the lack of physical labor.

Blimey. You think having "Doctor Fate" as a moniker means you are qualified to diagnose someone's mental state? I bet you say stuff like "Pull yourself together" and "snap out of it" and expect results. Say, do you do much pastoral work, or is it just preaching?

How many anectdotes does it take to make something a very real problem?
As I said, I have no idea how things are there, I do know they are not the same... you seem to know everything and you want to ignore story after story as simple one-offs, it's not the case, we have a very real problem here. The person attempting to have it both ways is YOU. I am no expert on UK welfare, I never claimed to be, YOU on the other hand come across as a know it all on American Welfare and you ignore the realities and instead go by government statistics, yeah, that's real solid ground.

I do not claim my little pol at work is scientific in the least
Nor is Green Arrow's
But we ALL know of many many many people taking advantage of the government, EVERYONE knows someone (sorry ALMOST everyone) it really is that bad, you guys can fool yourself all you like, hell, send some random emails to Americans you know asking if they know of anyone who is scamming the welfare system by not getting married or by having extra children. maybe not breaking the law or downright fraud, but working the system in unscrupulous ways. Go on to ask if they know any other reasons, go ahead and ask, I will wait for your reply, it seriously is THAT bad!

And GA's 2 year limit for life would have seriously screwed many people I know of who have had to claim more than once in their lives.

That would be anecdotal and therefore you are wrong, it never happened

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I guess I'm trying to get across the idea that it's not so simple.

So, we agree. You see, if I thought it was simple, I would prescribe a simple solution. I would say there needs to be a determination of ability to work and any welfare program should be designed around that ability. If someone cannot work, it's easy.

Ok. But what if they can work, and try to get it, but can't find work (because there's a recession, because the area is depressed, because they skills they have were useful 20 years ago, but obsolete now...)?

See, your solution is still too simplistic.

And GA's 2 year limit for life would have seriously screwed many people I know of who have had to claim more than once in their lives.

You're right. It's hopeless. I think the government should just put everyone on the dole permanently. It's not discriminatory and it's simple.

I bet you say stuff like "Pull yourself together" and "snap out of it" and expect results.

No, not at all. However, in one case in particular, the man was a volunteer at a local soup kitchen. He also had plenty of time to call and ask me questions.

Yeah, I know. It's an anecdote. The problem with "depression" is it's pretty simple to fake. You will surely ask, "Why would anyone do that?"

Because they'd rather be paid for nothing and given mind-altering drugs than work.

I think I know a bit about depressing circumstances. I lived a rather hellish young adulthood. I know plenty of people who have had difficult circumstances. Many of those diagnosed as "clinically depressed" are simply looking to medicate their way out of those sorts of circumstances.

Medically, "clinical depression" is guesswork. That's just the truth. They can't measure it and have to guess at the correct treatment.

I think the problem we're having is linguistic. This movie preview explains it all.

GMTom wrote:How many anectdotes does it take to make something a very real problem?

Can you not get this into your anti-scientific head? It takes data, not a bunch of anecdotes.

As I said, I have no idea how things are there, I do know they are not the same... you seem to know everything and you want to ignore story after story as simple one-offs, it's not the case, we have a very real problem here. The person attempting to have it both ways is YOU. I am no expert on UK welfare, I never claimed to be, YOU on the other hand come across as a know it all on American Welfare and you ignore the realities and instead go by government statistics, yeah, that's real solid ground.

I didn't claim to be an expert, I just claim that I have an interest in the matter, and that I have looked at the US a fair bit more than you have at other countries.

And I am not intending on relying on government stats. There are ways to do proper independent studies of these things, if you have the nous and the time. Clearly people who object to welfare prefer simple assumptions, gossip, and argument from ignorance.

I do not claim my little pol at work is scientific in the least
Nor is Green Arrow's
But we ALL know of many many many people taking advantage of the government, EVERYONE knows someone (sorry ALMOST everyone) it really is that bad, you guys can fool yourself all you like, hell, send some random emails to Americans you know asking if they know of anyone who is scamming the welfare system by not getting married or by having extra children. maybe not breaking the law or downright fraud, but working the system in unscrupulous ways. Go on to ask if they know any other reasons, go ahead and ask, I will wait for your reply, it seriously is THAT bad!

Sorry, but you are still basing your 'knowing' on gossip - hearsay collected from third parties, and it's far from rigorous. Ok, so we all 'know' someone. That doesn't mean that we don't 'know' the same small group of people. It also doesn't actually prove that they are scamming the system, just that people think that they are.

Yes, there are people who scam (and I never denied it). But that doesn't tell us much about how prevalent it is. It also doesn't tell us how to change things in a way that does not penalise people in genuine need. All you want to do it punish those who do stuff you don't like, but seeing as you are adamant that there's a problem, what's your solution?

GMTom wrote:

And GA's 2 year limit for life would have seriously screwed many people I know of who have had to claim more than once in their lives.

That would be anecdotal and therefore you are wrong, it never happened

Oh, for Pete's sake. I am not claiming that no-one scams the system (legally or illegally). I'm asking if you can figure out how big the problem really is using more than just gossip. If your entire part in this 'debate' is based on a straw man, then kindly leave it to people who are not playing stupid games. Preferably, you could try to be less childish about it, but I will not hold my breath.

However, I do know people who have been out of work for more than one period and had to claim benefits before they found new work (which they did), and the total time out of work was more than 2 years, even if none of the periods was that long to start with. So GA's hard and fast rule would make a difference, and would not have made them more likely to look for work - they already were, and found it.