[geeks] geeks Digest, Vol 157, Issue 2

[Fred]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 geeks-request at sunhelp.org wrote:

Going to reply to a couple of folks ...

> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:56:29 -0500
> From: Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net>
> Subject: Re: [geeks] rescue Digest, Vol 157, Issue 6

[large]
> And that changed *everything*.  It was no longer "Come home with your
> shield, or on it."  I could, and did, take the chance.  I've been with
> Datapipe for five years now.
>
> If they hadn't changed the law to make it no longer a sink-or-swim
> hail-Mary play, I'd probably still be on SSI disability.

You (Phil) posted this after I posted, and I 100% agree.  I was and am not
singling out folks that legimitately had a problem and needed the
assistance - the trap you were in until the law changed is horrible - you
*wanted* to work, but could not due to the risk of losing ALL benefits if
it didn't work out at whatever company you were at.  (Of course, this
makes me want to go off on a tangent about employer loyalty ...)

On the other side of this coin are folks that on purpose say in your face
"I can't work that many hours this schedule or it will affect my
benefits." - they aren't disabled, just abusing the system ... perhaps.

> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:34:51 -0500 (EST)
> From: adh at an.bradford.ma.us (Sandwich Maker)
> Subject: Re: [geeks] rescue Digest, Vol 157, Issue 6
> Message-ID: <201512041634.tB4GYp8R003705 at tiamat.an.bradford.ma.us>
>
> any of y'all read machiavelli's 'the prince'?  he gets a bad rap, but
> my reaction was, that's the way it is in bureacracies where power is

I'm going to have to find that at my local library ...

> back of their executive sofas.  culpable execs were barred from
> receiving bonuses for a year.  they got double bonuses the following
> year.

Doesn't shock me in the least. (is that a horrible thing that it doesn't?)

> small penalties are just part of the cost of doing business,
> especially if you can get someone else to pay them.  lawyers are for
> negotiating large penalties down to small ones.

To me, that's a problem.  I was reading an article the other day about
"corporate death penalty" and while I'm not that far in the spectrum,
there *must* be a way to make the penalties severe enough where it "hurts"
vs. just making it the cost of doing business.

> phil's answer to this is excellent.

Yep, I addressed that above.  He couldn't have told it any better IMHO.

> i suspect that the number of folks who really are welfare deadbeats at
> heart is only a small fraction of the number trapped in the system, as
> phil was.

I wouldn't even opine on the percentages.  However, being trapped or being
a deadbeat while different sides of the coin, are both still a problem.
There should be a way to punish the deadbeats while at the same time stop
folks with legitimate need from falling in that hole or having to deal
with a catch-22 like Phil did.

Without going too far off the deep end, it would be nice if there were
some type of technological breakthough that couldn't be hidden or
squashed by the rich-elite and that was obtainable in a
straightforward fashion that would level the playing field and remove a
lot of the problems that capitalism causes ... dirt cheap energy,
healthcare breakthrough, *something* ...

Fred