They call these infractions civil explicitly to lower the bar. The same with toll violations. Many of the statutes used actually explicitly indicate that ownership of the vehicle shall suffice for the burden of proof regarding the driver. Florida for instance does this.
It is highly suspect that the state can claim you've committed wrongdoing and seek punishment far in excess of actual damages ($0 for a redlight violation and perhaps a $1 in the case of a toll) to punish you and simply choose to call the offense civil in order to deprive you of due process. It is also highly suspect that it is legal for a legislative body to dictate to the courts what does and does not constitute a burden of proof.
"FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card."
Unless of course your vpn account was hacked and your password compromised. Malware infecting your browser will give access to your vpn as well as your laptop/desktop along with literally any and every other activity you do or could perform with those devices and/or the connectivity those devices have. And of course it could be your credit card which is compromised or it could be both your device and/or connection and your credit card. It's easy to sound like an escalating probability but in reality all of this has the exact same probability as the single device being compromised and all those extra compromised bits add up to no additional assurance whatsoever.
Someone might take a vpn connection as proof but it doesn't actually prove anything. It's even unlikely you can actually prove the vpn connection was used at all. Logs certainly don't provide evidence sound enough that they can be trusted as proof. The reliability of logs is what they were designed for in the first place, as an untrustworthy suggestion of what to look at in troubleshooting.
Because an IP address is trivially spoofed and even if not spoofed they are shared and in the case of most consumer connections they are assigned and reassigned from a pool and none of the systems managing them are controlled or regulated in any fashion whatsoever. They don't even log well. You can't even be certain your logs are correct or that the timestamps are correct. Even if someone hasn't altered anything there is no guarantee the extremely complex bug filled software running on them is logging correctly. I've seen literally millions of inaccurate logs in enterprise grade systems. Technical systems are designed to keep things operational not to provide any sort of legally sound accounting.
Even the standards that are meant to create some semblance of that like PCI are a complete joke. There is no sound chain of custody and there are millions of loopholes.
Ah, maybe you are using that terrible router they give you? It was a hassle but I got them enable Ethernet and set up a bridge that provides network access on the cable line for the guide and PPV. Extremely reliable but it confuses the cable guys to no end if they come out for any reason.
I use a Juniper SRX firewall as my home router and tossed the wifi router they provided. For the network access for media devices I use wired 1g links, wireless doesn't really seem to keep up well. Most likely because wired is 1g/1g on every port whereas the wireless bandwidth is shared between all devices and reduced by other wifi networks which is a big issue in cities. You can pretty much ignore the "connection speed" reported by PCs it's just the max negotiated speed and doesn't mean things are actually running at that speed all the time. I do have a wireless router thrown on a vlan to provide wifi access to other devices of course.
I think you need to look at your ISP. I view on 120 inch screen and compression artifacts are extremely visible. Netflix does just fine on my 75/75 FIOS link which is something I can't say about cable. Either your link is slow, your ISP is throttling, or there is some overloaded link/device between you and Netflix servers.
As for streams in general I can stream full bluray quality video, including audio streams, from my Plex server on four tv's at once all day long.
There are a couple babes but mostly just women. It's okay if there is nothing good on. House of cards is the only Netflix original I've seen that is really good.
"You are wrong. They will license anything they can that's being offered at reasonable prices."
There is a the rub. How you define "reasonable prices" is how they determine what grade of content they will have. The fact is that the quality of Netflix content has steadily dropped over time while the price has increased.
The question is not would I rather pay more or see ads. The question is why should I do either when Netflix offers less than it did when I agreed to pay what I'm paying now ad free.
"So with your EBT card you have to buy fast food [dailycaller.com] and not good, nutritious staples at the grocery store?"
False dichotomy and begging the question. You do not have to buy fast food and you do not get enough funds to purchase good nutritious foods at the grocery store. The lowest cost options at grocery stores are of comparable nutritional value to the the worst fast food options. Assuming you can get an EBT card and food stamps at all.
"You don't get subsidized or free healthcare [wikipedia.org]?"
Medicare mostly only happens for the dependent children of single mothers. Of course, then you have to find someone who will take it. Generally this will be the poorest healthcare available which means even if completely covered your child will be in poorer health than a wealthy counterpart and therefore have more physical ailments in life giving them a disadvantage in the workplace.
Generally no. My mother did go to college, got an associates degree in cosmetology making her the first college grad in our branch of the family. This enabled her to make so little that she qualified for subsidized housing. Qualifying for subsidized housing meant that she sometimes qualified for medicaid that covered just me and other times did not qualify at all. Every few months she had to apply for assistance when the electric bill got high enough but doing so meant she had to pay half the difference in higher rent that month, got less in food stamps, and didn't qualify for medical coverage that quarter. Any increase in her income or checking/savings balance decreased benefits. In fact having anything in a savings account would decrease benefits every month you still had it.
As for subsidized.. subsidies don't help you much when you have nothing, the remainder is still too much. It's the big joke of obamacare. You give health insurance to millions... who can't afford deductibles, co-pays, or premiums and therefore still can't get healthcare. It's nothing but a way to funnel money from the middle class to insurance companies.
"There are not scholarships exclusively for low income families [collegescholarships.org] that will pay towards top-notch schools?"
The existence of scholarships for low income families does equal all low income families with children that want to afford top-notch schools being able to do so. Paying towards is also not paying for.
Even without refutation none of your points demonstrates equal opportunity between the classes. Having some kind of possibility for the poor does not mean there is no advantage for the wealthy. As soon as you can explain how George W. Bush with his C and B average had no easier a time getting into an Ivy league school than a poor child from a no name family you can make that case but I think we both know that even with a perfect academic record and high scores the odds are against that poor child getting in let alone finding the funds to pay for it. Where there is opportunity at all for the poor it comes only through extreme achieve combined with even more luck... the wealthy face no such barrier and the only justification is a fallacious argument that their "success" aka deep pockets is proof of their merit.
"It's ALL debt - all money is debt in our system. Taxes is just a way to take some out of circulation."
All money is debt in our system, debt to a private bank called the Federal Reserve which is something completely unrelated to your tax debt to the people. Taxes don't take any money out of circulation. Tax funds get spent which is circulating money not taking it out. The national debt is a different thing. The government issues bonds which banks buy, often with freshly spawned Fed loans since they pay a higher rate than the Fed rate. Which raises the question of why the government doesn't borrow directly from the Fed and skip paying interest to banks but that is a question for another day.
"You seem to think the hardest part is making an item....its not.....the real trick is getting people to pay for it. For that i charge...and i have no shame that i do."
Careful, you are confusing revenue with value. Revenue is essential to a business but that doesn't mean the people closest to the source of the revenue are actually contributing more than the people further from it.
I've known sales people making millions of dollars in commissions who did nothing but do rounds of lunches and take calls collecting orders for goods people were buying anyway. People come to them because they already have a need. They might get a $50,000 commission as a result of just taking a phone call for something that would have been purchased even if they didn't exist. That same sum might be what the person who actually did the work to produce those needed goods makes in a year. The salesmen didn't create a years worth of value, he just happens to work in a position closer to the source of the revenue. Others are working their tails off to make people see the value in something that genuinely benefits them. Those salesmen are performing a valuable service and creating true value. Unfortunately, sales is built on the idea that commissions equal merit when there is really only a loose correlation.
As a small business owner I filled all the roles. They all add value, they are all important, and I assure you that not having anything to sell will stop revenue just as easily as not being able to sell the things you have. A small business owner is generally working their tail off but that doesn't mean their work is actually more valuable than other staff who are doing the same even if they do tend to get themselves worked up and stressed.
A working owner isn't doing anything that is worth 10 fold the money their lowest paid worker makes and neither is anyone else in a company. A passive owner isn't creating any value at all.
Stop for a moment and consider that retail outlets pay at or near minimum wage and typically hire only part time workers outside of management and sometimes even in lower management. These companies treat their employees like garbage giving them schedules so variable and inconsistent they have to be computer generated week to week and are rarely willing to accommodate. They can and do fire employees regularly for using sick time without notice (in practice, they certainly don't write this down) and for failing to answer their phone and come in when scheduled off combined with habitual underscheduling thus creating a need to call in employees on a regular basis. Consider that even the management make low to lower mid level income.
Now consider that every walgreens, cvs, walmart, kmart, etc has a custom designed employment application submission kiosk and has since the electronics in such kiosks would have been several thousand dollars. These are companies that cut every penny not companies that throw money away trying to impress job applicants. Those kiosks are there because there are so many people desperate enough to be trying to get these horrible jobs every day that it's actually more economical to build these custom machines than have their low paid management pick up the stack each day and toss it in garbage bin.
To assume that poor are poor due to some lack of merit, effort, or character deficiency on their part IS the denigration. That is certainly true of a portion of the poor, in roughly the same proportion as there are upper middle class and above people despite lack of merit or effort on their part.
A huge portion of the poor in this country do have jobs, even multiple jobs. Have you ever noticed those employment kiosks at pharmacies, grocery stores, and other retail outlets? That is how many people are looking for work, it's actually more economical to build a custom kiosk rather than having your the low to lower-mid income level management at the store throw them in the trash each day.
The applicants aren't even all under educated either. There are college grads applying for those jobs.
Unfortunately, there is no new open arms immigration welcoming melting pot to go to. Unless you already have highly valuable skills countries offering those sort of benefits don't want you and even if they did moving isn't exactly cheap.
You pretty much have it right. People would do it regardless because humans are greedy by nature but the tax code is also convoluted enough that it is necessary. There is an automatic deduction from your payroll if you work for someone but if you aren't careful you could suddenly discover at tax time that you owe thousands of already spent dollars.
On the flip side, the wealthy pretty much have their way in this nation and we don't really get much benefit out of federal income tax dollars. Pretty much all of it goes toward bureaucracy, special interests, enforcement, domestic spying, and wars overseas. Most of the actual benefits we receive come in the form of loans we have to pay back or from state level taxation. There is a social security retirement program but we pay a separate tax for that.
"As we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things."
Someone is doing the drugs and we've been testing the poor people and found far less than the national average. It must be the wealthy doing the drugs. Since they are such magical engines of commerce and all that we should obviously seek to be like them and do drugs as well. I've heard cocaine can give you quite an energy boost.
They file taxes, generally they don't pay them directly and instead receive refunds for all or even greater sums than paid in. But even so this means they have less income through the year to live on and they do pay taxes indirectly. Those higher up the food chain in the places they work are getting the lion share of the fruits of these people's labor, this is part of why those those further up the chain have to pay more in tax.
You provide me with a chunk of wood that cost $1. I carve it into a statue valued at $10 and you pay me $1 for the labor. You haggle and get $11 for it. You are keeping $9 profit but you only created $1 of value it was me who created the other $8 you ended up with. Even paying the tax owed out of that $8 you are stealing my voice by saying you pay more in taxes than I do while I'm the one who generate that wealth both for the economy and tax purposes.
We the people empowered the government to collect these taxes, arguably this was illegally ratified but the court system we empowered to make those determinations has found otherwise, until we revoke that grant of power to the government the government is entitled to it.
"The underlying assumption is that all income is the property of government"
No, the underlying assumption is that portion of your income which falls in your tax bracket is property of the people. Deductions are a form of charity or gift to ease the burden of paying some kinds of expenses that are necessary or may stimulate the economy. Anything beyond the standard deduction is an unfair boon above and beyond what others get.
"subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken"
Wrong. Tax deduction beyond the standard deduction is part of your debt being forgiven. Just because you still have the money in paws does not mean it belongs to you. This is especially true of tax credits.
"Well...I suppose they could do something radical and say, try to educate/better themselves and get a fucking JOB and pay their own way, no?"
Nothing is free, certainly not educating and bettering themselves. This also doesn't work for the disabled and the mentally ill. Disability is also riddled with red tape.
Hell, a huge portion of the people on these programs have jobs sometimes more than one. That is the big joke, sometimes you see measures targeted at minimum wage/near minimum wage earners but they always apply to full time employees. Employers in this segment won't hire full time workers, they know their employees are desperate and they can get a new "deadbeat" in a heartbeat from that pool of lazy don't want to work people who apply every day without them even having to advertise. They usually won't permit any scheduling requirements, they over hire and then computer generate part time schedules each week which can vary from 25 hours to 9 each week. And as a rule anyone who is off for whatever reason and doesn't answer their phone or come in when called to cover shifts with no notice is fired for this "offense" or given a number of strikes as if they had done something wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
They call these infractions civil explicitly to lower the bar. The same with toll violations. Many of the statutes used actually explicitly indicate that ownership of the vehicle shall suffice for the burden of proof regarding the driver. Florida for instance does this.
It is highly suspect that the state can claim you've committed wrongdoing and seek punishment far in excess of actual damages ($0 for a redlight violation and perhaps a $1 in the case of a toll) to punish you and simply choose to call the offense civil in order to deprive you of due process. It is also highly suspect that it is legal for a legislative body to dictate to the courts what does and does not constitute a burden of proof.
"FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card."
Unless of course your vpn account was hacked and your password compromised. Malware infecting your browser will give access to your vpn as well as your laptop/desktop along with literally any and every other activity you do or could perform with those devices and/or the connectivity those devices have. And of course it could be your credit card which is compromised or it could be both your device and/or connection and your credit card. It's easy to sound like an escalating probability but in reality all of this has the exact same probability as the single device being compromised and all those extra compromised bits add up to no additional assurance whatsoever.
Someone might take a vpn connection as proof but it doesn't actually prove anything. It's even unlikely you can actually prove the vpn connection was used at all. Logs certainly don't provide evidence sound enough that they can be trusted as proof. The reliability of logs is what they were designed for in the first place, as an untrustworthy suggestion of what to look at in troubleshooting.
Because an IP address is trivially spoofed and even if not spoofed they are shared and in the case of most consumer connections they are assigned and reassigned from a pool and none of the systems managing them are controlled or regulated in any fashion whatsoever. They don't even log well. You can't even be certain your logs are correct or that the timestamps are correct. Even if someone hasn't altered anything there is no guarantee the extremely complex bug filled software running on them is logging correctly. I've seen literally millions of inaccurate logs in enterprise grade systems. Technical systems are designed to keep things operational not to provide any sort of legally sound accounting.
Even the standards that are meant to create some semblance of that like PCI are a complete joke. There is no sound chain of custody and there are millions of loopholes.
Ah, maybe you are using that terrible router they give you? It was a hassle but I got them enable Ethernet and set up a bridge that provides network access on the cable line for the guide and PPV. Extremely reliable but it confuses the cable guys to no end if they come out for any reason.
I use a Juniper SRX firewall as my home router and tossed the wifi router they provided. For the network access for media devices I use wired 1g links, wireless doesn't really seem to keep up well. Most likely because wired is 1g/1g on every port whereas the wireless bandwidth is shared between all devices and reduced by other wifi networks which is a big issue in cities. You can pretty much ignore the "connection speed" reported by PCs it's just the max negotiated speed and doesn't mean things are actually running at that speed all the time. I do have a wireless router thrown on a vlan to provide wifi access to other devices of course.
I think you need to look at your ISP. I view on 120 inch screen and compression artifacts are extremely visible. Netflix does just fine on my 75/75 FIOS link which is something I can't say about cable. Either your link is slow, your ISP is throttling, or there is some overloaded link/device between you and Netflix servers.
As for streams in general I can stream full bluray quality video, including audio streams, from my Plex server on four tv's at once all day long.
Their TV content is mediocre at best. They are missing seasons and episodes in a seemingly random way.
There are a couple babes but mostly just women. It's okay if there is nothing good on. House of cards is the only Netflix original I've seen that is really good.
"You are wrong. They will license anything they can that's being offered at reasonable prices."
There is a the rub. How you define "reasonable prices" is how they determine what grade of content they will have. The fact is that the quality of Netflix content has steadily dropped over time while the price has increased.
The question is not would I rather pay more or see ads. The question is why should I do either when Netflix offers less than it did when I agreed to pay what I'm paying now ad free.
"So with your EBT card you have to buy fast food [dailycaller.com] and not good, nutritious staples at the grocery store?"
False dichotomy and begging the question. You do not have to buy fast food and you do not get enough funds to purchase good nutritious foods at the grocery store. The lowest cost options at grocery stores are of comparable nutritional value to the the worst fast food options. Assuming you can get an EBT card and food stamps at all.
"You don't get subsidized or free healthcare [wikipedia.org]?"
Medicare mostly only happens for the dependent children of single mothers. Of course, then you have to find someone who will take it. Generally this will be the poorest healthcare available which means even if completely covered your child will be in poorer health than a wealthy counterpart and therefore have more physical ailments in life giving them a disadvantage in the workplace.
Generally no. My mother did go to college, got an associates degree in cosmetology making her the first college grad in our branch of the family. This enabled her to make so little that she qualified for subsidized housing. Qualifying for subsidized housing meant that she sometimes qualified for medicaid that covered just me and other times did not qualify at all. Every few months she had to apply for assistance when the electric bill got high enough but doing so meant she had to pay half the difference in higher rent that month, got less in food stamps, and didn't qualify for medical coverage that quarter. Any increase in her income or checking/savings balance decreased benefits. In fact having anything in a savings account would decrease benefits every month you still had it.
As for subsidized.. subsidies don't help you much when you have nothing, the remainder is still too much. It's the big joke of obamacare. You give health insurance to millions... who can't afford deductibles, co-pays, or premiums and therefore still can't get healthcare. It's nothing but a way to funnel money from the middle class to insurance companies.
"There are not scholarships exclusively for low income families [collegescholarships.org] that will pay towards top-notch schools?"
The existence of scholarships for low income families does equal all low income families with children that want to afford top-notch schools being able to do so. Paying towards is also not paying for.
Even without refutation none of your points demonstrates equal opportunity between the classes. Having some kind of possibility for the poor does not mean there is no advantage for the wealthy. As soon as you can explain how George W. Bush with his C and B average had no easier a time getting into an Ivy league school than a poor child from a no name family you can make that case but I think we both know that even with a perfect academic record and high scores the odds are against that poor child getting in let alone finding the funds to pay for it. Where there is opportunity at all for the poor it comes only through extreme achieve combined with even more luck... the wealthy face no such barrier and the only justification is a fallacious argument that their "success" aka deep pockets is proof of their merit.
"It's ALL debt - all money is debt in our system. Taxes is just a way to take some out of circulation."
All money is debt in our system, debt to a private bank called the Federal Reserve which is something completely unrelated to your tax debt to the people. Taxes don't take any money out of circulation. Tax funds get spent which is circulating money not taking it out. The national debt is a different thing. The government issues bonds which banks buy, often with freshly spawned Fed loans since they pay a higher rate than the Fed rate. Which raises the question of why the government doesn't borrow directly from the Fed and skip paying interest to banks but that is a question for another day.
"You seem to think the hardest part is making an item....its not.....the real trick is getting people to pay for it. For that i charge...and i have no shame that i do."
Careful, you are confusing revenue with value. Revenue is essential to a business but that doesn't mean the people closest to the source of the revenue are actually contributing more than the people further from it.
I've known sales people making millions of dollars in commissions who did nothing but do rounds of lunches and take calls collecting orders for goods people were buying anyway. People come to them because they already have a need. They might get a $50,000 commission as a result of just taking a phone call for something that would have been purchased even if they didn't exist. That same sum might be what the person who actually did the work to produce those needed goods makes in a year. The salesmen didn't create a years worth of value, he just happens to work in a position closer to the source of the revenue. Others are working their tails off to make people see the value in something that genuinely benefits them. Those salesmen are performing a valuable service and creating true value. Unfortunately, sales is built on the idea that commissions equal merit when there is really only a loose correlation.
As a small business owner I filled all the roles. They all add value, they are all important, and I assure you that not having anything to sell will stop revenue just as easily as not being able to sell the things you have. A small business owner is generally working their tail off but that doesn't mean their work is actually more valuable than other staff who are doing the same even if they do tend to get themselves worked up and stressed.
A working owner isn't doing anything that is worth 10 fold the money their lowest paid worker makes and neither is anyone else in a company. A passive owner isn't creating any value at all.
Stop for a moment and consider that retail outlets pay at or near minimum wage and typically hire only part time workers outside of management and sometimes even in lower management. These companies treat their employees like garbage giving them schedules so variable and inconsistent they have to be computer generated week to week and are rarely willing to accommodate. They can and do fire employees regularly for using sick time without notice (in practice, they certainly don't write this down) and for failing to answer their phone and come in when scheduled off combined with habitual underscheduling thus creating a need to call in employees on a regular basis. Consider that even the management make low to lower mid level income.
Now consider that every walgreens, cvs, walmart, kmart, etc has a custom designed employment application submission kiosk and has since the electronics in such kiosks would have been several thousand dollars. These are companies that cut every penny not companies that throw money away trying to impress job applicants. Those kiosks are there because there are so many people desperate enough to be trying to get these horrible jobs every day that it's actually more economical to build these custom machines than have their low paid management pick up the stack each day and toss it in garbage bin.
To assume that poor are poor due to some lack of merit, effort, or character deficiency on their part IS the denigration. That is certainly true of a portion of the poor, in roughly the same proportion as there are upper middle class and above people despite lack of merit or effort on their part.
A huge portion of the poor in this country do have jobs, even multiple jobs. Have you ever noticed those employment kiosks at pharmacies, grocery stores, and other retail outlets? That is how many people are looking for work, it's actually more economical to build a custom kiosk rather than having your the low to lower-mid income level management at the store throw them in the trash each day.
The applicants aren't even all under educated either. There are college grads applying for those jobs.
That is just the method being used to calculate how much of your debt to forgive.
Unfortunately, there is no new open arms immigration welcoming melting pot to go to. Unless you already have highly valuable skills countries offering those sort of benefits don't want you and even if they did moving isn't exactly cheap.
We drug test the military and other federal employees. Why should congress be exempt?
Not an issue unless the wrong kind and it's paying out more than $150k/year.
It's certainly more of a choice than the poor have.
You pretty much have it right. People would do it regardless because humans are greedy by nature but the tax code is also convoluted enough that it is necessary. There is an automatic deduction from your payroll if you work for someone but if you aren't careful you could suddenly discover at tax time that you owe thousands of already spent dollars.
On the flip side, the wealthy pretty much have their way in this nation and we don't really get much benefit out of federal income tax dollars. Pretty much all of it goes toward bureaucracy, special interests, enforcement, domestic spying, and wars overseas. Most of the actual benefits we receive come in the form of loans we have to pay back or from state level taxation. There is a social security retirement program but we pay a separate tax for that.
"As we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things."
Someone is doing the drugs and we've been testing the poor people and found far less than the national average. It must be the wealthy doing the drugs. Since they are such magical engines of commerce and all that we should obviously seek to be like them and do drugs as well. I've heard cocaine can give you quite an energy boost.
They file taxes, generally they don't pay them directly and instead receive refunds for all or even greater sums than paid in. But even so this means they have less income through the year to live on and they do pay taxes indirectly. Those higher up the food chain in the places they work are getting the lion share of the fruits of these people's labor, this is part of why those those further up the chain have to pay more in tax.
You provide me with a chunk of wood that cost $1. I carve it into a statue valued at $10 and you pay me $1 for the labor. You haggle and get $11 for it. You are keeping $9 profit but you only created $1 of value it was me who created the other $8 you ended up with. Even paying the tax owed out of that $8 you are stealing my voice by saying you pay more in taxes than I do while I'm the one who generate that wealth both for the economy and tax purposes.
We the people empowered the government to collect these taxes, arguably this was illegally ratified but the court system we empowered to make those determinations has found otherwise, until we revoke that grant of power to the government the government is entitled to it.
"The underlying assumption is that all income is the property of government"
No, the underlying assumption is that portion of your income which falls in your tax bracket is property of the people. Deductions are a form of charity or gift to ease the burden of paying some kinds of expenses that are necessary or may stimulate the economy. Anything beyond the standard deduction is an unfair boon above and beyond what others get.
"subsidy / welfare == receipt of someone else's money
tax deduction == less of one's own money being taken"
Wrong. Tax deduction beyond the standard deduction is part of your debt being forgiven. Just because you still have the money in paws does not mean it belongs to you. This is especially true of tax credits.
"Well...I suppose they could do something radical and say, try to educate/better themselves and get a fucking JOB and pay their own way, no?"
Nothing is free, certainly not educating and bettering themselves. This also doesn't work for the disabled and the mentally ill. Disability is also riddled with red tape.
Hell, a huge portion of the people on these programs have jobs sometimes more than one. That is the big joke, sometimes you see measures targeted at minimum wage/near minimum wage earners but they always apply to full time employees. Employers in this segment won't hire full time workers, they know their employees are desperate and they can get a new "deadbeat" in a heartbeat from that pool of lazy don't want to work people who apply every day without them even having to advertise. They usually won't permit any scheduling requirements, they over hire and then computer generate part time schedules each week which can vary from 25 hours to 9 each week. And as a rule anyone who is off for whatever reason and doesn't answer their phone or come in when called to cover shifts with no notice is fired for this "offense" or given a number of strikes as if they had done something wrong.