D.T.W.A.

[Phatscotty]

Jesus only called a person a fool one time, and that was to do with the way a guy wasted his money so frivolously when so much more good could come from it.

[Woodruff]

Jesus only called a person a fool one time, and that was to do with the way a guy wasted his money so frivolously when so much more good could come from it.

Yes, that point has been made several times in this thread. It's good to see that you're finally on board with the idea that this proposed legislation is a frivolous waste of our money that certainly could be better used elsewhere.

[kabuki.mono]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

[BigBallinStalin]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

[kabuki.mono]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

For example England. It's one of the only countries where once you spent a year in the country (regardless of nationality) you can claim benefits, and a lot of money if you have, wife, kids, etc. You can even get free house and the works.
No wonder people abuse it.

[jimboston]

America....the land of the free no longer.

Welcome to the Western Hemispheres newest police state.

Why?

I don't advocate taking away a person's right to smoke cigarettes, drink, or do drugs. I have no problem with any of that.

I just don't want to give MY MONEY to someone who then has enough money to buy smokes, booze, or crack.

But it's going to cost significantly MORE of "your money" to stop them from doing so. If your primary concern is "your money", why doesn't that impact your thought process?

How? Explain to me how the Gov't NOT giving MY money away would cost me more. It makes no sense. It would only cost more if the burden of proof is placed on Gov't... this is illogical. This is not a criminal matter... it's just NOT giving money away. Pretty simple to do.

[jimboston]

So, is everyone of the opinion/belief that drug testing only welfare recipients is discriminatory?


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3158968

I feel like I made a similar point a few posts after, only maybe angrier (no sleep)

Additionally, we're talking about a specific type of welfare here. I don't hear phatscotty or jimbo talking about the need to drug-test corporate welfare beneficiaries.

No... because I am saying we should just stop "corporate welfare". So there is no need to test.

[jimboston]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?

If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

I agree with this... because I don't think there should be subsidies or gov't assistance.

Tax Breaks is tricky... because that's just "NOT" taking money, which is way different than giving money. One assumes (I do anyway) that in order to get a Tax Break you must be paying tax in the first place.

Tax breaks are absolutely a form of government assistance. It's the government saying, "Okay, according to the way things are set up, you owe $X in taxes, but we're going to give you a special discount because you're hiring unemployed people/you donated enough to my last election campaign/whatever other reason they offer tax breaks." The break puts extra money in the bank accounts of that company.

You're free to like or not like tax breaks, but to say they aren't government assistance is just ignorant.

Cutting taxes... i.e. "tax breaks"... is NOT the same as giving money.

In one case the Gov't simply takes less money.

In the other the Gov't gives money.

Sometimes the Gov't and IRS call something a Tax Break... when in fact it is giving money. That is just mislabling a welfare payment (corporate or individual).

I have no problem with the Gov't taking less money.
I do have a problem with the Gov't giving money.

it's pretty simple.

[Baron Von PWN]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

[jimboston]

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

Please demonstrate how this is definitely NOT beneficial.

If implemented correctly it would be beneficial.

Just saying it is not, does not make it so.

[jimboston]

So laws like this that cost more than they save...that sounds like a "taxpayer stfu" if I've ever heard one.

How would this cost more?

Randomly test Welfare Recipients... if they test positive, you stop payments.

Seems like a money-saver to me.

[jimboston]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

Yo. The government says, "You owe $5000 in taxes." They have claimed ownership of $5000 of your money. Then, of that $5000 which they own, they say, "Keep $1000 because you did something we wanted you to do." They subsidized the cost of some action which the government wants to encourage.

Thus, your tax credit is a subsidy. (DISCLAIMER: This does not include overpayment of taxes).

FALSE

You fail in logic.

[kabuki.mono]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

Very true this. I think United Kingdom is the only country that actually gives away benefit money for nothing. All the other countries I have lived in or at least been to, you have to work a minimum of a year and then after you can claim six months max. Even then the money is barely livable on.

[jimboston]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

It's a strong social safety net... with consequences for abusers!
That is the difference.

Also the culture in Sweden is more homogeneous... and there is a negative stigma associated with abusing the system. That is not true everywhere. In some US communities you are praised by your peers when you find a new way to "beat the system".

[Baron Von PWN]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

Very true this. I think United Kingdom is the only country that actually gives away benefit money for nothing. All the other countries I have lived in or at least been to, you have to work a minimum of a year and then after you can claim six months max. Even then the money is barely livable on.

As far as I know the Uk also has cutoff times for welfare(I believe they may have some of the stricter times in Europe). It may just be they provide it much more freely but the amount of time they can receive those benefits is shorter.

[kabuki.mono]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

Very true this. I think United Kingdom is the only country that actually gives away benefit money for nothing. All the other countries I have lived in or at least been to, you have to work a minimum of a year and then after you can claim six months max. Even then the money is barely livable on.

As far as I know the Uk also has cutoff times for welfare(I believe they may have some of the stricter times in Europe). It may just be they provide it much more freely but the amount of time they can receive those benefits is shorter.

No, in England as long as you go to the meetings they force you to go too and you act as if you where looking for work ... you can be on benefits indefinite. I think with saying that in the town I live, one out of every three parent is claiming benefits and I guarantee you they shall continue to do so. It's 'easy' money, that of course has it's consequences, socially, economically and politically.

[Baron Von PWN]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

It's a strong social safety net... with consequences for abusers!
That is the difference.

Also the culture in Sweden is more homogeneous... and there is a negative stigma associated with abusing the system. That is not true everywhere. In some US communities you are praised by your peers when you find a new way to "beat the system".

Yes Sweden is homogeneous though the cultural aspect may be limited to strong social pressure to find employment.The homogeneity is also changing, Sweden accepted large amounts of Iraqi refugees for example. There are no special penalties, its simply that they have a certain period of time to find employment(with allot of assistance) after which benefits will end.

[kabuki.mono]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

It's a strong social safety net... with consequences for abusers!
That is the difference.

Also the culture in Sweden is more homogeneous... and there is a negative stigma associated with abusing the system. That is not true everywhere. In some US communities you are praised by your peers when you find a new way to "beat the system".

Yes Sweden is homogeneous though the cultural aspect may be limited to strong social pressure to find employment.The homogeneity is also changing, Sweden accepted large amounts of Iraqi refugees for example. There are no special penalties, its simply that they have a certain period of time to find employment(with allot of assistance) after which benefits will end.

Yup, I think the same applies to the majority of mainland Europe. With exception of a few countries; Spain, Italy and France (If I'm not confused) that won't give you a penny unless you work first. Of course unless under special circumstances.

EDIT: I wouldn't say there is many consequences for abusers in England. There is in Mainland Europe though.

[BigBallinStalin]

I do wonder though .. what else is someone on welfare meant to do?
The options are limited:
a) Get a job - Not happening
b) By food (please refer to c)
c) Ignore all the above, drink and get high off wonderful taxpayers money. <- that would be my option

It's worse in other countries--especially European ones with strong social safety nets.

Speaking as someone who has studied the EU, this is a massive stereotype that does not hold true across Europe. For example the Sweden puts a huge emphasis on regaining employment, and will cut welfare recipients off if they fail to do so. (they provide job training ect in order to help them but still their help has a definite deadline.)

I'm linking to this comment. I got to brush up on some Europe v US structural unemployment, and I'll get back to you on this.

[BigBallinStalin]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

Yo. The government says, "You owe $5000 in taxes." They have claimed ownership of $5000 of your money. Then, of that $5000 which they own, they say, "Keep $1000 because you did something we wanted you to do." They subsidized the cost of some action which the government wants to encourage.

Thus, your tax credit is a subsidy. (DISCLAIMER: This does not include overpayment of taxes).

[Woodruff]

America....the land of the free no longer.

Welcome to the Western Hemispheres newest police state.

Why?

I don't advocate taking away a person's right to smoke cigarettes, drink, or do drugs. I have no problem with any of that.

I just don't want to give MY MONEY to someone who then has enough money to buy smokes, booze, or crack.

But it's going to cost significantly MORE of "your money" to stop them from doing so. If your primary concern is "your money", why doesn't that impact your thought process?

How? Explain to me how the Gov't NOT giving MY money away would cost me more. It makes no sense. It would only cost more if the burden of proof is placed on Gov't... this is illogical. This is not a criminal matter... it's just NOT giving money away. Pretty simple to do.

<sigh> So you believe that the drug testing will be done for free? Have you seen the projected costs of the drug testing itself?

[MeDeFe]

America....the land of the free no longer.

Welcome to the Western Hemispheres newest police state.

Why?

I don't advocate taking away a person's right to smoke cigarettes, drink, or do drugs. I have no problem with any of that.

I just don't want to give MY MONEY to someone who then has enough money to buy smokes, booze, or crack.

But it's going to cost significantly MORE of "your money" to stop them from doing so. If your primary concern is "your money", why doesn't that impact your thought process?

How? Explain to me how the Gov't NOT giving MY money away would cost me more. It makes no sense. It would only cost more if the burden of proof is placed on Gov't... this is illogical. This is not a criminal matter... it's just NOT giving money away. Pretty simple to do.

Firstly, if the law passes (or did it already?), the state of Florida will be spending more taxpayer money on testing welfare recipients to determine whether they use drugs or not than they will ever be able to save by excluding those who use drugs from receiving benefits.

Secondly, the people who use drugs and no longer receive benefits may well turn to crime in order to survive and finance their drug consumption, this will cause further costs for the state and the taxpayer by increasing the workload for the police and rescue services when someone is bleeding in the street after a robbery. It will also increase costs for insurance companies who have to cover damages, which will cause them to increase their rates, which you have to pay or go uninsured. And if your stuff gets stolen and you're not insured you're pretty much fucked unless you have a heap of money saved somewhere, which most US citizens don't.

[Woodruff]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?

If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

I agree with this... because I don't think there should be subsidies or gov't assistance.

Tax Breaks is tricky... because that's just "NOT" taking money, which is way different than giving money. One assumes (I do anyway) that in order to get a Tax Break you must be paying tax in the first place.

Tax breaks are absolutely a form of government assistance. It's the government saying, "Okay, according to the way things are set up, you owe $X in taxes, but we're going to give you a special discount because you're hiring unemployed people/you donated enough to my last election campaign/whatever other reason they offer tax breaks." The break puts extra money in the bank accounts of that company.

You're free to like or not like tax breaks, but to say they aren't government assistance is just ignorant.

Cutting taxes... i.e. "tax breaks"... is NOT the same as giving money.

In one case the Gov't simply takes less money.

In the other the Gov't gives money.

Sometimes the Gov't and IRS call something a Tax Break... when in fact it is giving money. That is just mislabling a welfare payment (corporate or individual).

I have no problem with the Gov't taking less money.
I do have a problem with the Gov't giving money.

it's pretty simple.

Yes, it IS pretty simple...in reality, the two things ARE IDENTICAL. The implementation is different for each, but the end result is precisely the same.

[Woodruff]

So laws like this that cost more than they save...that sounds like a "taxpayer stfu" if I've ever heard one.

How would this cost more?

Randomly test Welfare Recipients... if they test positive, you stop payments.

Seems like a money-saver to me.

Again...the tests aren't done for free. In fact, the state of Florida has to pay the Governor of Florida to get them done.

[Woodruff]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

Yo. The government says, "You owe $5000 in taxes." They have claimed ownership of $5000 of your money. Then, of that $5000 which they own, they say, "Keep $1000 because you did something we wanted you to do." They subsidized the cost of some action which the government wants to encourage.

Thus, your tax credit is a subsidy. (DISCLAIMER: This does not include overpayment of taxes).

FALSE

You fail in logic.

Please go to the post that you made that is two posts above the one I am quoting. Please re-read your response to PLAYER there, as it is highly appropriate.