Can a conservative be an atheist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2017, 06:55 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 05:51 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(10-08-2017 07:38 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  I'm talking about the guy in California who was asked why he stays in welfare. He responded saying it's all he really needed and he wouldn't be able to surf and hang out with his friends if he got a job. Another one who said she doesn't feel like she should have to work because she's an artist and people should take care of her so she can continue exploring her "talents".
You do realize that one or two anecdotal accounts -- or even a dozen of them -- don't give you much of a handle on any real statistics as to who is using the welfare system, how they are using it, and what their needs are?

I'm not a fan of anecdotes either (they are appropriate in some cases but not others...I might start a thread about that) but how confident can you be in a "real handle" on the situation? How reliable are "statistics" on the welfare system? I believe you are an Aussie so I don't know about your turf but in the U.S. they don't send out a survey saying: "Regarding the welfare payments you've been getting, have you been lying or exaggerating your need for them? Check 'yes' if yes, 'no' if no."

The welfare agencies, at any level but especially the federal, are bureaucracies. It does them no good to smaller, there is no incentive at their levels of management to decrease in size or decrease the number of their clients.

Anecdote: I know someone who had medical issues and managed to get on...medicaid? Something like that but free health service. At that office, they asked her if she needed other assistance, she was like "Uh, sure." Signed her up. She gets a govt credit card for, I don't know how much, 700, 800 or so bucks a month. My point is they don't give bonuses to welfare administrators for kicking people off welfare, if there is a sub-agency devoted to catching "welfare cheats" it is probably an urban legend.

I'm not going to do my "JERRY'S DISCLAIMERS" anymore. It was stupid and probably rubbed people the wrong way and didn't add to the effectiveness of what I was trying to get across. But just so I don't get labeled...I'm for welfare. I would rather err on the side of caution and allow a welfare cheat to make a free buck if it means someone who truly needs it gets it. I just think we have to acknowledge the problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
11-08-2017, 07:01 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 06:19 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 11:44 AM)reeveseb Wrote:  Can a javelin thrower be an atheist?"
Absolutely not. Ridiculous to even think about it.

What I want to know is, when are they going to make an Olympic sport of javelin catching?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
11-08-2017, 07:08 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 06:55 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 05:51 PM)Dr H Wrote:  You do realize that one or two anecdotal accounts -- or even a dozen of them -- don't give you much of a handle on any real statistics as to who is using the welfare system, how they are using it, and what their needs are?

I'm not a fan of anecdotes either (they are appropriate in some cases but not others...I might start a thread about that) but how confident can you be in a "real handle" on the situation? How reliable are "statistics" on the welfare system? I believe you are an Aussie so I don't know about your turf but in the U.S. they don't send out a survey saying: "Regarding the welfare payments you've been getting, have you been lying or exaggerating your need for them? Check 'yes' if yes, 'no' if no."

The welfare agencies, at any level but especially the federal, are bureaucracies. It does them no good to smaller, there is no incentive at their levels of management to decrease in size or decrease the number of their clients.

Anecdote: I know someone who had medical issues and managed to get on...medicaid? Something like that but free health service. At that office, they asked her if she needed other assistance, she was like "Uh, sure." Signed her up. She gets a govt credit card for, I don't know how much, 700, 800 or so bucks a month. My point is they don't give bonuses to welfare administrators for kicking people off welfare, if there is a sub-agency devoted to catching "welfare cheats" it is probably an urban legend.

I'm not going to do my "JERRY'S DISCLAIMERS" anymore. It was stupid and probably rubbed people the wrong way and didn't add to the effectiveness of what I was trying to get across. But just so I don't get labeled...I'm for welfare. I would rather err on the side of caution and allow a welfare cheat to make a free buck if it means someone who truly needs it gets it. I just think we have to acknowledge the problem.

Years ago I worked for a county mental health agency in SC. There were two people on staff whose job it was to get people approved for Medicaid...period...that was their whole function. The agency made the majority of it's money from Medicaid payments and therefore needed as many people as possible that were eligible.

There are people who game the system and there are people who help them do so. But there are also people who need some assistance and some of those don't get it. The system has its flaws.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2017, 03:56 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 06:36 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  To claim or even suggest that liberals use the internet more than conservatives is utter bullshit.

The internet is worldwide. So you would also have to accuse the Chinese of being liberals too, and as a liberal I call bullshit because I would not call their one party state liberal.

If one wants to talk about this website here as a single sample that is one thing. But if one agrees that all that "atheist" means is off, then to suggest on a grand scale atheists, much less liberal theists dominate the internet is absurd.

"sar·casm /ˈsärˌkazəm/ noun

noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms

the use of irony to mock or convey contempt."

HTH. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2017, 03:57 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 06:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 06:21 PM)Dr H Wrote:  So long as one of those is the "party party", you've got my support.

Does that have to be in addition to morondog's sex party?

Oh yes, definitely.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2017, 03:59 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 06:44 PM)Vera Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 06:19 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Absolutely not. Ridiculous to even think about it.

Shows how much you know. Seeing as he's Finnish I'm willing to bet my immortal soul, that he *is* atheist Drinking Beverage

[Image: tero-pitkamaki-and-nike-profile.jpg]

Yahbut... is he a real javelin thrower?

Or just a reformed javelin thrower?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
14-08-2017, 04:14 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(14-08-2017 03:59 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Yahbut... is he a real javelin thrower?

Or just a reformed javelin thrower?

He's the bestest realest javelin thrower there ever was and I'll burn the embassy of anyone who so much as dares hint at anything else.
With the olympic flame no less. [Image: ezgif-1-0fbc0ff39c.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
14-08-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
(11-08-2017 06:55 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 05:51 PM)Dr H Wrote:  You do realize that one or two anecdotal accounts -- or even a dozen of them -- don't give you much of a handle on any real statistics as to who is using the welfare system, how they are using it, and what their needs are?

I'm not a fan of anecdotes either (they are appropriate in some cases but not others...I might start a thread about that) but how confident can you be in a "real handle" on the situation? How reliable are "statistics" on the welfare system?
The stats are reliable; sometimes the statisticians lie like rugs. Smile

Quote:I believe you are an Aussie
And if you believe that really really hard, I may actually become one.
Perhaps in the next life. Smile

Quote:so I don't know about your turf but in the U.S. they don't send out a survey saying: "Regarding the welfare payments you've been getting, have you been lying or exaggerating your need for them? Check 'yes' if yes, 'no' if no."
In the US there are myriad social service agencies; I've worked for some of them, written grants, designed data tracking systems, etc. Most people who are in a position to apply for, or collect TANF or other sources of government assistance are associated with one or more of these agencies. These agencies collect terabytes of statistical data for program design; reports to funders and government agencies; etc. They also have tens of thousands of workers that go out and actually get to know the families to which they are providing services, visit them in their homes, etc.

Given that kind of system you can get a pretty good idea of families' needs and how (or if) they are being met: who has to decide between buying shoes for their kid or paying rent this month; who has to skimp on their meds so they can eat; that kind of thing.

Quote:The welfare agencies, at any level but especially the federal, are bureaucracies. It does them no good to smaller, there is no incentive at their levels of management to decrease in size or decrease the number of their clients.
The welfare agencies are not, however, the only agencies involved.

Quote:Anecdote: I know someone who had medical issues and managed to get on...medicaid? Something like that but free health service. At that office, they asked her if she needed other assistance, she was like "Uh, sure." Signed her up. She gets a govt credit card for, I don't know how much, 700, 800 or so bucks a month.
And I know someone who makes less than $800/month, who has a disability, and two children, who can't get TANF because she was fortunate enough to have been able to buy a modest home and third-hand car before she was disabled. She sells plasma, periodically, to get food for her kids.

You want anecdotes, I can give you plenty more like that one. So?


Quote:My point is they don't give bonuses to welfare administrators for kicking people off welfare, if there is a sub-agency devoted to catching "welfare cheats" it is probably an urban legend.
They don't give bonuses to welfare workers for signing people up for welfare, either. Most workers are already carrying ridiculous-sized caseloads and have little desire to increase them. Indeed, one of the biggest problems faced by agencies providing services to the poor are underserved populations.

BTW, TANF caseworkers make about $30,000 a year; a site supervisor might make $40,000 - $45,000 if they've been around for a decade. I know a lot of people who have done this work, and I can't say I know anyone who's gotten rich on it. Indeed, some caseworkers with families make so little that they, themselves, are eligible for SNAP (food stamps).

Quote:I'm not going to do my "JERRY'S DISCLAIMERS" anymore. It was stupid and probably rubbed people the wrong way and didn't add to the effectiveness of what I was trying to get across. But just so I don't get labeled...I'm for welfare. I would rather err on the side of caution and allow a welfare cheat to make a free buck if it means someone who truly needs it gets it. I just think we have to acknowledge the problem.
Good to know that you support the system. For people who need it, of course.

The problem has long been acknowledged, and dealt with.
The actual number of welfare cheats has never been as large as anti-welfare campaigners would have you believe.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
14-08-2017, 05:11 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
Hey Dr. H- I mistook your name and pic for someone around here who is Aussie, my bad! Thanks for giving me that to chew on, I will get back with a proper reply. This would be a topic I would love to be wrong on and don't have any interest in being wrong about longer than I have to. I wish our economy were such that it were easier for people to have meaningful productive independent economic lives...and I wish people- not just the welfare cheats- would make better choices before needing welfare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2017, 09:12 PM
RE: Can a conservative be an atheist?
So again this would be a topic I would like to be corrected on, I have no vested interest in suspecting there are many people who cheat the welfare system. Would be happy to have my mind changed.

(14-08-2017 04:47 PM)Dr H Wrote:  The stats are reliable; sometimes the statisticians lie like rugs. Smile

I asked you if you thought the stats are reliable and you said yes...so you got me there. So to follow up: What are the stats? What kind of methodology is used to statistically determine what percentage of welfare payments are undeserved?

Quote:
Quote:so I don't know about your turf but in the U.S. they don't send out a survey saying: "Regarding the welfare payments you've been getting, have you been lying or exaggerating your need for them? Check 'yes' if yes, 'no' if no."

In the US there are myriad social service agencies; I've worked for some of them, written grants, designed data tracking systems, etc. Most people who are in a position to apply for, or collect TANF or other sources of government assistance are associated with one or more of these agencies. These agencies collect terabytes of statistical data for program design; reports to funders and government agencies; etc. They also have tens of thousands of workers that go out and actually get to know the families to which they are providing services, visit them in their homes, etc.

Given that kind of system you can get a pretty good idea of families' needs and how (or if) they are being met: who has to decide between buying shoes for their kid or paying rent this month; who has to skimp on their meds so they can eat; that kind of thing.

What do the stats show on this? What percentage of recipients are denied payments on services after the initial approval? Is this percent going up or down over, say, a ten year period? Are there home visits that result in a person being canceled from programs, and if not, does it mean only a small number of people are actually scamming the system? A lot of things can be hidden in, and from, statistics.

What is the process for denying someone services once they are approved (I know this depends on the agency and the level of the agency)- I suspect (but don't know) that this is very difficult, motivation is probably low to go through the process, resources are probably better spent (I imagine them thinking) in providing servieces to those in need than in taking it away from cheats.

I don't expect you to have answers to these, I just propose that they are the kinds of data that would help determine how wasteful welfare is (particularly federal, the main focus of this).

Quote:
Quote:The welfare agencies, at any level but especially the federal, are bureaucracies. It does them no good to smaller, there is no incentive at their levels of management to decrease in size or decrease the number of their clients.

The welfare agencies are not, however, the only agencies involved.

I don't know what you mean by that; what other agencies are involved and what was your point?

Quote:
Quote:Anecdote: I know someone who had medical issues and managed to get on...medicaid? Something like that but free health service. At that office, they asked her if she needed other assistance, she was like "Uh, sure." Signed her up. She gets a govt credit card for, I don't know how much, 700, 800 or so bucks a month.

And I know someone who makes less than $800/month, who has a disability, and two children, who can't get TANF because she was fortunate enough to have been able to buy a modest home and third-hand car before she was disabled. She sells plasma, periodically, to get food for her kids.

I'm on her side! Do you think that because I am against fraud, waste, and unfairness, I am unsympathetic to a case like that? If there wasn't fraud, waste, and unfairness, (and if there were more taxation on the rich) this person maybe would find the proper meeting of needs.

Quote:You want anecdotes, I can give you plenty more like that one. So?

I will retract it! (Though my retracted anecdote has never and I suspect never will have a home visit to check on the necessity for her payouts)

Quote:
Quote:My point is they don't give bonuses to welfare administrators for kicking people off welfare, if there is a sub-agency devoted to catching "welfare cheats" it is probably an urban legend.

They don't give bonuses to welfare workers for signing people up for welfare, either. Most workers are already carrying ridiculous-sized caseloads and have little desire to increase them. Indeed, one of the biggest problems faced by agencies providing services to the poor are underserved populations.

We agree, it is a difficult profession that give bonuses for exactly nothing. I admire the people involved. I'm just not convinced there is a lot of resistence to giving people the benefit of the doubt even if the agent suspects the person is lying on their application. The people that go into this field probably, and should, err on the side of mercy, which benefits the asshole cheater.

Quote:BTW, TANF caseworkers make about $30,000 a year; a site supervisor might make $40,000 - $45,000 if they've been around for a decade. I know a lot of people who have done this work, and I can't say I know anyone who's gotten rich on it. Indeed, some caseworkers with families make so little that they, themselves, are eligible for SNAP (food stamps).

Interesting, but emotional and irrelevant. I want to know what's going on farther up the food chain: What do higher-ups make and what are their incentives to be as efficient as possible with tax dollars? City and county dollars are probably hoarded and considered precious, state dollars less so, and federal dollars are probably considered monopoly money.

Quote:The problem has long been acknowledged, and dealt with.

Whew! My mind is at ease. And here I was thinking this particular federal agency was as awesome as Defense, IRS, the VA, and every other agency you can think of with being responsible with our tax dollars.

Quote:The actual number of welfare cheats has never been as large as anti-welfare campaigners would have you believe.

The second link isn't working for me, the first is blocking me because I need to turn off some kind of something, I will figure it out later. I do like and trust the Atlantic and find it to be a reputable source.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: