WKU SGA demands free tuition for black students

[UNTLifer]

Must not like factual articles.

[UNT Five&Dime]

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

Must not like factual articles.

Maybe he's out picking up his welfare check?

[Censored by Laurie]

17 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Must not like factual articles.

sorry for the delay...I was working (irony?)

as to your factual article...you quite literally linked an opinion piece...on SSDI, which differs from SSI...the sorts of benefits oldguy was referencing having received. she does have numbers, but provides them little if any context and lays them out over inconsistent periods of time purposely for a sticker-shock effect. 

and no...I don't have definitive numbers...no one does...if it were possible to accurately identify all the fraud in any given system it would become pretty easy to eliminate. this article does a decent job of trying to make some sense of the numbers, but more providing context as to where (as in the perpetrators) large scale fraud has been found as well as comparing the rates of government-program fraud to those that occur in the private sector https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how-wrong-is-conventional-wisdom-about-government-fraud/278690/

my problem is that without any semblance of real quantifiable data a person would express an opinion like "too many become accustomed to living off the handouts of the government" because the leaders of their political ethos (or apparently their admin aunt) have parroted it to that point that it feels right to them. 

16 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Maybe he's out picking up his welfare check?

I don't need you rushing to SNAP judgement like this

[GreenMachine]

On 5/10/2017 at 8:02 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

sorry for the delay...I was working (irony?)

as to your factual article...you quite literally linked an opinion piece...on SSDI, which differs from SSI...the sorts of benefits oldguy was referencing having received. she does have numbers, but provides them little if any context and lays them out over inconsistent periods of time purposely for a sticker-shock effect. 

and no...I don't have definitive numbers...no one does...if it were possible to accurately identify all the fraud in any given system it would become pretty easy to eliminate. this article does a decent job of trying to make some sense of the numbers, but more providing context as to where (as in the perpetrators) large scale fraud has been found as well as comparing the rates of government-program fraud to those that occur in the private sector https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how-wrong-is-conventional-wisdom-about-government-fraud/278690/

my problem is that without any semblance of real quantifiable data a person would express an opinion like "too many become accustomed to living off the handouts of the government" because the leaders of their political ethos (or apparently their admin aunt) have parroted it to that point that it feels right to them. 

I don't need you rushing to SNAP judgement like this

Aunt administration, I didn't say that, you made it up. Is it possible, just possible, that her opinion on abuse was based on quantifiable data?

Edited May 14, 2017 by GreenMachine

[Censored by Laurie]

14 hours ago, GreenMachine said:

her opinion on abuse was based on quantifiable data?

re-read this. 

then re-read it again.

then tell me if you want to stick with it.

[GreenMachine]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

re-read this. 

then re-read it again.

then tell me if you want to stick with it.

So the quantifiable data she obtained through her job led to the FACT that 50% of recipients abused entitlements. Soften the blow a Bit?