D.T.W.A.

[Phatscotty]

Mandatory drug tests for all that use the state medical system.

Careful. I always need to remind people of the dangers of double posting (since it was counted as an infraction against me.)

[Phatscotty]

Mandatory drug tests for all that use the state education system.

[notyou2]

LESS GOVERNMENT!!!!



MORE LAW!!!!!

[natty dread]

Legalize all drugs => problem solved.

[Phatscotty]

Legalize all drugs => problem solved.

Vote Ron Paul. Legalize all drugs. Problem solved.

People who do not earn a wage still have to be clean in order to get free money. If you can't clean it up enough to get welfare, then I can guarantee with 100% certitude every penny of that welfare money is gone after a 3 day bender.

Welfare still needs to focus more on helping get people out of poverty, teaching how to fish rather than only depending on a fish a day, not making poverty comfortable. If drugs were actually legalized, I would change my position to focus on drugs that make you super lazy and sit at home all night drinking beer and watching TV, talking about looking for a job maybe manana, except they didn't like the chik in the cubicle next to them, and they can't dial phone numbers all day...and you do all that work and you only get a little bit more than if you just gave the excuse of why you can't work because of XYZ, most likely related to drug problems

It really is no wonder we have a tax revenue problem.

[natty dread]

Implement a citizen salary that every citizen receives, no matter if they're employed or not, and pay this with the revenue received from legalized drug trade (high taxes on all drugs). No more welfare, no more need to test anyone, since everyone is entitled to the citizen salary.

All problems solved!

[Night Strike]

Implement a citizen salary that every citizen receives, no matter if they're employed or not, and pay this with the revenue received from legalized drug trade (high taxes on all drugs). No more welfare, no more need to test anyone, since everyone is entitled to the citizen salary.

All problems solved!

More tax and spend policies: they work REALLY well!!!

[GreecePwns]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

[Night Strike]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

[natty dread]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

You apparently read what you want to read. Do you actually understand words?

[Night Strike]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

You apparently read what you want to read. Do you actually understand words?

You advocated legalizing drugs in order to tax them and then to spend that money on welfare for everybody. That is a new tax for a new spending program, which is what I was talking about. So of course I understand words.

[GreecePwns]

You advocate throwing people in jail for holding a dimebag, overstuffing prisons with victimless criminals and causing massive deficits at the federal, state and local level.

Tax and spend and save money on jails > just spend in my eyes.

[Nola_Lifer]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

You apparently read what you want to read. Do you actually understand words?

You advocated legalizing drugs in order to tax them and then to spend that money on welfare for everybody. That is a new tax for a new spending program, which is what I was talking about. So of course I understand words.

Why not legalize drugs, tax them, and then use the money for rehabilitation programs and education to stop the use of drugs. Look at Portugal. Another thing, why waste more money by subjecting people to drug tests.

[PLAYER57832]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

You apparently read what you want to read. Do you actually understand words?

You advocated legalizing drugs in order to tax them and then to spend that money on welfare for everybody. That is a new tax for a new spending program, which is what I was talking about. So of course I understand words.

Not quite.

The money gained from a tax on drugs could go to welfare, but it would go to much more than that. The real savings would be in not having to administer these idiotic programs.

[natty dread]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

You apparently read what you want to read. Do you actually understand words?

You advocated legalizing drugs in order to tax them and then to spend that money on welfare for everybody. That is a new tax for a new spending program, which is what I was talking about. So of course I understand words.

Stopping the war on drugs, legalizing drugs and taxing them would save a whole shitload of money. It would save so much money it would pay for the spending you're already doing and you could pay a citizen salary for all citizens.

[john9blue]

Is the war on drugs that you seem to love not a tax and spend policy?

I was simply replying to the idea that we need to increase taxes just to increase spending instead of paying for the spending that we're already doing.

You apparently read what you want to read. Do you actually understand words?

the "woodruff defense"

when logic fails...

[BigBallinStalin]

GET READY, GANG!

[Symmetry]

We still haven't gotten past the first argument about how the official who proposed this measure in his state stands to make a killing, should this pass.

Because although it may be relevant to this specific case, it's ultimately irrelevant to the ultimate subject seeing as many other states either have already enacted or plan to enact similar policies.

You haven't made clear your opinion on what Symmetry proposes. Opposing it would be hypocrisy of the highest order.

I think what Symmetry proposes is simply a deflection from the actual topic instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. And ultimately, I think the entire idea of drug testing bankers is ludicrous because bailing them out in the first place was ludicrous. Plus, what's the punishment if a banker tests positive? If one banker tests positive, will that whole bank suddenly lose all the money that they're no longer getting from the government? The government has already paid that money: we can't get it back. Whereas with welfare, the person would be unable to collect new funds from the government. If the banks are still collecting new funds from the government, then what he proposes may have an ounce of relevancy, but otherwise it's a completely separate subject.

To be fair, NightStrike, your general position seems to be that welfare is ludicrous, so it would seem that you should also be saying that the idea of drug tests for beneficiaries of welfare should also be ludicrous. Have I misunderstood your general position on welfare?

It would also seem that recipients of welfare wouldn't be asked to pay back all the money they received up until they tested positive for drugs under the system you're proposing, which would seem pretty similar to at least one of the reasons you suggest for not testing bankers- that the money wouldn't be given back.

How about this then- any and all bankers working for a corporation that can be considered too big to fail (or would be elligible for future bailouts) should be tested for drugs. That way we can let them fail next time. In the mean time, corporations that employ such drug users can simply have tax rebates and credits withdrawn.

I'm not sure I'm really deflecting from the topic at hand, just applying it equally as a principle. To be fair, earlier in the thread these measures were accused of hypocritically attacking the poorer members of society. I'm simply suggesting methods by which these principals and arguments could be applied equally without accusations of hypocrisy.

[notyou2]

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

[Night Strike]

How about this then- any and all bankers working for a corporation that can be considered too big to fail (or would be elligible for future bailouts) should be tested for drugs. That way we can let them fail next time. In the mean time, corporations that employ such drug users can simply have tax rebates and credits withdrawn.

How about we just let them fail, whether or not they do drugs? I'm all for letting bad businesses fail and good businesses succeed. Our country should do more of that.

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

Are you referring to me? How is my position oppressing the poor? How is finding ways to get people OFF of drugs oppressing them? Drugs oppress people. Welfare keeps people dependent. Finding ways to get people off drugs and then ultimately off welfare benefits them. It in no way oppresses them. What oppresses them is the belief that they can't help themselves and have to rely on the government for everything.

[radiojake]

How about this then- any and all bankers working for a corporation that can be considered too big to fail (or would be elligible for future bailouts) should be tested for drugs. That way we can let them fail next time. In the mean time, corporations that employ such drug users can simply have tax rebates and credits withdrawn.

How about we just let them fail, whether or not they do drugs? I'm all for letting bad businesses fail and good businesses succeed. Our country should do more of that.

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

Are you referring to me? How is my position oppressing the poor? How is finding ways to get people OFF of drugs oppressing them? Drugs oppress people. Welfare keeps people dependent. Finding ways to get people off drugs and then ultimately off welfare benefits them. It in no way oppresses them. What oppresses them is the belief that they can't help themselves and have to rely on the government for everything.

The whole thing about welfare that I find most interesting is the belief that the unemployed are lazy bums who should just go get a job - This sounds great, in theory, however this ignores the fact that for capitalism to be its most effective (in that is goal is to make as much profit as possible) it requires a surplus of labour to keep wages as low as possible. If everyone had a job, and companies were short of labour, the worker would have more leverage in demanding wage - Obviously, it doesn't work like this, and it is the opposite. Capitalism requires unemployment for its reproduction.

So what to do with those who have been deemed surplus by the economic system? The thing that pisses me off the most about 'hard working tax payers' who complain about how 'easy' welfare receipients have it is that they should just quit their jobs and become welfare bums too. But wait, you won't do that, because it IS NOT EASY living on welfare.

Drugs are an opiate - our culture is completely full of opiates - TV, Internet, Iphones, Religion, Football - They are all distractions from our shitty lives that have been organised to revolve around an imposed economic system. Our culture is not life fulfilling - we are mere machines. Ridiculing people for choosing drugs as their opiate is an easy way out and a way for people to put themselves on a moral pedastool, even though there are other opiates that distract and detract from society just as much.

[Phatscotty]

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

I have a problem with yours.

How did we have laws in America for 150 years before we ever were taxed on income?

[radiojake]

What oppresses them is the belief that they can't help themselves and have to rely on the government for everything.

Couldn't this be said for everyone who has a job? Am I oppressed if I have to work for some shitty company to be able to support myself? Am I not relying on someone else in this instance?

Oh wait, you'll tell me that atleast I am working, and producing something - Who gives a f*ck? I would rather be on welfare than work for McDonalds, or a bank, or a company that contributes highly to mass polution, or a company that produces shitty plastic consumables that will end up in landfill in 5 years time.

Our culture has its priorities all wrong.

Welfare isn't ideal - I doubt anyone would argue that - but it exists because of the economic system that we have in place, it can't cater for everyone, to claim otherwise is a fallacy.

So in closing, here is a picture of me on Welfare Road (taken last summer when I was in a little beachside town in rural South Australia called Bargowan) -

[Dukasaur]

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

I have a problem with yours.

How did we have laws in America for 150 years before we ever were taxed on income?

You didn't have 600 million pointless laws. The idea that the Federal government can regulate anything and everything didn't even occur to politicians until WW I and didn't get into high gear until WW II.

[Phatscotty]

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

I have a problem with yours.

How did we have laws in America for 150 years before we ever were taxed on income?

You didn't have 600 million pointless laws. The idea that the Federal government can regulate anything and everything didn't even occur to politicians until WW I and didn't get into high gear until WW II.

Progressivism?

Seriosuly though, for the people who are voting no, what qualifications should there be for welfare, if any? What disqualifies?