• Norah - She/They
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • PiousAgnostic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          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.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      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.

      • Norah - She/They
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        4 days ago

        Nah thanks, not about to be sealioned by a 19d old account, don’t have enough spoons for that.

      • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.