News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Payday Lending. Parent comment

Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by rosser on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @06:30PM (#19101264)
> It's not fine to act like no luxury good has ever been bought on food stamps, and every recipient is a meticulous steward of taxpayer's largesse, ceaselessly working toward the day when they don't need public assistance.

Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that?

I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without.

Much, I would note, like so many in the broader discussion are arguing regarding these lenders...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by dlp211 on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @06:57PM (#19101513)
Social Programs are abused, but not nearly at the levels that people assume. In 2016, SNAP abuse accounted for just 0.9% of SNAP benefits paid. This also coincided with a drastic reduction in overall utilization from the 4 prior years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-f...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by SilasX on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @06:36PM (#19101329)
>Can you please point out where anyone has ever legitimately argued that?

How about where I entered the thread?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19100636

>chain emails claiming to document someone buying [luxury food] on food stamps.

--

>I think we're all aware social programs are abused. I also think we're better off with them, even being abused, than without.

And I think it's unrealistic to model the abuse as one-off, contained events instead of "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by rosser on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @06:48PM (#19101441)
Do I read you correctly as saying that the anecdotal evidence of the kinds of abuse you're concerned about (in the form of chain emails, &c) outweighs the actual, you know, "research" that has been done on these programs, their use, and their outcomes, and that there is instead some kind of systemic abuse by "pockets of underclass that grows up not knowing anything different"?

Because, yeah. We're just going to talk past each other here if so. Back to my deadline.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by SilasX on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @06:55PM (#19101488)
Where did I say I was grounding any of this in a chain email? I started out objecting to someone's over-the-top skepticism that anyone has every bought a luxury food on foodstamps.

Are you saying there aren't pockets of near-permanent poverty in America that depend on social spending? Nice, didn't know that was patched up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by rosser on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @06:57PM (#19101517)
I guess I don't find referencing research in response to cultural tropes to be "over-the-top skepticism".

Have a good day.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Consumer Protection Bureau Aims to Roll Back Rules for Pa... by SilasX on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @07:44PM (#19101859)
Neither do I, which is why I never applied the appellation "over-the-top skepticism" to "referencing research"; it was applied to the commenter's ridicule of an account of someone buying a luxury food with foodstamps.

Is there a reason you thought my appellation was being applied to something else?

[ Parent | on HN ]