[Pfhreak]

> Which are its shoddiness:

I mean, they sent what, $34m overseas erroneously of $2T?

Doing some quick napkin math, for every $1,000,000 spent, $10 accidentally went overseas?

Why does this seem poor to you? That seems like less than a rounding error in a rounding error....

[morelisp]

> I mean, they sent what, $34m overseas erroneously of $2T?

Far less. That $34m included disbursement to non-resident US citizens. Considerably more than 28,333 US citizens live overseas. I have had to file tax returns for 10 years despite not living in the US and having no US income, you bet your ass I cashed that check.

[Pfhreak]

Sure. So it's an order of magnitude less? Two? That's $1 in a $1M? $1 in $10M?

Objecting to social programs because they have minuscule errors drives me up the wall.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Objecting to social programs because they have minuscule errors drives me up the wall.

It makes sense if you consider weak people to be exploitable material for powerful interests. Social programs interfere with that dynamic - ergo the endless propaganda and demonetization of compassion.

[leftyted]

I should have said "supposed shoddiness".

My point was not that the welfare state is shoddy but that, if you support the welfare state, mistakes like this should bother you more, not less.

[Pfhreak]

> if you support the welfare state, mistakes like this should bother you more, not less.

Why? I support social programs, I accept some inefficiencies and waste.

In general I think small waste is not worth the energy to be concerned about if the benefit is huge.

That said, I think means testing is a waste of everyone's time. Just provide the benefits to everyone -- it simplifies the process of providing the benefit.

[leftyted]

Because, as I said in my original post, "[shoddiness, etc] represents the best objections to the welfare state".

In other words, blithe dismissals like "I accept some inefficienies and waste" provide the other side with the best possible ammunition against the idea of a welfare state.

It's laughable to see the number of people here who, straight-faced, say nonsense like "Nitpicking efficiency is for the capitalists".

[metabagel]

If you're looking for government waste and inefficiency, you'd be better off looking at military spending. That's where a lot of the low-hanging fruit is.

[lazyasciiart]

False. If you support effective government, welfare state or not, learning of this mistake should be considered a sign that they may have hit the right balance between spending on implementation and spending on platinum grade superpowered mistake detectors. One big obstacle to a welfare state is the unhinged obsession with not giving anyone anything they don’t deserve, which leads to idiotic programs that spend more money drug testing applicants than helping them.

[morelisp]

> if you support the welfare state, mistakes like this should bother you more, not less.

This doesn't follow at all.

As long as the policies are progressive (in the economic sense) and enough money gets to those who need it, why should small inefficiencies bother me? Nitpicking efficiency is for the capitalists.

[Sohcahtoa82]

As others have pointed out, the cost of the mistakes is a rounding error.

If you spend $100M to reduce waste by $34M, then did you actually reduce waste?