I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

> Your method of argument relies on lumping all persons into one category.

I literally broke people up into different generations, people who can work, people who can't, children, people who are lawyers, policymakers, government workers or contractors moving people from welfare to disability. I really think you not only didn't read the NPR stuff, you didn't read what I wrote either.

> The annoying detail about designing public policy is that policy changes happen on the margin, and it is the marginal cases where moral hazard presents itself first.

You've no evidence for this. It's also not true; see for example the financial collapse of 2008. Also people who cry "moral hazard!" (this is you) don't think this, because their chief villains are subsidies and bailouts which explicitly create moral hazard. Also people who cry "social programs create moral hazard!" (this is also you) don't think this, because they see this as the fundamental dynamic of aid programs.

> If you continue to boundlessly extend your empathy for everyone that walks into their doctor's office to anybody that says they have back pain, you will clearly have fraud.

You've also no evidence for this. There's counter evidence though. Did you know a small fraction of disability claims are approved? You do now! Turns out we're not "extending [our] empathy for everyone that walks into their doctor's office".

> And Hale County is clearly a case where this fraud is broadly present.

This isn't my claim. My claim is (again): the narrative that these programs incentivize and facilitate freeloading is false. If there's no job literally in America that you can have, I don't think going on Social Security Disability is freeloading. I'd love to engage on the quote I posted ("Since the economy began its slow, slow recovery in late 2009, we've been averaging about 150,000 new jobs created per month. But in that same period, almost 250,000 people have been applying for disability every month.") but you've not responded to it at all, probably because it's devastating to your argument.

> You have presented your argument in the best way to try to lump the fraudsters in with the rest of the empathy-deserving recipients.

I do think these people (like all people) deserve empathy, but again that's not my claim. I'm making the claim I am because if you disagree with it, you'll ratfuck (or shutdown entirely) these programs such that they don't actually help people. When I talk about all the dynamics around aid programs, it's because I want people to understand the dynamics around aid programs, not to sneak freeloaders in through the back door. Elsewhere I posted "The overall point here is that if we let criminals and a very small number of freeloaders sour us on these programs, we literally let kids go hungry; we literally let them die of preventable illnesses; etc. etc. It is absolutely bonkers to me that we are making this tradeoff." Do you disagree? It's hard for me to imagine a rational person disagreeing.

> When Hale County has 1 in 4 adults on disability, it is beyond evident that the system is not working as intended.

Agree! The whole NPR series explains it. You should read it!

> Yes, it is distinctly clear that some of those adults should be getting jobs.

Again:

- For most of those people there aren't jobs

- There might be jobs but they're shit jobs that don't cover their bills or health insurance

- They actually in many cases _do have jobs_

Again, you should definitely read the NPR series you're citing over and over again (lol).

> Even if freeloading is unsolvable, the moral hazard exists.

Correct. Now:

- design an aid program without moral hazard or

- decide moral hazard is OK or

- decide it's OK for kids to literally die entirely of preventable causes

Yes, I was deliberately contrasting the US with the British Empire. The British Empire is what it looks like when a nation actually runs the world for its own benefit.

>But thinking that means we should walk away from controlling global naval shipping and near immediate air presence is missing out the enormous soft power we can project.

Again: Give me concrete examples of the benefits from this, which justify hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending.

>Losing those air fields and making the Navy considerably smaller massively reduces the ability for the US to project security on a global state.

I don't want to "project security" on a global scale.

>Meanwhile the Trump administration cuts programs while ballooning the military budget to $1T...

I'm a Democrat. I voted against Trump.

For Europe, maybe. But the US is spending way more than necessary to defend the homeland. I'm tired of it. That money should go towards our own people. Just like Europeans have been saying.

I don't want to subsidize the US military-industrial complex.