Comment: Of course it's not correct

(See in situ)

Cyril's picture

Of course it's not correct

I don't think it's correct to assume everyone in a downtrodden area's just a moocher, or that it's really easy to discern who's a moocher or who isn't.

I never assumed or claimed that. I only stated : if the local administration really wants to, I'm sure they CAN dig up and find WHO has been collecting checks for much longer time than your national average or even local average. It is hypocrite and counter productive, IMO, merely on the pretense that one cannot make generalizations (and indeed, granted, we can't do that, to stay honest) to just DO NOTHING really MORE effective to bring more frauders to scrutiny, because they DO exist.

It is always much EASIER to call for more funds and put a heavier burden on the taxpayer than to just check, thoroughly, where, how, and for whom the money IS ACTUALLY spent. I have seen or read about the pattern all too well and way too many times in my own country, to believe that the people in Detroit is for some strange reason much more violent than elsewhere and that they are so in very specific and delimited areas only. Maybe this phenomenon is new for you in America, but then I'd suggest you learn from people from other countries much more familiar with the damages caused by insidiously greater and greater socialism.

This is a FACT, for instance :

And granted, probably much more recent for the USA than for Europeans who have seen it happened as early as the 1980's.

In the above, while the misreported 24% in SD is likely to be disregarded, the near-2% prior confirmed at the national level isn't, and was HUGE already.

Finally, I reckon my "starving out" phrase was intended to be more figurative than anything else : of course I wouldn't cut the food stamps of a household that is struggling with their kids to keep themselves at the surface, doing everything they possibly can to make some income of their own by legal work.

All I said is : spot and stop "helping", conversely, people benefiting from the exact same system, but falling into the exact opposite pattern (receiving checks for a long time, but unable to show any evidence of job seeking or to bring any reliable employer testimony over the same long periods).

But of course, that is precisely the flaw-by-design and disgusting injustice of the welfare state : such fine grained analysis is EXCLUDED A PRIORI, yes, BY DESIGN, as it benefits the lazy and criminals who are put "in the same bag", from a bureaucratic viewpoint, as the rest of the honest working population, who is struggling in these areas where businesses are not encouraged to hire more or better, because they are taxed just as everywhere else and yet are in neighborhoods less and less safe, less and less appealing to honest people or investors.

I'm neither blind or an idiot. Also, I was rather confused and very sad when my american wife told me, the first time, she had known for a while in her neighborhood where she'd lived before we met several people living around her and able to buy expensive brand new cars / big SUVs ($20K+), and putting gas in those to drive around and show off, while being observably (by my wife, disgusted) unemployed and receiving welfare checks (as she would get some of theirs in the mail by mistake of the post office guy a few times). I had never expected to hear that from an american. That's about the same period, three or so years ago I got interested to hear more from her father about Ron Paul, btw.

People observably living beyond their supposed means and yet qualifying for welfare checks ? Yeah, right. That's how I knew the same sort of cancer I knew already for long had started to develop here also, in the USA.

So, I guess you're right and in the end, as always ... just nothing really courageous will be done in Detroit but to call for more public funds to pay more cops to fight against always more crooks, thieves, thugs, and gangs.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius