4 ms·

> It's not fine to act like no luxury good has ever been bought on food stamps, and every recipient is a meticulous steward of taxpayer's largesse, ceaselessly

by rosser 8y ago

> It's not fine to act like no luxury good has ever been bought on food stamps, and every recipient is a meticulous steward of taxpayer's largesse, ceaselessly working toward the day when they don't need public assistance. Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that? I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without. Much, I would note, like so many in the broader discussion are arguing regarding these lenders...

SilasX 8y ago
>Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that? How about where I entered the thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19100636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19100636 >chain emails claiming to document someone buying [luxury food] on food stamps. -- >I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without. And I think it's unrealistic to model the abuse as one-off, contained events instead of "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different".
- rosser 8y ago
  Do I read you correctly as saying that the anecdotal evidence of the kinds of abuse you're concerned about (in the form of chain emails, &c) outweighs the actual, you know, "research" that has been done on these programs, their use, and their outcomes, and that there is instead some kind of systemic abuse by "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different"? Because, yeah. We're just going to talk past each other here if so. Back to my deadline.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Where did I say I was grounding any of this in a chain email? I started out objecting to someone's over-the-top skepticism that anyone has every bought a luxury food on foodstamps. Are you saying there aren't pockets of near-permanent poverty in America that depend on social spending? Nice, didn't know that was patched up.
    - rosser 8y ago
      I guess I don't find referencing research in response to cultural tropes to be "over-the-top skepticism". Have a good day.
      - SilasX 8y ago
        Neither do I, which is why I never applied the appellation "over-the-top skepticism" to "referencing research"; it was applied to the commenter's ridicule of an account of someone buying a luxury food with foodstamps. Is there a reason you thought my appellation was being applied to something else?
dlp211 8y ago
Social Programs are abused, but not nearly at the levels that people assume. In 2016, SNAP abuse accounted for just 0.9% of SNAP benefits paid. This also coincided with a drastic reduction in overall utilization from the 4 prior years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-facts-about-food-stamp-fraud/#4e0c8d6af880 https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-f...

by rosser 8y ago

SilasX 8y ago

>Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that? How about where I entered the thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19100636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19100636 >chain emails claiming to document someone buying [luxury food] on food stamps. -- >I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without. And I think it's unrealistic to model the abuse as one-off, contained events instead of "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different".

rosser 8y ago
Do I read you correctly as saying that the anecdotal evidence of the kinds of abuse you're concerned about (in the form of chain emails, &c) outweighs the actual, you know, "research" that has been done on these programs, their use, and their outcomes, and that there is instead some kind of systemic abuse by "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different"? Because, yeah. We're just going to talk past each other here if so. Back to my deadline.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Where did I say I was grounding any of this in a chain email? I started out objecting to someone's over-the-top skepticism that anyone has every bought a luxury food on foodstamps. Are you saying there aren't pockets of near-permanent poverty in America that depend on social spending? Nice, didn't know that was patched up.
  - rosser 8y ago
    I guess I don't find referencing research in response to cultural tropes to be "over-the-top skepticism". Have a good day.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Neither do I, which is why I never applied the appellation "over-the-top skepticism" to "referencing research"; it was applied to the commenter's ridicule of an account of someone buying a luxury food with foodstamps. Is there a reason you thought my appellation was being applied to something else?

dlp211 8y ago

Social Programs are abused, but not nearly at the levels that people assume. In 2016, SNAP abuse accounted for just 0.9% of SNAP benefits paid. This also coincided with a drastic reduction in overall utilization from the 4 prior years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-facts-about-food-stamp-fraud/#4e0c8d6af880 https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-f...