Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 3:12 pm**

guys, i'm gonna do something crazy here. ready?

i don't know whether this is a good law or not, and i will await the results before making a judgment call.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 3:35 pm**

Night Strike wrote:The underlying belief is that there should be no welfare at all

Ok, explain this belief to me. How do you suggest those people who are unable to get a job should live?

Are you saying that it's possible to get every person employed all of the time, if those lazy bums would just stop being lazy?

Or are you saying, f*ck those people who can't get a job, it sucks for them but it doesn't matter because it doesn't concern you?

Please, I'm trying very hard to understand where you're coming from. How do you suppose to solve the problem? If you got to decide, you would remove welfare. How would you deal with the people who are unable to get a job and make a living?

Night Strike wrote:but if there is going to be a welfare system, then there has to be a method of accountability for the individuals receiving the free money.

So you're saying, you don't really have a problem with others receiving free money, as long as you get to dictate how they spend it?

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 3:48 pm**

Night Strike, Phatscotty and Friends, I present to you two (2) hypothetical scenarios.

Person A is born into a wealthy family. Really wealthy. Person A:s parents are loaded with money, they have a huge fortune. They don't really work, they are wealthy enough that they don't have to work. Eventually, Person A:s parents die, leaving their huge fortune to Person A. Person A has never done a day of honest work in his life, yet he gets a free ride through life, because he happened to be born to rich parents.

Person B is born to a poor family. He is very smart, hard-working individual, but he is unable to get a good education, being poor. He ends up on welfare because he can't get a job, lacking education. Person B lives on welfare.

Person A is frustrated with the ennui of life, and develops a habit of snorting cocaine from the ass-cracks of supermodels. He spirals into a depraved life of sodomy and drug abuse.

Person B is frustrated because life offers him no opportunities, so he develops a habit on crack cocaine.

Now, Person A and his friends down at the yacht club figure out, those stinkin' poor people shouldn't be doing drugs if they want our money, so now they put up drug tests so those who test positive can forget about welfare money. As it happens, Person A and his pals make a lot of money manufacturing the drug tests. Which they throw in to the vault with the rest of them.

Now, Person B gets no money, ends up homeless and dies of AIDS and/or butt cancer. Person A has slightly more money and ends up as a politician and/or celebrity.

Question: in this scenario, would you rather be Person A or B?

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 4:01 pm**

natty_dread wrote:Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

natty_dread wrote:Please, I'm trying very hard to understand where you're coming from.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 5:03 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
Night Strike wrote:The underlying belief is that there should be no welfare at all

Ok, explain this belief to me. How do you suggest those people who are unable to get a job should live?

Are you saying that it's possible to get every person employed all of the time, if those lazy bums would just stop being lazy?

Or are you saying, f*ck those people who can't get a job, it sucks for them but it doesn't matter because it doesn't concern you?

Please, I'm trying very hard to understand where you're coming from. How do you suppose to solve the problem? If you got to decide, you would remove welfare. How would you deal with the people who are unable to get a job and make a living?

Night Strike wrote:but if there is going to be a welfare system, then there has to be a method of accountability for the individuals receiving the free money.

So you're saying, you don't really have a problem with others receiving free money, as long as you get to dictate how they spend it?

They live with their families and friends and do odd-end jobs until they are able to find a permanent job. Listening to how all of the liberals view the helplessness of people, it's amazing how our country could have even survived before all of these big government programs. Yet somehow it did for 150 years. That fact always seems to evade big government people. Once people figure out they can't just siphon money off the government, they'll realize that they actually have to earn the money they need to survive. It's pretty sad how you all think people are so helpless today.

natty_dread wrote:Question: in this scenario, would you rather be Person A or B?

Imagine that, a completely irrelevant scenario to the situation at hand, especially with the final question you pose. By the way, I'd be neither person because I'm not stupid enough to use drugs.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 5:35 pm**

Night Strike wrote:They live with their families and friends and do odd-end jobs until they are able to find a permanent job.

Oh wows, that fixes everything :roll:

Like it or not, we're not in the 18th century anymore. What if your friends and/or families are not willing or possible to support you? What if you can't get even "odd-end" jobs? You should just curl up and die?

Night Strike wrote: Listening to how all of the liberals view the helplessness of people, it's amazing how our country could have even survived before all of these big government programs.

Liberals this, conservatives that. Is there anything you don't view through your made up political dichotomies? Can you not think outside the political agendas for once and simply see people as people, not as "liberals" or "conservatives" or "us" or "them"?

As for your question, I'm not sure when your country started "big government programs", but I'm guessing after WWII? So, you know...in those times, a lot of people didn't survive. A lot more than today.

Night Strike wrote: Once people figure out they can't just siphon money off the government, they'll realize that they actually have to earn the money they need to survive.

Talking points. How is some stock market guy who pushes around papers for a living "earning" his money any more than someone who lives on government welfare?

Night Strike wrote:Imagine that, a completely irrelevant scenario to the situation at hand, especially with the final question you pose. By the way, I'd be neither person because I'm not stupid enough to use drugs.

Imagine that, a person who is not able to comprehend the concept of a hypothetical scenario.
Imagine also a person who is completely unable to put himself in the shoes of another person or to think from any other perspective but his own.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 5:52 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

Oh, I see. The fact that some people is not able to find a job means that you get to dictate how he lives his life, because you have been able to find a job. That makes perfect sense.

Phatscotty wrote:If your son earns 100$, he can probably spend it how he wishes. But if you give him 100$ to buy books for school, is it really unfair for you to ask your son to make sure the money is spent on books and not on a hooker?????

Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

you are simply confused. If you are dependent upon someone else for survival, it's hard (for you) to make a case that they are free or have any liberty. It's even harder to make the case that it's okay to blow money that is meant to help a family who is struggling get high on drugs.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 5:57 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
Night Strike wrote:The underlying belief is that there should be no welfare at all

Ok, explain this belief to me. How do you suggest those people who are unable to get a job should live?

If I may.....

Why do we need to suggest how someone should live their entire life? Why can't we just keep it that drugs are bad and drugs kill?

You can make your own decision with your own money. When someone else gives you money to feed your family, you should not have the right to decide to take that food money and spend it on drugs. That goes in the face of everything we are trying to do to help, does it not?

Why are you for the children starving while their parents are getting high and passed out on the couch? I'm not being facetious at all. This really is your position, and you even hurl vulgarities at me while you stand on it

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 5:57 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
Night Strike wrote:They live with their families and friends and do odd-end jobs until they are able to find a permanent job.

Oh wows, that fixes everything

Like it or not, we're not in the 18th century anymore. What if your friends and/or families are not willing or possible to support you? What if you can't get even "odd-end" jobs? You should just curl up and die?

Night Strike wrote: Listening to how all of the liberals view the helplessness of people, it's amazing how our country could have even survived before all of these big government programs.

Liberals this, conservatives that. Is there anything you don't view through your made up political dichotomies? Can you not think outside the political agendas for once and simply see people as people, not as "liberals" or "conservatives" or "us" or "them"?

As for your question, I'm not sure when your country started "big government programs", but I'm guessing after WWII? So, you know...in those times, a lot of people didn't survive. A lot more than today.

Night Strike wrote: Once people figure out they can't just siphon money off the government, they'll realize that they actually have to earn the money they need to survive.

Talking points. How is some stock market guy who pushes around papers for a living "earning" his money any more than someone who lives on government welfare?
,
Night Strike wrote:Imagine that, a completely irrelevant scenario to the situation at hand, especially with the final question you pose. By the way, I'd be neither person because I'm not stupid enough to use drugs.

Imagine that, a person who is not able to comprehend the concept of a hypothetical scenario.
Imagine also a person who is completely unable to put himself in the shoes of another person or to think from any other perspective but his own.

If your friends and family can't help, you rely on local churches and charities. When a severe drought hit an area in Texas in the 1800s (I forgot the exact year), the president refused to bailout the affected farmers. Instead, the community raised many more times the amount of money than the federal government would have given. People are better off when they are helped by other people, not when they are "helped" by the government.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the stock market (or why we have it in the first place), but their money doesn't rely on taxing it off other people. They make their money off investments, not be wealth redistribution. Plus they're working 40 hours a week to make their money, not sitting on a couch.

Your hypothetical scenario makes no sense, that's why it's uncomprehendable. I wouldn't want to be either person, so your scenario doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with a person inheriting money, and there's nothing wrong with a person being born into a poor family. What's wrong is their decision to do drugs. And if a person is making money off the taxes from another, then they should be accountable for their actions in order to receive the money. It's irrelevant what type of person they are. If you want money from the government, you have to be responsible.

Here's a REAL comparison. In order to qualify for federal education loans, the applicant must not have any drug convictions on their records. And that money has to be paid back! Why should a person who is getting free money NOT have to also have either a clean record or undergo drug testing?

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 6:50 pm**

Night Strike wrote:So you're saying, you don't really have a problem with others receiving free money, as long as you get to dictate how they spend it?

They live with their families and friends and do odd-end jobs until they are able to find a permanent job.[/quote]
What family? And how long are even good friends willing to put up with an extra person in their house? Also, what odd-jobs?

Night Strike wrote:Listening to how all of the liberals view the helplessness of people, it's amazing how our country could have even survived before all of these big government programs. Yet somehow it did for 150 years.

No, they did not. First, from almost the beginning there were things called "poor houses" and orphanages for kids.

Second, a LOT of people simply died -- starved/were injured/got sick, some went into bond servitude or similar type situations (many women wound up as hookers), OR took jobs that paid literal starvation wages and wound up killing them from injuries or poisoning, etc.

It is precisely because of those events that we do have the supports we have, have unions, have many other things.

Night Strike wrote:That fact always seems to evade big government people.

Nice phrase that means absolutely nothing. No one really wants big government. People want effective government. Right now, we need a bigger government than they did in 1776 because there is so much more for government to do.

Still, in proportion to the population... seems like you would be one of those complaining about the Louisiana purchase, etc. Sometimes just because something wasn't in the "original plan" doesn't meant its wrong.

Night Strike wrote:Once people figure out they can't just siphon money off the government, they'll realize that they actually have to earn the money they need to survive.

OH, yeah.. like those big corporations that pay little in taxes and yet depend very heavily on the entire infrastructure and largely free education system of this country.

Night Strike wrote:It's pretty sad how you all think people are so helpless today.

Sadder is people like you who absolutely refuse to study or learn from history... and who find it too convenient to ignore the real users in our society. Newsflash you could pay every welfare check in the country with the bail outs give to banks who had no problem giving out bad mortgages, leaving houses empty, etc, etc, etc.... and while you are quick to advocate putting drug users in jail (not disagreeing, note), you completely bypass as irrelevant that each and every one of those jerks is still out free and clear. Sure, they put Madoff in jail, and a couple of others, but not the many others who were involved and they system itself has not been changed. THAT is where the abuse of our country lies... the banks, the tax system. Welfare needs fixing, but its not what is driving our country to the brink of depression.

natty_dread wrote:Question: in this scenario, would you rather be Person A or B?

Imagine that, a completely irrelevant scenario to the situation at hand, especially with the final question you pose. By the way, I'd be neither person because I'm not stupid enough to use drugs.[/quote]
And just how did you get that knowledge?

Also, you don't know WHAT you would do if you were in very serious pain, lost children, or experienced any of the multiple tragedies that drive many honest, upstanding individuals to do things they,too, never thought they would do. Its easy to be high and mighty when things are going well.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 6:52 pm**

Where is BBS when we need him

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 7:04 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
If your friends and family can't help, you rely on local churches and charities. When a severe drought hit an area in Texas in the 1800s (I forgot the exact year), the president refused to bailout the affected farmers. Instead, the community raised many more times the amount of money than the federal government would have given. People are better off when they are helped by other people, not when they are "helped" by the government.

Nice try. Any concept of the money needed to keep a farm afloat TODAY???? Ever hear of "Farm Aid"? What happens today is that some old guy hangs onto his farm as long as possible, eeking out a living or maybe not really. Then as soon as he dies, his kids or nieces/nephews, other relatives sell it off to some big real estate broker and ensure there is far less farmland available.

Limited water? Farmers cannot afford to pay what housing developments can, so ... to bad. Sometimes that is legitimate. We have a lot of farmed acreage with crops that should not be grown on those patches, but more often its temporary gains for a few people that wind up turning, as an example, the state of CA from one of the world's biggest agricultural producers (If CA were a nation, it would have ranked as the 5th largest producer in the world back when Reagan was elected).

Night Strike wrote:I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the stock market (or why we have it in the first place), but their money doesn't rely on taxing it off other people. They make their money off investments, not be wealth redistribution.

LOL... please DO think a tad more about what you say. Stocks are pure weath redistribution, plain and simply.

Night Strike wrote:Plus they're working 40 hours a week to make their money, not sitting on a couch.

Actually, a lot of people on welfare work, not necessarily fulltime, but not by choice. Beyond that, a LOT of people who work fulltime get all kinds of non-welfare assistance... everything from reduced lunches for kids at school to free or reduced medical care (at least for the kids), to free childcare, etc, etc, etc,

Night Strike wrote:our hypothetical scenario makes no sense, that's why it's uncomprehendable. I wouldn't want to be either person, so your scenario doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with a person inheriting money, and there's nothing wrong with a person being born into a poor family. What's wrong is their decision to do drugs.

Agreed, but if you ignore why they get into drugs and insist on claiming they are just lazy idiots, then you never will find a real solution to the problem. Note, I am NOT saying drug users are justified, but to claim that making things hard for them will just instantly and "magically" make them into working people is stupid. What WILL happen is exactly what happened in the past... they will wind up on the streets, resort to crimes, and their kids will be thurst into what are often already overrun foster care systems, where they too often recieve even worse care than they would with their drug-using parents.

Night Strike wrote:And if a person is making money off the taxes from another, then they should be accountable for their actions in order to receive the money. It's irrelevant what type of person they are. If you want money from the government, you have to be responsible.

Agreed, but you repeatedly refuse to hold wealthy individuals and big businesses to that same standard.

Night Strike wrote:Here's a REAL comparison. In order to qualify for federal education loans, the applicant must not have any drug convictions on their records. And that money has to be paid back! Why should a person who is getting free money NOT have to also have either a clean record or undergo drug testing?

Ironically enough, part of that is already on the books. However, if you are going to deny anyone ever convicted of any drug conviction getting student loans, then you are saying that simply being caught with a small amount of marihuana or even cocaine is so much more henious than theft, even murder that unlike those crimes, drug use means a person should forever be condemened to poverty -- unlesss, of course they happen to be lucky enough to be born wealthy or launch into something like a lucartive acting career.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 7:07 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:sure they should, but not when they are living off someone else. There are conditions.

Oh, I see. The fact that some people is not able to find a job means that you get to dictate how he lives his life, because you have been able to find a job. That makes perfect sense.

Phatscotty wrote:If your son earns 100$, he can probably spend it how he wishes. But if you give him 100$ to buy books for school, is it really unfair for you to ask your son to make sure the money is spent on books and not on a hooker?????

Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

you are simply confused. If you are dependent upon someone else for survival, it's hard (for you) to make a case that they are free or have any liberty.

Now you are getting closer to the truth. See, the reality is that EVERYONE on earth depends on others for survival. Some people just admit it more than others. And yet, we still see liberty.

Phatscotty wrote:It's even harder to make the case that it's okay to blow money that is meant to help a family who is struggling get high on drugs.

No one here is saying that drugs are wonderful or that the people on drugs should not be "strongly encouraged" to change. The issue is that drugs are not the main reason for welfare dependance. Nor is cutting off welfare the best way to get people to reform. It just isn't. You have some kind of illusion that it will work, but no data at all supports what you claim.. in fact the opposite.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2011 11:26 pm**

the main difference is, the recipient did not earn the money. They only qualified for it. I understand the need and the concept, but nobody seems to respect the principle.

Anyone who does not use/abuse drugs will not be affected by this. Anyone who is using drugs will meet their moment of clarity when they must decide between getting another check or getting high. This is a good thing. If this issue concerned people spending their own money that they earned on drugs, I would agree it's none of my f'n business.

We should demand accountability in the dollars that are publicly spent just as we try to hold accountable public officials for their words and actions.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 1:13 am**

Night Strike wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

Where is the hypocrisy?

Where is the hypocricy? Let us count the ways...

The Tea Party believes in reducing government expenditures! Except when those expenditures go to something we want, in which case we are in favor of expanding them!

Personal freedom is vital to our economic sustainability! Except when that personal freedom has to do with something we don't like, in which case we do not support that freedom!

Well, there's two, at the very least. I'm simply stunned that you couldn't see them for yourself.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 1:20 am**

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

Where is the hypocrisy?

Where is the hypocricy? Let us count the ways...

The Tea Party believes in reducing government expenditures! Except when those expenditures go to something we want, in which case we are in favor of expanding them!

Personal freedom is vital to our economic sustainability! Except when that personal freedom has to do with something we don't like, in which case we do not support that freedom!

Well, there's two, at the very least. I'm simply stunned that you couldn't see them for yourself.

Entitlements are causing this country to go bankrupt. Welfare is an entitlement, so if we can save money by stopping the money flow to drug addicts, then we're improving our system. And it makes sense that if someone decides to live off the government's free money, then they need to be accountable for their actions. If I'm not allowed to have drugs due to borrowing money from the government that I will later have to return, then why should people who get free money be allowed to use drugs?

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 1:37 am**

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Phatscotty... you're such a fucking hypocrite. You preach for freedom and how the government should not interfere in your affairs, and let your make your own decisions. But apparently that only applies to things you think you should be able to do. You only care about your freedom to do as you like, screw anyone else's freedoms.

Where is the hypocrisy?

Where is the hypocricy? Let us count the ways...

The Tea Party believes in reducing government expenditures! Except when those expenditures go to something we want, in which case we are in favor of expanding them!

Personal freedom is vital to our economic sustainability! Except when that personal freedom has to do with something we don't like, in which case we do not support that freedom!

Well, there's two, at the very least. I'm simply stunned that you couldn't see them for yourself.

Entitlements are causing this country to go bankrupt.

Incorrect. Idiotic policies, a very few of which have anything to do with entitlements, are what are causing this country to go bankrupt. Entitlements really are NOT the problem. However, that is thoroughly irrelevant to the hypocricy.

Night Strike wrote:Welfare is an entitlement, so if we can save money by stopping the money flow to drug addicts, then we're improving our system.

And costing ourselves more money by doing so. And increasing the nanny state that you Tea Partiers keep railing about. And yet, this isn't hypocricy in your mind? How is that even possible?

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 2:30 am**

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Entitlements are causing this country to go bankrupt.

Incorrect. Idiotic policies, a very few of which have anything to do with entitlements, are what are causing this country to go bankrupt. Entitlements really are NOT the problem. However, that is thoroughly irrelevant to the hypocricy.

Wow. I am speechless that you could even say that.

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Social_Security_Worker_to_Beneficiary_Ratio.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/GAO_Slide.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Growth_Rates_GDP_vs._Entitlements.png[/bigimg]

But don't worry, we don't have any problem with entitlements. :roll:

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 4:26 am**

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Welfare is an entitlement, so if we can save money by stopping the money flow to drug addicts, then we're improving our system.

And costing ourselves more money by doing so. And increasing the nanny state that you Tea Partiers keep railing about. And yet, this isn't hypocricy in your mind? How is that even possible?

Night strike, it appears you forgot to respond to this part of woodruff's post. I'll just help you here by posting it again so you won't forget about it again.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 5:19 am**

I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.

Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 6:25 am**

radiojake wrote:I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.

Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

Why would you want to shoot miners?

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 7:08 am**

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Entitlements are causing this country to go bankrupt.

Incorrect. Idiotic policies, a very few of which have anything to do with entitlements, are what are causing this country to go bankrupt. Entitlements really are NOT the problem. However, that is thoroughly irrelevant to the hypocricy.

Wow. I am speechless that you could even say that.

But don't worry, we don't have any problem with entitlements.

The US federal deficit accounts for one third of all US federal spending. It is obvious there must be cuts. You could just completely eliminate medicaide and social security and ballance that budget, though that would be a pretty bad idea IMO. Either way if you really care about entitlement spending, I don't see why you'd be supporting something which will increase entitlement spending, either that or just decrease the amount actually reaching people that need it.

The proposal in OP would only increase the amount of bureaucratic leg work required to get welfare payment. So realy its all about increasing the overhead costs vs benefit payout.

It's really a question of whether you think it is worthwhile to spend time ,effort and money, ensuring welfare recipients don't get high. Personally I think the US has much more pressing issues.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 7:14 am**

Baron Von PWN wrote:
radiojake wrote:I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.

Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

Why would you want to shoot miners?

Mineral resource mining is destroying the environment.

Environment is primary - If we destroy it, there is no replacing it.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 7:58 am**

Phatscotty wrote:the main difference is, the recipient did not earn the money. They only qualified for it. I understand the need and the concept, but nobody seems to respect the principle.

By many measures, (a very old philisophical debate) someone who simply plops down large amounts of cash and sits back to collect, particularly if inherited or won through gambling in the stock market don't earn their money, either. They have not worked for their living. That is one reason (of many) why many people are happy to tax these inheritances and other such gains more heavily than earned income. (not saying I agree, but they are valid debates).

Phatscotty wrote:Anyone who does not use/abuse drugs will not be affected by this.

I see, so you would be in favor of anyone using drugs losing their inheritances, stock options and other unearned income?

But the real issue is you are just wrong. Welfare is there because we all ARE impacted when there are bunches of starving people about, particularly when kids are left untended, but even when adults aren't funded. Great way to increase crime, sickness, etc.

Phatscotty wrote:Anyone who is using drugs will meet their moment of clarity when they must decide between getting another check or getting high.

If they were thinking that logically, they probably would not be taking the drugs to begin with.

Newsflash.. MOST people using drugs do work. They might, in some cases, not perform as well as those who don't take drugs (ironically the opposite can be true, for a time, which is why cocaine has swept through the higher income individuals). People on welfare just don't have enough money to buy huge amounts of drugs. When they do partake, it tends to be achohol, cigarettes and sometimes Marihuana. Those involved in the heavy drugs are more likely to be criminals, not on welfare.

Phatscotty wrote:This is a good thing. If this issue concerned people spending their own money that they earned on drugs, I would agree it's none of my f'n business.

Agreed, but your idea of what will happen is just wrong... and this is not a guess.

Phatscotty wrote:We should demand accountability in the dollars that are publicly spent just as we try to hold accountable public officials for their words and actions.

Agreed... and let's start with those CEOs of banks that took our tax dollars then instantly decided to change everyone's credit card "agreements" so that virtually everyone saw increased interest rates, late fees assessed in error, etc.

Let's require that ALL businesses, except starter businesses, pay a wage that will allow people to live without getting taxpayer subsidies. Let's require any business NOT doing that to subtract those costs from future earnings, to pay back taxpayers for the largess before they are allowed to collect profit. Let's require companies producing things to pay for, even ensure there are provisions for disposal of those goods. Let's require each state and municipality to deal with their own trash. Don't ship NY trash to rural PA just because some landowner sees selling to a waste disposal company as a good way to make a buck. Require that any such plan considers the impacts beyond 500 years, not just a mere 20 or so.

YEP... LET's DO require responsibility, but responsibility for all, not just those who have the misfortune to not be born wealthy.

Posted: **Mon May 09, 2011 8:11 am**

radiojake wrote:I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

This is another good philisophical debate. Not sure I agree with the categories you have drawn below, but yes, it should matter whether you are producing needed food, particularly in an environmentally responsible manner, healing/teaching people or simply selling some plastic gimic. Maybe the gimics ought to be taxed a bit higher. (but then you have to define gimics versus need).

radiojake wrote: Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.

To follow this line, they may be worse, because they are using resources that could go to other, better needs (like fuel, etc.), taking up space that could go to producing other goods or agriculture, and then leave us with a pollution that future generations will have to deal with.

radiojake wrote:Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

You bring up an interesting line of reasoning, but I cannot agree fully with your categories. McDonalds is not the best or healthiest food, but it is food and recently has moved toward more environmentally sustainable production options. They no longer use styrofoam, for example. They absolutely can improve, but compared to the companies putting out GMOs without truly testing them the way they should (given the very long term impact of any error/problem), etc, etc.... not so bad.

Mining is a different category, but I definitely draw a distinction between those working in mines and the owners who decide policies, locations, etc. Miners do work, and we do depend on the minerals they bring up. They could be brought up in a more environmentally respectful manner, but saying they are simply "users" means you ignore the true fact that we all depend on the minerals they bring.

Even advertising, has to be qualified. Some advertising is education and good. Its just that too often that gets distorted. But, I believe controlling that heavily causes even more harm. Laws need to regulate honesty (basically), but opinions are all valid.

Conquer Club

D.T.W.A.

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Re: Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients