3 ms·
The biggest assumption with this sort of solution is that all state governments will act in good faith. I've had people wait weeks just to get an appointment wi
by whoknew1122 6y ago
The biggest assumption with this sort of solution is that all state governments will act in good faith. I've had people wait weeks just to get an appointment with the welfare office in Texas.
Texas (and other states) routinely cut funding for departments that support social safety nets. Because the politicians in charge are diametrically opposed to the very idea of social safety nets.
Instead of putting more effort into combating and preventing fraud, these politicians would rather push for further cuts. The argument being that by making it less profitable to commit fraud, there will be less fraud. All the while ignoring people who actually need the social safety neet.
- alisonkisk 6y agoThat doesn't really make sense because the problem were tryit to solve here is giving away too much money, which Texas gov would be on board with.
- whoknew1122 6y agoIt doesn't make sense to rational actors, no. But for people arguing from a position of bad faith--people disagree with the very idea of unemployment insurance or social welfare of any kind--it makes all the sense in the world. "Look at these people stealing all this money. We can't have that." Then they slash budgets further. People still talk about Reagan's imaginary welfare queen 4o years later to justify cutting social welfare programs. They'll use any excuse they can find.