[whybroke]

javert's comment is patently false statement designed to create intense hatred of a vulnerable group for political ends.

A now deleted comment posted a link to a rambling diatribe as "evidence" (which just further proves my point). And mentioning any of this is described as a "personal attack". It's an interesting mixing of John Galt and Horst Wessel.

To answer your question, I presume eliminating aid to incapacitated people creates homelessness not walmart jobs.

Now can I ask you: what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves that they derail their own ability to think clearly and do such demonstrable harm to their societies?

[rthomas6]

While javert's comment might have been un-sympathetic, its narrative is true. People have gotten on disability in proportion to the reduction of people on welfare. Check out this awesome Planet Money piece: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

More specifically, check out this graph: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/img/pm-gr-disabilityvswel...

This does not mean that these people are bad or that we should end disability aid. But it's true... people are becoming "disabled" as a means of surviving.

[whybroke]

While your link is at least an intellectually honest attempt at analysis, the graph you link to shows that disability claims were flat just when welfare was falling the fastest (1996 – 99)

And were rising the fastest when welfare also rose the fastest (1990-94). This would run contrary to even correlation let alone a causal relationship.

While it is certainly an interesting theory, apparently the situation is even more complicated.

[ta75757]

    And mentioning any of this is described as a "personal 
    attack".

javert's post was based on his personal experience with his aunt. You said it was made up nonsense. This is essentially calling him a liar, which is probably why he took it as a personal attack.

    I presume eliminating aid to incapacitated people 
    creates homelessness not walmart jobs.

You accused javert of making things up to support his political narrative, and then you proceed to simply "presume" that the facts instead support yours. Also, welfare was not for the incapacitated, it was for anyone with low income.

    what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize 
    themselves that they derail their own ability to think 
    clearly and do such demonstrable harm to their
    societies?

I don't know, but that's not what is happening here. Claiming that disability is the new welfare is not the same as claiming there shouldn't be disability or welfare. See for example the other reply to your comment. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9132570)

[whybroke]

>javert's post was based on his personal experience with his aunt

No, the language "to get on welfare" you have to be "classified as disabled" but "doctors hand that out like candy" is not about anyone's aunt, it is designed to provoke hatred toward vulnerable people to further a political agenda.

Is the anecdotal evidence that uses the word "about" twice and is written to provoke yet more hate true? Well there are hate mongering anecdotes about Jews, priests and gays too. They are of equal value and are repeated with the same intent. Was he offended when this was pointed out?

>>..what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves..

>..that's not what is happening here..

On the contrary, it is the only thing happening here.