In my opinion: the problems come mainly from freeloaders, that according to me do need to be refused.
You know that the concept of freeloaders is hogwash that mainstream media perpetuates because it gets views, right? At least under the Australian system, far more money is spent trying to “catch” them, than is spent on them.
SSDI is about 1500 a month. That doesn’t even pay rent let alone buy you an expensive truck. Alternative theory he already had house and money prior to stopping working or received a settlement for whatever happened. You have no idea what is actually medically wrong with him but have constructed this elaborate fantasy about uncle Sam buying him a fancy truck on benefits which just can’t be real.
Nope not a fantasy it’s a backwater rural thing you see a lot. Neighbor lives rent free on a slice of land his family owns. Lives in a tiny leaky tin roofed “shed”. And wastes his government $$ on a nice truck.
In rural areas where people do not need much cash to survive, you see this sort of thing. It’s a sad ugly truth.
is hogwash that mainstream media perpetuates because it gets views, right?
No, I do not know that. Please explain
At least under the Australian system, far more money is spent trying to “catch” them, than is spent on them.
Assume far more money is being spend on fire prevention, than what’s currently lost in fire. Then that’s not an argument pro, nor contra, fire prevention.
Assume far more money is being spend on fire prevention, than what’s currently lost in fire
For anyone reading this thinking that this may sound like a good rebuttal: it’s a false equivalence.
Fire prevention is a worthwhile expenditure, because things being on fire when they shouldn’t is generally very bad. The cost of fire prevention is worth it, especially when lives are at stake.
Benefit cheat-catching is (or at least should be) purely about net savings. What happens though is the costs outweigh the savings making them pointless, as well as hurting those in who accidently get caught in the net too.
Don’t fall for specious arguments, folks! A pithy rebutally might sound convincing at first, but don’t be afraid to think deeper about it. And don’t be afraid to ignore the commenter if you believe they’re arguing in bad faith.
The argument for prevention is in that case that if there was no prevention, more people would start cheating, and this is not proven at all either. So your point stands.
The fact that these organisations still no not have lists of medical issues that are incurable and therefore do not need reassessment if proof that the system is designed to fuck with people.
Nah thanks, not about to be sealioned by a 19d old account, don’t have enough spoons for that.
I know the reference for sealioning, but could you help me understand the “enough spoons” part? (I agree with you by the way, just don’t understand your whole comment)
