BF2S Forums More Change You Can Believe In

burnzz wrote:

lowing wrote:

I dela with them. Stop taking more of my money, forcing me to wark harder and longer, taking time and money away from my family in order to secure YOUR future. Do it yourself.

you stupid, talking POINTS fuque~

what part of "i live in a different time zone" or i live in a different country" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!

lr2spellcheck, lr2geography, learn to pull your fucking head out OF YOUR ASS!

anything you do in America is gonna mean something to someone outside the borders of this country? WE ARE NOT THE END ALL, BE ALL, OF THE WORLD - and most of the time, answers that may or may not work here might not work for the rest of the world.

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME  [b]lowing, and i resent the fact that you see the whole motherfukin planet as an 'American' solution.
fuck off . . .

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah I got a solution, save a portion of your money for your retirement. It is not my job to coddle your ass through life. I have my own life and my own problems, I deal with them. Stop taking more of my money, forcing me to wark harder and longer, taking time and money away from my family in order to secure YOUR future. Do it yourself.

Translation: I'm a selfish prick who only cares about me and my own.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I could go for that.

Kinda like ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I dunno SOCIAL SECURITY, of which I am already paying for and will never see at this current rate of depletion?

^clearly all of your lost SS was your own damn fault so don't whine to us about it if you chose to invest poorly

/typical lowing attitude

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah I got a solution, save a portion of your money for your retirement. It is not my job to coddle your ass through life. I have my own life and my own problems, I deal with them. Stop taking more of my money, forcing me to wark harder and longer, taking time and money away from my family in order to secure YOUR future. Do it yourself.

Translation: I'm a selfish prick who only cares about me and my own.

Call me what you want, I merely recognize that I have responsibilities that supersede taking care of you when you should be taking care of yourself.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-08-31 04:46:12)

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

^clearly all of your lost SS was your own damn fault so don't whine to us about it if you chose to invest poorly

/typical lowing attitude

Ummm I don't "invest" into SS, itis taken from me ( against my will) by the govt. for them to waste as they see fit.

If you don't have any other insurance invested other than SS that's your own bad planning and choices.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If you don't have any other insurance invested other than SS that's your own bad planning and choices.

Well it sure as fuck ain't MY FAULT, who do you suggest we hold accountable for personal planning decisions?

Why not save a portion of your money for your retirement. It is not my job to coddle your ass through life. I have my own life and my own problems, I deal with them. Stop taking more of my money, forcing me to wark harder and longer, taking time and money away from my family in order to secure YOUR future. Do it yourself.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Call me what you want, I merely recognize that I have responsibilities that supersede taking care of you when you should be taking care of yourself.

And those who can't take care of themselves?

Not your problem, I suppose.

Been down this road many times Bertster, you have been here long enough to know that I have alwats endorsed taking care of theose that can not take care of themselves. I do not endorse taking care of those that do not choose to do so.

What this is about is the difference between blanket govt. coverage and control over everyone, and actually helping people who NEED IT as opposed to those who just want it.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

And those who can't take care of themselves?

Not your problem, I suppose.

Been down this road many times Bertster, you have been here long enough to know that I have alwats endorsed taking care of theose that can not take care of themselves. I do not endorse taking care of those that do not choose to do so.

What this is about is the difference between blanket govt. coverage and control over everyone, and actually helping people who NEED IT as opposed to those who just want it.

But you can never have a perfect system.

You need to pay money into the system to cover those who need it. I don't dispute it would be good to clamp down on benefit abuse - but you can only do so much to prevent it before it ceases to be cost effective. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that you could ever have a system which was free of abuse, unless you were so restrictive that many of the people in genuine need would not be provided for.

Paying a bit extra for people who are capable of taking care of themselves but are too lazy is an unfortunate, but unavoidable side effect.

If you believe in supporting those who cannot support themselves, then you have to put up with the extra strings that come along with that.

LividBovine wrote:

We (the US) cannot afford to take care of all our citizens the way we are trying to.  The more we have tried to do so, the more in debt we have become.  It is completely unsustainable the way it is being attempted.  In addition to this, we are training people to be dependent on the government for their well being.  I agree with Turquoise, people need to be more dependent on their family first.  If all else fails there should be some sort of fail safe, but it should strongly drive people towards being self sufficient, not dependent on handouts.

As an example, I have an employee that has lived in a HUD house for many years (I think 8).  He is very careful about how much he makes for the year.  If he makes over a certain amount, he gets less housing subsidy.  The job he is in pays an average of $10.50/hour.  We are in a rural area and housing and others necessities are relatively reasonable.  He routinely misses days of work and is an underperformer.  He is perfectly capable of more, but has chosen to stay in this type of life.  He is leaching off the system and is very indicative of the mindset of many people like him. 

I have 40 people working for me.  I would wager a bet that 50% of them, or a spouse, is taking advantage of some sort of government program.

We cannot keep this up, we will not survive as a country.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Translation: I'm a selfish prick who only cares about me and my own.

Call me what you want, I merely recognize that I have responsibilities that supersede taking care of you when you should be taking care of yourself.

Sorry for the outburst, lowing.  I was in a shitty mood last night.  What I said was uncalled for.

LividBovine wrote:

No.  This is unacceptable.  Get back to the spitballs and forget this nicey nice stuff.  I can't have my world altered like this, it gives me headaches.

Lowing:  Did you read what Turqouise wrote about you in that Islam thread?  Man, that was harsh.

Turquoise:  Did you read what Lowing said about you in that personal responsability thread?  Wow, what a tongue lashing.

(Please work)

OT:  No more change please.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But you can never have a perfect system.

You need to pay money into the system to cover those who need it. I don't dispute it would be good to clamp down on benefit abuse - but you can only do so much to prevent it before it ceases to be cost effective. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that you could ever have a system which was free of abuse, unless you were so restrictive that many of the people in genuine need would not be provided for.

Paying a bit extra for people who are capable of taking care of themselves but are too lazy is an unfortunate, but unavoidable side effect.

If you believe in supporting those who cannot support themselves, then you have to put up with the extra strings that come along with that.

I disagree completely

Education records, work history, medical history, criminal records, tax history all paint a picture as to how one lives their lives.

Based on these records, it can be determained who is in need and who is just a piece of shit.

You want to talk about luck? We can cover that as well, a single mis-fortune is bad luck, a pattern of continuous bad luck, well, that is a life style.

And you base that opinion on what?

I've worked with (not for very long, it was quite a short contract) some of the guys who developed the benefit fraud detection systems in place in the UK. There are a huge number of considerations which make it exceptionally difficult to automate the detection process to any significant degree (according to them - it all got a bit complicated for me tbh, glad I didn't have to do it). This means it has to be done manually, and then followed up with an investigation. All of this takes a substantial amount of time and costs a great deal - as legal investigations and proceedings typically do. There is a point when it ceases to be financially viable.

If you think it is easy to determine who is exploiting the benefit system then by all means design a system to do so efficiently - that way you could save taxpayers around the world billions and make yourself exceedingly rich in the process. Personally, I think you've grossly underestimated the complexity of the task. If it could be done easily, it would.

/edit

Oh look, I've even found an article on how cost-uneffective it is.

DWP loses cash on benefit-fraud detection systems

The Department for Work and Pensions is losing money on its anti-fraud detection systems, with those systems costing more to run than the amount of fraud detected, reports the National Audit Office (NAO).

In 2006-07, the NAO estimated that specific systems cost the department £154m to operate, but they only identified an estimated £106m of benefits which had been overpaid as a result of fraud.

Which supports the point I'm making perfectly.


Since it is too expensive to catch a large proportion of the people commiting benefit fraud, then in order to provide for those in need, the government must also provide to a number of lazy fraudsters. It is an unavoidable evil.

lowing wrote:

Been down this road many times Bertster, you have been here long enough to know that I have alwats endorsed taking care of theose that can not take care of themselves. I do not endorse taking care of those that do not choose to do so.

You say you endorse taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. To do that, you MUST support a number of those that choose not to take care of themselves.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

And you base that opinion on what?

I've worked with (not for very long, it was quite a short contract) some of the guys who developed the benefit fraud detection systems in place in the UK. There are a huge number of considerations which make it exceptionally difficult to automate the detection process to any significant degree (according to them - it all got a bit complicated for me tbh, glad I didn't have to do it). This means it has to be done manually, and then followed up with an investigation. All of this takes a substantial amount of time and costs a great deal - as legal investigations and proceedings typically do. There is a point when it ceases to be financially viable.

If you think it is easy to determine who is exploiting the benefit system then by all means design a system to do so efficiently - that way you could save taxpayers around the world billions and make yourself exceedingly rich in the process. Personally, I think you've grossly underestimated the complexity of the task. If it could be done easily, it would.

/edit

Oh look, I've even found an article on how cost-uneffective it is.

DWP loses cash on benefit-fraud detection systems


Which supports the point I'm making perfectly.


Since it is too expensive to catch a large proportion of the people commiting benefit fraud, then in order to provide for those in need, the government must also provide to a number of lazy fraudsters. It is an unavoidable evil.


You say you endorse taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. To do that, you MUST support a number of those that choose not to take care of themselves.

In a sinle year the IRS reviews income tax returns of every filer in the US. It investigates "red flags" of those that catch their attention. and that is EVERY filer in the US.

Now, there should be a hell of a lot less on welfare to investigate than tax filers. I maintain if every year the IRS can review every taxpayers 1040A's, a progaram can be set up to review every welfare recipients status using the info I discussed every year. Noting changes in information Penalties severe enough that cheating would definately be discouraged.

IF a criminal record is discovered, IF no applications for jobs are written, IF no enrollment into school is filed, IF no medical conditions are produced, your sorry, lazy, good for nothing ass, is cut the fuck off.

There you go, doing exactly what I expected, talking about a complex topic you obviously know NOTHING about, as though it's something really simple. It isn't. Which is why they lose money on trying to catch people (spending £150m to save £100m is not cost-effective).

The systems in place for doing this are extremely advanced neural networks designed to pick up on patterns and trends. That is the most effective system currently in use and it loses money.

As I've said, if you think it's so easy to develop a system for catching these people - then do so. You'd become one of the richest people alive.

Just because this doesn't fit in with your delusional view of the world you choose to ignore the evidence that it cannot currently be done in a cost-effective manner.

Last edited by lowing (2009-09-01 14:28:56)