Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

[danarhea]

What they ought to do is make me King.

I would put all those non-working welfare mother****er's to work growing recreational and medicinal marijuana from coast to coast. I would put some them to work, watching the kids of the others, so the others could go to work. And I would pay them with powdered milk, peanut butter, flour, sugar, cheese and canned meat and free bus passes.

It's great to be King.

In Texas, you'd better throw in free passes to the Rodeo, if you don't want a riot. LOL.

 

[HenryChinaski]

What they ought to do is make me King.

I would put all those non-working welfare mother****er's to work growing recreational and medicinal marijuana from coast to coast. I would put some them to work, watching the kids of the others, so the others could go to work. And I would pay them with powdered milk, peanut butter, flour, sugar, cheese and canned meat and free bus passes.

It's great to be King.

Hey Tommy Chong is it true that all the drugs portrayed in your movies were real?

 

[Captain America]

In Texas, you'd better throw in free passes to the Rodeo, if you don't want a riot. LOL.

Give them an option: Call it a Christmas bonus.

1. Tickets to the Houston Fat Stock Show and Rodeo
2. New pair of counterfeit Nike's.
3. Some cough syrup, Fango Mango and Skittles and a red solo cup.
4. A case of corn husks and a free tattoo of El Chapo.

Pick one. Make everybody happy.

 

[RAMOSS]

Way to tarnish a whole population based on the actions of a few. I guess all New Yorkers are in the Mafia, and where you are from? Louisiana? Don't even get me started. I have heard that humans don't even live there. :mrgreen:

Well, people in general aren't the smartest.. but in Texas, things get exaggerated.

 

[katzgar]

Your desire to pay for druggies other peoples money is immoral.

your created reality is unnecessarily expensive.

 

[katzgar]

Way to tarnish a whole population based on the actions of a few. I guess all New Yorkers are in the Mafia, and where you are from? Louisiana? Don't even get me started. I have heard that humans don't even live there. :mrgreen:

:fart

 

[JayDubya]

There's that conservative compassion we've all come to love.

You define "compassion" stupidly.

 

[JayDubya]

But don't you dare abort because you don't have the finances to raise a child!!!!

Did this parse as a rational or coherent thought in your brain rather than the stupid unrelated nonsense which made it to this post I see before me?

Is this the product of some kind of disconnect, or is this drivel intentional?

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, if Uncle Sam cuts your tax bill by $5 or gives you $5 in cash, you don't care which

That's a big negatory, good buddy.

I most certainly care which. Cutting my tax bill means I get to keep the money I worked for. Giving me $5 in cash is nice, but it doesn't come with the satisfaction of knowing I earned the money. I most certainly do care which and so do most people who believe in the mantra of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

Sure there are, lots won't be drug users either, others will drink instead of smoke pot. We accept a bit of fraud when we do programs like this or any other.

I disagree with this mentality. It's understandable to understand fraud can/will occur, but never should we accept it.

We set guidelines for qualifying for aid, and for some reason, for programs for the poor, but not for others, we add ANOTHER condition which is pass a drug test.

We put conditions on financial assistance on so many things. Schools, for example, have to meet MANY conditions and qualifiers in order to get state and federal aid. That's just one example. There are many more.

unless it's to satisfy people who'd just as rather cut off all aid to the deadbeats and drug testing is one way to do that.

I think it's important to differentiate about who we're speaking. You used the best word, "deadbeats". We absolutely should limit, if not remove, aid from deadbeats. If you aren't working and contributing back to society, then why should society subsidize your lifestyle choice, especially if you use illegal substances? I don't see any reason in the world those people should be subsidized.

Financial assistance should be used to help people when they need a hand up and to ensure a child doesn't go hungry. Those who are purchasing and consuming illegal substances do not qualify under those conditions. And, at the end of the day, if the only thing which is asked of you to receive a share of our community's money is to pee in a cup, then you should be grateful your community is willing to assist you. Or, if you find peeing in a cup disgusting/revolting/disrespectful, then choose not to take the money.

No one is forcing those who receive assistance to receive assistance. It's requested. It's not too much to ask that those who receive assistance are not wasting their money on substances which do not provide a benefit to society.

My question is what's the point

To ensure the people receiving aid actually need it.

except to waste a bunch of taxpayer money and send some sweet drug testing contracts to some connected firms?

Assuming little to no cost difference, I'd rather send my money to a drug testing firm than to someone who is spending their money on drugs. Why? Because spending money on firms provide people jobs and allow us to see money come back to us in the form of tax dollars. Spending our money on those who spend THEIR money on drugs provides virtually zero additional money back into society.

What we're really saying here is we want recipients to spend money wisely, but unless we audit every penny they spend, there is no way to enforce this.

We are saying that, and we agree we cannot keep them from spending their own money unwisely. Drug testing isn't going to stop the recipient from using their government aid to buy food so they can spend their own money on lottery tickets and cigarettes. I understand that entirely.

But, again, those things are legal (and taxed). THAT is a line we can enforce.

The whole thing just smacks of a weird form or puritanism but only for what 'drug' they might use.

It's not about puritanism, it's about following the law and respecting the assistance you've been given.

Simply that if there is a 'welfare' recipient with a drug problem, there are all kinds of places for that to be detected, including with their children's school officials, welfare workers, the police, whatever.

And now, theoretically, there would be one more way. :shrug:

I recall you're a teacher*snip for character count*

I am a teacher and I do not have regular drug tests as part of my job. However, many professions do and that is accepted in society. Professional sports is likely the most notable example.

At the end of the day, assuming the costs are roughly the same, there's not a good argument against this. Other people have to take drug tests as conditions for employment. These people are being given free money that they did not have to work for. If one of the conditions for receiving this assistance is that they have to succumb to the same testing other people have to for work, then I fail to see the problem.

 

[Slyfox696]

If i get a tax cut, that's, from my view, free money for the government. Does that justify subjecting everyone who may qualify for the tax cut to a drug test for you?

A tax cut is not giving you money from the government, a tax cut is the government saying they are not taking as much of the money you earned away from you.

They are not the same things at all. I work hard for my money and if the government says they don't as much of my money as they used to, then I get to keep more of what I worked hard for. People who are receiving financial aid from the government didn't work for the money they are being given. They may work another job or two or three, but the money they are receiving from the government comes without earning it.

It's a big difference.

What, about welfare, justifies assuming the recipients are scumbags?

Is it your opinion all professional athletes in all the major sports are scumbags? How about anyone who applies for a job, are they scumbags?

My point is why do you think advocating for drug testing means recipients are scumbags? Millions of people get drug tested. I feel as if you are propagating a stigma which isn't necessary in this situation.

Well now this gets confusing. Whether they admit to you that it's degrading or not doesn't change the fact that it's degrading.

Why is receiving assistance degrading? I know many people who don't feel it is degrading, they feel it is just helping them in their time of need.

Why do you insist that receiving governmental assistance should be degrading? I don't understand that.

they are aware that they cannot stand "on their own two feet"

At the moment, yes. But there's nothing stopping them from being able to do so later in life.

I'm sorry, I simply disagree with your assessment that one should be ashamed of receiving governmental aid. I live in a fairly poor area and there are many people who have or do receive government aid. I've known a few different people who simply lost their jobs and were unable to find a new one. That wasn't their fault and they have nothing to be ashamed about. I'm actually a little put out by the idea they should feel ashamed because of circumstances which were beyond their control. They couldn't help that the plant they worked for cut jobs or that their position was eliminated by the company. It wasn't their fault so many companies were hesitant to hire during the last several years.

Receiving assistance should not be seen as degrading. And I do not like that you want it to be seen that way. It is most definitely undesirable, but not degrading.

Your metaphor is poor.

No, it's not, at least not in the way you mean it. It's poor in the way that pro athletes are actually earning the money they are being given, but it's not poor in the idea that being required to take a drug test does not assume guilt.

 

[JasperL]

That's a big negatory, good buddy.

No it's math. Congress can deliver benefits two ways - cut taxes, or write a check. They're equivalent.

I most certainly care which. Cutting my tax bill means I get to keep the money I worked for. Giving me $5 in cash is nice, but it doesn't come with the satisfaction of knowing I earned the money. I most certainly do care which and so do most people who believe in the mantra of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

OK, good effort! You get a paycheck for your work. Whether Congress decides to subsidize the mortgage payments on your house in the suburbs, but doesn't give me a subsidy because we paid off our mortgage, or some apartment renter, has nothing to do with your honest day's work.

I disagree with this mentality. It's understandable to understand fraud can/will occur, but never should we accept it.

I just mean that 'fraud' in any large program is inevitable. And efforts to combat fraud have to meet some cost/benefit burden.

We put conditions on financial assistance on so many things. Schools, for example, have to meet MANY conditions and qualifiers in order to get state and federal aid. That's just one example. There are many more.

And 'welfare' recipients have to meet many conditions and qualifiers. You support adding another for them - drug testing. Why not subject all teachers to drug testing every year - my tax dollars pay their salary!

I think it's important to differentiate about who we're speaking. You used the best word, "deadbeats". We absolutely should limit, if not remove, aid from deadbeats. If you aren't working and contributing back to society, then why should society subsidize your lifestyle choice, especially if you use illegal substances? I don't see any reason in the world those people should be subsidized.

You're proving the point that you are opposed to the aid from the start, and drug testing is just an excuse. Why not if they buy an iPhone or go to the movies or buy new clothes?

Financial assistance should be used to help people when they need a hand up and to ensure a child doesn't go hungry. Those who are purchasing and consuming illegal substances do not qualify under those conditions. And, at the end of the day, if the only thing which is asked of you to receive a share of our community's money is to pee in a cup, then you should be grateful your community is willing to assist you. Or, if you find peeing in a cup disgusting/revolting/disrespectful, then choose not to take the money.

Fine, then you have no problem lining up to pee in a cup to take your mortgage deduction, right? After all, you should be grateful that I subsidize your mortgage payment and peeing in a cup is a small price to pay for my subsidy of your housing choice! Or you can just not take the deduction!

But, again, those things are legal (and taxed). THAT is a line we can enforce.

So it's all about taxes? :roll:

And now, theoretically, there would be one more way. :shrug:

I am a teacher and I do not have regular drug tests as part of my job.

Then you understand that drug testing ALL teachers as a condition of yearly employment to catch the tiny few who are drug users would be a waste, an unnecessary burden both on your time and your privacy, and why the hell should I care if you or another teacher smokes a joint on the weekend so long as they come to work sober?

At the end of the day, assuming the costs are roughly the same, there's not a good argument against this. Other people have to take drug tests as conditions for employment. These people are being given free money that they did not have to work for. If one of the conditions for receiving this assistance is that they have to succumb to the same testing other people have to for work, then I fail to see the problem.

But you've not offered a good reason FOR it, other than taxes....

 

[JasperL]

A tax cut is not giving you money from the government, a tax cut is the government saying they are not taking as much of the money you earned away from you.

They are not the same things at all. I work hard for my money and if the government says they don't as much of my money as they used to, then I get to keep more of what I worked hard for. People who are receiving financial aid from the government didn't work for the money they are being given. They may work another job or two or three, but the money they are receiving from the government comes without earning it.

I'll just say that if I was King for a day, every 5 years or so I'd 1) do away with tax withholding, so that everyone has to write a check to IRS for ALL their income and payroll taxes every quarter so they can feel the pain of paying taxes. I'd also 2) eliminate all tax deductions/credits and covert them to equivalent government grants. So those getting tax free employer provided healthcare (aka untaxed wages), taking dependent care exceptions and credits, adoption credits, mortgage deductions, higher education credits, charitable contribution deductions. etc. have to assemble the receipts, summarize them, send them to Uncle Sam, then wait on their government CHECK, so that this nonsense that special tax deductions are somehow different than grants is forever squashed and taxpayers would finally have to recognize that their special deductions/credits for doing stuff Congress decides gets special treatment is a subsidy of their lifestyle by other taxpayers.

It's a big difference.

The difference is of course we all believe we EARN our special tax breaks, and it's those other people who are getting undeserved loopholes and taxpayers subsidies!

 

[JasperL]

I'm sorry, I simply disagree with your assessment that one should be ashamed of receiving governmental aid. I live in a fairly poor area and there are many people who have or do receive government aid. I've known a few different people who simply lost their jobs and were unable to find a new one. That wasn't their fault and they have nothing to be ashamed about. I'm actually a little put out by the idea they should feel ashamed because of circumstances which were beyond their control. They couldn't help that the plant they worked for cut jobs or that their position was eliminated by the company. It wasn't their fault so many companies were hesitant to hire during the last several years.

Receiving assistance should not be seen as degrading. And I do not like that you want it to be seen that way. It is most definitely undesirable, but not degrading.

This is a really key difference in our positions here. As I see it, mandatory drug testing is almost by definition degrading. It's a signal that society believes one of two things - 1) you don't deserve any aid because if you spend any on drugs you clearly are not significantly in need, or 2) it cannot trust you (the recipient) to not blow the assistance on drugs, and so we are going to treat you like children and make you take a drug test to force better choices on you. Either way, it's society telling you that it will put invasions of your privacy as a condition on receiving benefits because it doesn't trust you.

 

[Absentglare]

A tax cut is not giving you money from the government, a tax cut is the government saying they are not taking as much of the money you earned away from you.

They are not the same things at all. I work hard for my money and if the government says they don't as much of my money as they used to, then I get to keep more of what I worked hard for. People who are receiving financial aid from the government didn't work for the money they are being given. They may work another job or two or three, but the money they are receiving from the government comes without earning it.

It's a big difference.

In terms of economics, they are indistinguishable. A government handout puts deficit pressure on the budget. A tax cut puts deficit pressure on the budget. Both give money to the recipient.

A change in the tax code that favors some acts as a handout to those people. The wealthy have been making more money not because they are personally more productive, but because they are receiving the monetary compensation from gains in productivity that result from advances like automation and policies like tax cuts.

And these are extremely lucrative pay raises, far more than the meager sums doled out to welfare recipients. Why shouldn't we drug test all recipients of all forms of public assistance (which includes everyone)?

Is it your opinion all professional athletes in all the major sports are scumbags? How about anyone who applies for a job, are they scumbags?

You aren't being honest about the purpose of the drug test. In the case of the athlete, it is to ensure the legitimacy of the performance. However, in the case of welfare recipients, what is the purpose? It is to revoke benefits for drug users.

Why? Why are welfare recipients ALONE given this burden?

My point is why do you think advocating for drug testing means recipients are scumbags? Millions of people get drug tested. I feel as if you are propagating a stigma which isn't necessary in this situation.

Again, intent.

Why is receiving assistance degrading? I know many people who don't feel it is degrading, they feel it is just helping them in their time of need.

Why do you insist that receiving governmental assistance should be degrading? I don't understand that.

I don't think that it should be, i think that it is. Being self sustaining is satisfying for humans. That's just a fact. Welfare necessarily gives the impression that the recipient is not self sustaining.

At the moment, yes. But there's nothing stopping them from being able to do so later in life.

I'm sorry, I simply disagree with your assessment that one should be ashamed of receiving governmental aid. I live in a fairly poor area and there are many people who have or do receive government aid. I've known a few different people who simply lost their jobs and were unable to find a new one. That wasn't their fault and they have nothing to be ashamed about. I'm actually a little put out by the idea they should feel ashamed because of circumstances which were beyond their control. They couldn't help that the plant they worked for cut jobs or that their position was eliminated by the company. It wasn't their fault so many companies were hesitant to hire during the last several years.

Receiving assistance should not be seen as degrading. And I do not like that you want it to be seen that way. It is most definitely undesirable, but not degrading.

See above.

No, it's not, at least not in the way you mean it. It's poor in the way that pro athletes are actually earning the money they are being given, but it's not poor in the idea that being required to take a drug test does not assume guilt.

It sure does.

"All the literature written on the question of suspicionless drug testing of welfare recipients have come to the same conclusion that such testing violates the Fourth Amendment. "

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2212509

 

[Slyfox696]

No it's math. Congress can deliver benefits two ways - cut taxes, or write a check. They're equivalent.

Only if you ascribe to the theory that all currency belongs to the government and it is only through their grace we get to have any of it.

It's a theory which merits discussion, but it's not a common outlook amongst Americans. The prevailing opinion of Americans, by far, is that we earn money through work and then contribute some of what we earn to the government for the greater good. In that case, letting us keep more of our own money is not the same as giving money to others.

OK, good effort! You get a paycheck for your work.

Exactly. I earned my money. It wasn't given to me for nothing in exchange.

Whether Congress decides to subsidize the mortgage payments on your house in the suburbs, but doesn't give me a subsidy because we paid off our mortgage, or some apartment renter, has nothing to do with your honest day's work.

But it is the distinction between tax cuts and giving money for no work. It's a pretty simple concept, not sure why you think earning money and getting to keep it is the same as not earning anything but getting money anyways.

And 'welfare' recipients have to meet many conditions and qualifiers. You support adding another for them - drug testing. Why not subject all teachers to drug testing every year - my tax dollars pay their salary!

As I've already said before:
A) I'm not being given money for free, I'm working for my money.
B) I'd have no problem taking a pee test and, if I did have a problem, I could quit and get another job.

If I have no problem with it, why should those who receive money for nothing? And if they do have a problem with it, then why can they not simply refuse to take the money?

You're essentially trying to justify it being okay for someone to spend their money on illegal substances and still get money for doing nothing. I understand it's not your only position (cost being the other), but this part of your post is basically saying it is okay to waste the money of hard working people, all so those who are getting money for nothing don't have to be inconvenienced in ways so many of the rest of us are.

This is not a good argument for you. You should stick with the cost argument, as it is a much more sound argument.

You're proving the point that you are opposed to the aid from the start

Except I'm not opposed to it. I've said that numerous times in this thread and numerous times on this forum.

Fine, then you have no problem lining up to pee in a cup to take your mortgage deduction, right?

We've covered this. Not taking my money is not the same as giving me money.

peeing in a cup is a small price to pay for my subsidy of your housing choice! Or you can just not take the deduction!

Ignoring the difference in the situations I've repeatedly noted, it that were the law, then those would be my two options. I'm not entitled to a mortgage deduction anymore than one is entitled to governmental assistance.

I appreciate your attempt trying to catch me in hypocrisy, but it isn't going to work. You should probably stop trying.

So it's all about taxes?

It's about a lot of things which I've mentioned.

Then you understand that drug testing ALL teachers as a condition of yearly employment

We've covered the differences many times as well as how I feel about it.

But you've not offered a good reason FOR it, other than taxes....

I've offered numerous good reasons for it.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'll just say that if I was King for a day*snip for post count*

If this is how you'd spend your day as king, you should really learn to think bigger.

In regards to what you said, I think I can respond to the next part as an appropriate response.

The difference is of course we all believe we EARN our special tax breaks, and it's those other people who are getting undeserved loopholes and taxpayers subsidies!

I believe you are misunderstanding. I'm not saying I've EARNED a mortgage deduction or anything else. That's not my argument.

Let's pretend I'm me and you are someone receiving government aid. My argument is that I EARNED my paycheck. I EARNED currency in exchange for my labor. If the government says "last year you paid 20% of your income in taxes, but this year you only have to pay 18%", the government is NOT giving me money. The money I have to live on is directly tied to the labor I provided. If the government only charges 18% in taxes, then I'm getting to keep more of the money I earned.

But if the government gives you $300 a month, you didn't earn that (please understand I'm only talking about the assistance, I'm well aware many people who receive money also work). You did not provide a service or a good to society to get that $300. You contributed nothing into society. The money you received is a result of other people's labor. For all intents and purposes, you essentially grew money on a tree. You didn't EARN anything.

That's the difference. I work for my money. In exchange for a paycheck, I provide an education to students (as well as tech work, which is how I can post on here during the day...I watch a LOT of green bars go across screens). If the government did not collect anything in taxes, and I made $300 a month, I would still have that $300 because of what I contributed to society. But you didn't contribute anything into society and still got $300.

That's the difference. I'm not saying I've EARNED a tax break, I'm saying I earned the money the government is no longer collecting. You didn't. You didn't earn your $300, it was taken from other people who did earn their money and given to you.

This is a really key difference in our positions here. As I see it, mandatory drug testing is almost by definition degrading.

Then we definitely disagree. Mandatory drug testing is required for employment in many jobs and is a condition of employment for many jobs. Many companies have random drug testing policies and some (like pro athletes, for example) have a regular drug testing policies.

I see no reason why something which is common in society as a condition to receiving income should be considered degrading for those seeking an addition to their income.

 

[Slyfox696]

In terms of economics, they are indistinguishable.

Completely false. In terms of a government budget, they might be budget neutral, but in economics, they are completely different.

A government handout puts deficit pressure on the budget. A tax cut puts deficit pressure on the budget. Both give money to the recipient.

No, they do not. One increases government expenditures and the other decreases government revenue. They do not both give money to the recipient.

When I go to work, the government is not giving me money, my employer does. If the government chooses not to take the money I earned from my employer, the government isn't giving me money, they are choosing to not take my money. But for those who receive assistance, the government is quite literally giving them money.

It is completely different.

You aren't being honest about the purpose of the drug test. In the case of the athlete, it is to ensure the legitimacy of the performance. However, in the case of welfare recipients, what is the purpose? It is to revoke benefits for drug users.

You're engaging in a red herring. I asked you if you think all professional athletes are scumbags because they take a drug test. Are all prospective employees scumbags because they take a drug test?

If you don't think athletes or prospective employees are scumbags, why should you feel those needing assistance are scumbags? I submit you are injecting your own personal prejudice into this discussion.

Why? Why are welfare recipients ALONE given this burden?

They are not alone, I've already noted that millions of people submit to a drug test in order to receive money (and in those cases, they do it to EARN money, not have it given to them).

Again, intent.

The intent is to preserve the integrity of the system, just as you claimed to be the reason athletes get tested.

I don't think that it should be, i think that it is.

But it's not to everyone. In fact, to many people it is not degrading. Undesirable? Sure, but not degrading. It seems to me you are pushing your own beliefs onto others.

Being self sustaining is satisfying for humans. That's just a fact. Welfare necessarily gives the impression that the recipient is not self sustaining.

They aren't self-sustaining at that time. That's the entire point of assistance, that they cannot make ends meet on their own. But receiving assistance temporarily says NOTHING about their long-term ability to be self-sustaining. If there is a stigma attached to receiving assistance, it is a stigma created by those who abuse the system.

We're working to remove one of the potentials for abuse.

It sure does.

No, it does not. Testing does not assume guilt.

 

[Absentglare]

Completely false. In terms of a government budget, they might be budget neutral, but in economics, they are completely different.

No, they do not. One increases government expenditures and the other decreases government revenue. They do not both give money to the recipient.

When I go to work, the government is not giving me money, my employer does. If the government chooses not to take the money I earned from my employer, the government isn't giving me money, they are choosing to not take my money. But for those who receive assistance, the government is quite literally giving them money.

It is completely different.

You seem to have no idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps you are not aware that the government enforced the conditions for the income to be generated in the first place.

Both a direct disbursement and a tax cut have the same net impact. They simply originate from different funds.

You're engaging in a red herring. I asked you if you think all professional athletes are scumbags because they take a drug test. Are all prospective employees scumbags because they take a drug test?

Athletes are different, the performance is deemed illegitimate if drugs are used. Totally different scenario, you should abandon your comprehensive failure of an analogy.

Prospective employees is actually a valid analogy. They are, in fact, treated as potential scumbags, with the drug test playing the role of filtering those scumbags. Ironically, drug tests are notoriously bad at this, as hard drugs like cocaine and crystal meth don't stay in the system long while drugs like marijuana do. The fundamental problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a private voluntary employment contract with a public service.

If you don't think athletes or prospective employees are scumbags, why should you feel those needing assistance are scumbags? I submit you are injecting your own personal prejudice into this discussion.

I think you're really confused. I don't think they're scumbags, and i'm happy to provide them assistance. I think that assistance should be provided in an efficient manner which means eliminating government waste like unnecessary drug tests. Drug tests do not measure whether a welfare recipient will be responsible or not. I think this is your issue, where you think drug use makes people bad. It seems that your prejudice and your stigma about drug use has led you to this view.

They are not alone, I've already noted that millions of people submit to a drug test in order to receive money (and in those cases, they do it to EARN money, not have it given to them).

That's a right wing rhetorical point that is essentially meaningless. You could argue that Bill Gates and Martin Shkreli "EARNED" money, while people like Steve Wozniak and Gertrude Elion did not. Of course, you can only do this if you apply circular logic.

Your circular logic is that the legal acquisition of money is deserved. They deserved the money if they legally acquired it.

Ironically, the implicit aspect of your argument is that welfare recipients didn't EARN it and therefore deserve your measure of scorn. Strange, i thought you were accusing me of attaching stigma, then you denied that stigma exists, and yet here you confirm said stigma.

The intent is to preserve the integrity of the system, just as you claimed to be the reason athletes get tested.

Good, so explain to me how a welfare recipient who has used a drug jeopardizes the integrity of the welfare system.

But it's not to everyone. In fact, to many people it is not degrading. Undesirable? Sure, but not degrading. It seems to me you are pushing your own beliefs onto others.
They aren't self-sustaining at that time. That's the entire point of assistance, that they cannot make ends meet on their own. But receiving assistance temporarily says NOTHING about their long-term ability to be self-sustaining. If there is a stigma attached to receiving assistance, it is a stigma created by those who abuse the system.

We're working to remove one of the potentials for abuse.

No, it does not. Testing does not assume guilt.

I'm happy to spend more on welfare, just not on wasteful, useless, unjustified things like drug tests. One of those things makes our society more productive, the other penalizes those who are most vulnerable.

Testing does assume. I don't understand, have you never heard of search and seizure? I find it hard to believe that "Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Suspicion" are unfamiliar to you.

 

[JasperL]

Only if you ascribe to the theory that all currency belongs to the government and it is only through their grace we get to have any of it.

It's a theory which merits discussion, but it's not a common outlook amongst Americans. The prevailing opinion of Americans, by far, is that we earn money through work and then contribute some of what we earn to the government for the greater good. In that case, letting us keep more of our own money is not the same as giving money to others.

If it's an across the board tax cut - such as in marginal rates, I agree. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'll stick with housing. We taxpayers subsidize mortgage payments, but not rent payments or the cost of a residence for people like my wife and I who paid off their mortgage. So some people get a special tax break by meeting some conditions set by Congress - borrowing for a house, but not for a car or to pay for their TV on their credit card. The bottom line is taxpayers are cutting a check to people with a mortgage, subsidizing their home purchase, but NOT subsidizing other living arrangements. I as a taxpayer AM giving money to others - those with a mortgage and the bigger the mortgage, the more I'm paying them for their big house.

But it is the distinction between tax cuts and giving money for no work. It's a pretty simple concept, not sure why you think earning money and getting to keep it is the same as not earning anything but getting money anyways.

How did you "earn" a subsidy for borrowing to buy your house? Why should I pay part of your mortgage every month, but NOT part of the rent for some family who rents a double wide?

As I've already said before:
A) I'm not being given money for free, I'm working for my money.
B) I'd have no problem taking a pee test and, if I did have a problem, I could quit and get another job.

That's good I guess, and I'd just say that if/when lawmakers voluntarily to submit to drug tests for their pay and benefits, I won't have a leg to stand on.

If I have no problem with it, why should those who receive money for nothing? And if they do have a problem with it, then why can they not simply refuse to take the money?

Obviously that's the choice - take the tests or forego the benefits. What we're debating is whether forcing welfare recipients, but not SBA loan recipients or those who take mortgage deductions or who get farm subsidies to take drug tests is good policy. I don't think it is because we KNOW very few fail the tests, and it is therefore a mostly pointless and costly invasion of privacy with no discernible benefit.

You're essentially trying to justify it being okay for someone to spend their money on illegal substances and still get money for doing nothing. I understand it's not your only position (cost being the other), but this part of your post is basically saying it is okay to waste the money of hard working people, all so those who are getting money for nothing don't have to be inconvenienced in ways so many of the rest of us are.

My basic position is these people qualify for the money, and once they do we treat them as adults and trust them to spend it wisely. If we don't trust them, we can audit their spending and cut them off for drugs, iPhones, tattoos, new jeans, and all the other ways it's possible to unwisely spend their money.

This is not a good argument for you. You should stick with the cost argument, as it is a much more sound argument.

Ignoring the difference in the situations I've repeatedly noted, it that were the law, then those would be my two options. I'm not entitled to a mortgage deduction anymore than one is entitled to governmental assistance.

Of course, but we're debating whether we SHOULD put conditions on you taking a mortgage deduction that have nothing to do with whether you qualify for a mortgage deduction. For goodness sake, a child rapist can qualify for a mortgage deduction - why should I subsidize the housing for a child rapist? Do you want your tax dollars doing to child rapists?

I appreciate your attempt trying to catch me in hypocrisy, but it isn't going to work. You should probably stop trying.

Not really trying to catch YOU in hypocrisy, but rather pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in the position. If we want to condition all government benefits on being drug free, GREAT! But what I'm missing is the compelling reason to condition benefits for the poor on passing a periodic drug test but not imposing the same burden on everyone else who gets government aid.

 

[JasperL]

If this is how you'd spend your day as king, you should really learn to think bigger.

In regards to what you said, I think I can respond to the next part as an appropriate response.

I believe you are misunderstanding. I'm not saying I've EARNED a mortgage deduction or anything else. That's not my argument.

Let's pretend I'm me and you are someone receiving government aid. My argument is that I EARNED my paycheck. I EARNED currency in exchange for my labor. If the government says "last year you paid 20% of your income in taxes, but this year you only have to pay 18%", the government is NOT giving me money. The money I have to live on is directly tied to the labor I provided. If the government only charges 18% in taxes, then I'm getting to keep more of the money I earned.

OK, but let's say the government passes the Suburban Home Buying Assistance Act and it provides grants of up to $20,000 per year to home buyers, with the largest grants going to the richest taxpayers buying the biggest houses, with few to no grants going to the poor. Your neighbor buys a lake house, borrows $1 million, 6% interest, 60,000 interest per year, 30% rate. So he applies for and gets a government check of $18,000 per year, every year. His neighbor paid cash for his lake house and doesn't qualify for a grant.

Is the guy with a big mortgage "keeping more of what he earned?" I don't think so. What I see is I'm paying for part of that guy's big house on the lake!! Why don't I qualify for a grant - I have a house??!!

I'm going to quote your response to someone else:

No, they do not. One increases government expenditures and the other decreases government revenue. They do not both give money to the recipient.

The effect is identical. If you save $100 in taxes, or if you get a government check for $100, you're better off in both cases by the same $100, and the government must collect the same $100 in taxes or cut spending by $100.

 

[Slyfox696]

Jasper, I'll respond to yours later when I get a chance. And I haven't had a chance to proofread, so I apologize for any errors which are confusing.

You seem to have no idea what you're talking about here.

No, I absolutely understand. I don't think you understand.

You're looking at it ONLY from the perspective of the government balance sheet, in which case a tax deduction and aid would be the same. But that is NOT how you need to look at it. Government aid can only be handed out if people pay taxes. People can only pay taxes if they earn money. But financial aid is NOT earning money, it is receiving money for nothing in exchange.

The only way someone can receive aid is if the rest of us labor. If the government takes LESS money earned from labor, that means I'm keeping more of what my labor earned me. That is NOT the same thing as giving aid to someone who did not earn it.

Perhaps you are not aware that the government enforced the conditions for the income to be generated in the first place.

It doesn't matter what the government does or does not enforce (and I could come up with many scenarios where this statement is wrong). What DOES matter is that income is not generated without labor. If I do not go to work, I do not make money. I make money because I work for it.

A tax cut and an offer of free aid is not at all the same thing.

Both a direct disbursement and a tax cut have the same net impact.

Only on the government balance sheet. But that is NOT the issue here at all.

They simply originate from different funds.

No, a tax cut does not "originate" from any funds. A tax cut is a decrease in funding. You cannot originate something which doesn't exist. You are not looking at this correctly at all.

Athletes are different

:lol:

No, they are not. Athletes are people. Prospective employees are people. Recipients of government aid are people. Why would only one of them be a scum bag because they have to submit to mandatory testing in order to receive money? That makes absolutely no sense and I feel like you are simply making things up as you go along.

If an athlete is not a scumbag for submitting to a test in order to keep earning money, if a prospective employee is not a scumbag for taking a test in order to earn money, then why would an aid recipient be a scumbag for taking a test? It doesn't make any sense at all.

the performance is deemed illegitimate if drugs are used.

Irrelevant to the context in which the example was presented. You said making an aid recipient take a drug test means they are a scumbag...I presented the fact numerous people have to take drug tests and we don't think of any of them as being a scumbag.

Totally different scenario

No, it's really not. It's a human being taking a drug test. You claim taking a drug test makes a human being a scumbag, I'm proving you wrong.

you should abandon your comprehensive failure of an analogy.

The only failure here is your inability to focus on the context in which the analogy is presented.

 

[Slyfox696]

Prospective employees is actually a valid analogy. They are, in fact, treated as potential scumbags, with the drug test playing the role of filtering those scumbags.

:lol:

No, they are not. That is not at all true and I seriously wonder why you think taking a drug test makes someone a scumbag. I have my theories, but absent any facts to support them, I'll keep them quiet for now.

The fundamental problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a private voluntary employment contract with a public service.

Wait...getting a job to put food on the table is voluntary, but signing up for financial assistance from the government is not? Really?

I think this is your issue, where you think drug use makes people bad. It seems that your prejudice and your stigma about drug use has led you to this view.

You are wrong. I'm not casting opinions on whether drug use makes people bad (though, outside of some marijuana users, I do believe it does...and if you want to discuss the difference between alcohol and other harder drugs, then we can start with the addictive nature of the other drugs...and I don't drink). I'm saying spending your money on illegal drugs when the community is being nice enough to help you is disrespectful and immoral. Again, I'm not saying it is immoral just because you are using drugs, I'm saying it is immoral because people like me are offering the fruits of our labor to help you while you are down and your response to that is to waste your own money on illegal activities which provide zero net benefit to society.

I'll use another example. Let's say your buddy asks you to give him $40 to fill up the gas tank in his truck so he can to work next week. You say sure, hand him the money and he puts it in his wallet next to two brand new, still crisp, $100 bills. You ask him, "Why did I give you $40 to put gas in your truck if you have $200 in your wallet". He replies, "Well, I can't use that money, I plan on using that to buy a new Xbox One so I can have one in my living room and my bedroom.".

Are you telling me you would not be put off by that kind of person? Lord knows I would and I'd want my money back immediately. That's basically what's happening when people receive government aid and buy drugs with their own money. If I'm sharing with you my hard earned income, I want you to use it for necessities, to find a way to get back on your feet. Using that money irresponsibly is a slap in the face to everyone who works hard and wants to help those in need.

So, again, my position on this isn't because I think drug use makes people bad, I'm intelligent enough to understand my morals and values are my own and to not impose them on others. My position on this is, and has been the entire time if you go back and read any post of mine, that using your own money to purchase illegal drugs which provide zero benefit to society, while taking money from those who worked hard and earned it, is despicable. If you make $50,000 a year and you want to spend some of that on marijuana, as long as you don't engage in behaviors which can hurt others, then do what you want, I suppose. But if you cannot support yourself, and are asking me to help subsidize your ability to live, then show respect for the assistance and put the drug habit on hold.

That's a right wing rhetorical point that is essentially meaningless.

No, it's not. Millions of people submit to a drug test in order to make money. That's not a rhetorical point, it's a fact.

You could argue that Bill Gates and Martin Shkreli "EARNED" money, while people like Steve Wozniak and Gertrude Elion did not.

We're not talking about any of them. We're talking about people who receive money in exchange for labor or a good, as opposed to people who are providing zero goods or labor for the money.

Why is this hard to understand? If you receive aid from the government, you are receiving it without producing anything to earn it. When I receive my paycheck from my employer, I earned it because I went to work and did my job. They are completely different. And if I were applying for a job to earn money, and a condition of employment was to pass a drug test, then I would be one of the millions who do so.

No offense, but you simply seem to not understand that currency is not infinitum or that it's not given by the grace of government. Currency is the modern method of exchanging goods and labor for other goods and labor. But it can only exist if someone is working. Money given to those receiving assistance is not the result of goods or labor, it is a neighbor sharing their hard earned goods and labor with another.

 

[Slyfox696]

Your circular logic is that the legal acquisition of money is deserved. They deserved the money if they legally acquired it.

No, they deserve the money if they produced something in exchange for it. If I build a robot that someone buys, then I produced a good. If I wait on a table at a restaurant and get tipped, I earned my money by providing a service.

Those who receive aid do neither. They provide no good or service in exchange for the money. They did not acquire it in any shape or fashion, it was given to them out of the goodness of heart (theoretically) of others.

Ironically, the implicit aspect of your argument is that welfare recipients didn't EARN it

They didn't earn. What did they do to earn it? What good or service did they provide? What labor did they do?

They didn't earn it. That's just a fact.

and therefore deserve your measure of scorn.

Again, you are assuming things which simply are not true.

I'm not scorning those who receive aid. As I said earlier, it's the exact opposite, I'm happy to help those who need help and will happily give more if it is asked. But if I am going to help you, then it is incumbent upon you to respect that assistance and not waste your money on illegal drugs which do not provide a benefit to society and instead use that money to better your life.

Strange, i thought you were accusing me of attaching stigma, then you denied that stigma exists, and yet here you confirm said stigma.

Except you literally just made up a stigma I never claimed to have. So we're back to you attaching a stigma which doesn't exist for many many people.

This would go much easier if you would stop assuming things about the person you're debating and pay attention to their actual words. I feel like you're trying to debate one of the hardcore conservatives on this forum, but you know that's not who I am. So, instead of arguing with a strawman, debate with what I'm actually saying.

Good, so explain to me how a welfare recipient who has used a drug jeopardizes the integrity of the welfare system.

I have, multiple times now. But I will again.

If I am giving you money to help you live, but you are blowing the money you have on illegal consumption of products which do not benefit society, then you are disrespecting the assistance I've provided you. That jeopardizes the integrity of the welfare system and is EXACTLY why so many wish to be rid of it.

As I told Jasper, you can understand that fraud may occur, but you should never accept it and should always work to prevent it.

I'm happy to spend more on welfare

Which makes two of us. But I want to spend the money on people who respect the assistance being given and use it to make their lives better so they don't need the assistance. You seem to wish to give your money away with absolutely no care if the money is being used appropriately or if the person receives it ever betters their life.

I'm not casting judgment on your position, I'm just telling you I disagree with it.

One of those things makes our society more productive

But it doesn't, that's the point.

Let's say the government gives you $100 and you make $100. Ideally, you would use your $100 to buy necessities you could afford and then use the government's $100 to purchase the rest of the necessities you need or to help you find a new/better job. That's what the money is for. The money is NOT for using the government's money to buy necessities you need and your money to buy drugs which are not taxed, do not contribute to society and could actually be a drain on the society.

Allowing people to spend their money on illegal items does not make society more productive.

Testing does assume.

No, it really doesn't. You're putting the cart before the horse. Across the board, mandatory testing most certainly does not assume guilt. "Random" testing which disproportionately targets minorities? Yes, you have an argument about assumption of guilt and I am opposed to that. But mandatory testing for everyone, as a condition to receiving government aid (or a job or as an athlete, etc.) most certainly does not assume guilt.

I don't understand, have you never heard of search and seizure?

Have you never heard of voluntary?

 

[Slyfox696]

Part 1

We taxpayers subsidize mortgage payments...So some people get a special tax break by meeting some conditions set by Congress...The bottom line is taxpayers are cutting a check to people with a mortgage

No, that is just not the case. They are not cutting any checks. That's the point.

If I get a tax break for a mortgage deduction, the government is not sending me a check. Even if I get a tax refund, that is NOT the government paying me money, that is the government returning to me the overpayment I sent in.

A tax break/deduction of any kind is NOT the same as handing out a check for financial assistance. They are completely different. A tax break lets me keep my own money, welfare takes my money and gives it to you. They are not at all the same thing.

I as a taxpayer AM giving money to others - those with a mortgage and the bigger the mortgage, the more I'm paying them for their big house.

No, you are not giving them money. The government is just choosing not to take their money. But if I receive a tax break, NONE of your money is going to me. None of it. Not a penny. However, when our government hands out financial assistance to those who did not work for it, it IS your money and my money which is going to them.

In one case I get to keep my money, in another case someone receives my money. They are completely different.

How did you "earn" a subsidy for borrowing to buy your house?

I know you're not meaning to be frustrating, but this is frustrating.

I didn't "earn" a subsidy for my house. The government did not give me money to buy a house. If the government chooses not to take as much of my income from my labor, then it just means I get to keep more of the money that I earned. But, at no time, is the government writing me a check.

Why should I pay part of your mortgage every month, but NOT part of the rent for some family who rents a double wide?

I payed my mortgage last night, including my real estate taxes and insurance. You did not pay a penny of it. Every dime which came out of my bank account to pay my mortgage was a dime I earned by going to work. You didn't pay a single penny for my house.

And, again, no one is saying the government shouldn't give aid to those who need it. I've explicitly said otherwise. But what we're talking about right now is that there is a HUGE difference between a tax cut and a financial assistance gift.

The problem here, I believe, is you think all money belongs to government. But that's just not true. Our form of currency is backed by the government and stabilized by it, but is merely the modern form of the exchange of goods and services. At the end of the day, that currency can only be made possible if people are working. The money I earn by going to work and doing my job does NOT belong to the government, it belongs to me. As part of my citizenship to this country, I give some of what I earn, for the mutual good of society. However, make no mistake about it...it is MY money that I GIVE to the government. And the reason I know it is mine, is because I exchanged my knowledge, skills and labor for it.

That's good I guess, and I'd just say that if/when lawmakers voluntarily to submit to drug tests for their pay and benefits, I won't have a leg to stand on.

You don't have one to stand on now. If lawmakers submitting to drug tests renders your argument invalid, then your argument is invalid. Because whether lawmakers take a drug test or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is if those who receive something for nothing should be required to take a drug test. A lawmaker earns money from the government because he is (presumably) working for it. Those who receive welfare (and I hate using that word, but I'm tired of using others) aren't working for it. They aren't producing goods or services. They have no labor on which to get paid for that money. Again, that's not to say they don't work to earn other income, but the income they are receiving in welfare they do not earn.

It's a big difference.

 

[Slyfox696]

Part 2

What we're debating is whether forcing welfare recipients, but not SBA loan recipients or those who take mortgage deductions or who get farm subsidies to take drug tests is good policy.

SBA loan recipients or mortgage deductions or even farm subsidies have NOTHING to do with this. Nothing. The closest would be farm subsidies, but even that is different as those subsidies only exist to help farmers work. They are not given for nothing, as is what we are speaking of.

costly invasion of privacy

According to Google, a drug test typically costs between $10-$30. And it is not at all an invasion of privacy. And, if one feels it is, then one can choose not to take the financial assistance. No one is forcing them.

My basic position is these people qualify for the money, and once they do we treat them as adults and trust them to spend it wisely.

And my basic position is we are taking the fruits of labor from millions of people and giving, with no exchange of goods or services, those fruits to others who are a little down on their luck. And if we wish to attach the condition of "no drugs" to that money, we should have right and ability to do so. And, if you are one who is need of that money, you should understand and respect the good your fellow members of society are doing for you.

We both agree there are people who need assistance. We both agree we wish to help the financially. I just want to ensure those I help financially are using the assistance the best way possible.

Of course, but we're debating whether we SHOULD put conditions on you taking a mortgage deduction that have nothing to do with whether you qualify for a mortgage deduction. For goodness sake, a child rapist can qualify for a mortgage deduction - why should I subsidize the housing for a child rapist? Do you want your tax dollars doing to child rapists?

Again, a mortgage deduction is NOT the government writing a check. It is the government choosing not to take as much of my earned income. They are completely different.

I understand how you are looking at it, but you are looking at it incorrectly.

Not really trying to catch YOU in hypocrisy, but rather pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in the position.

There is no hypocrisy in the position though. You're trying to claim two things which are completely different should be treated the same. And, even though I've already said I'm okay with it, it's important to point out they are completely different.

But what I'm missing is the compelling reason to condition benefits for the poor on passing a periodic drug test but not imposing the same burden on everyone else who gets government aid.

"Everyone else who gets government aid" is such a broad topic, we'd have to break it down into specific examples. But as to this example, it is because people are receiving something for nothing and those of us who are giving them that money should know the money we are giving them isn't being wasted by subsidizing purchases of illegal products which provide zero benefit to society. That's the compelling reason.

The effect is identical.

No, it is not. The effect is ONLY identical in the case of governmental budget, but it is NOT identical in real world economics.

If you save $100 in taxes, or if you get a government check for $100, you're better off in both cases by the same $100

No, it is not the same $100. One set of $100 was earned and the other set of $100 was given for nothing. They are not the same in real world economics.

and the government must collect the same $100 in taxes or cut spending by $100.

Again, you are looking at it only from the perspective of a government budget. I understand your perspective, but you simply cannot look at it that way. You have to look at it in terms of revenue vs. expenditures. But, more aptly, you need to look at from where the currency is created. The $100 in taxes I save is money I get to keep because I earned it. The $100 given to you for free is money you generated nothing to receive.