Manhattan Buckeye;386866 wrote:"Also, I think it's appropriate to discuss whether we think medicare or social security recipients should be drug tested because....the basic premise offered by say, Believer, is that people who receive MY money through confiscatory taxes ought to at least not be high on crack....it at least flows from this premise that if TANF recipients ought to therefore be tested, then folks who receive checks from the treasury in the form of, say, social security, ought to be tested. "

No it isn't appropriate, as SS is just an insurance program that recipients paid into and are entitled to their benefits. Right? Right? RIGHT? What is it? Is SS a tax or an insurance program?

3 words: Grasping at straws.

Why not look at TANF as an insurance program that I paid into with taxes, (even though I didn't pay into a particular trust fund), in the event I cannot get a job and my unemployment insurance benefits dry up...or if I got fired and didn't qualify for unemployment benefits?

There's plenty of people who have to go on TANF who once had jobs and paid taxes....not just baby breeding black kids from the bronx.

BoatShoes;386870 wrote:Why not look at TANF as an insurance program that I paid into with taxes, (even though I didn't pay into a particular trust fund), in the event I cannot get a job and my unemployment insurance benefits dry up...or if I got fired and didn't qualify for unemployment benefits?

There's plenty of people who have to go on TANF who once had jobs and paid taxes....not just baby breeding black kids from the bronx.

Welcome to the new U.S. economy! Did you vote for it? We didn't.

Manhattan Buckeye;386900 wrote:Welcome to the new U.S. economy! Did you vote for it? We didn't.

I apologize but I don't quite follow you.

BoatShoes;386870 wrote:Why not look at TANF as an insurance program that I paid into with taxes, (even though I didn't pay into a particular trust fund), in the event I cannot get a job and my unemployment insurance benefits dry up...or if I got fired and didn't qualify for unemployment benefits?

I already have a program just like that called savings.

queencitybuckeye;386916 wrote:I already have a program just like that called savings.

Ok, that's fine...so I imagine you don't think TANF should exist....nor social security since that's retirement savings or that it should at least be privatized. But that doesn't defeat that fact that IF TANF and Social Security are going to exist in their current forms....they're both a part of the American Welfare State and part of the social safety net and both could be characterized as a form of social insurance in one way or another. TANF is part of the social security act.

If you don't think it should exist and you don't think there should be a welfare state, ok that's fine. But, Manhattan Buckeye said I was grasping at straws by trying to compare TANF to Social Security so I attempted to show that they were both forms of social insurance in one way or another. You think people should insure themselves from starvation on their own responsibility...even if that's true that doesn't mean that Welfare and Social Security aren't comparable as forms of social insurance.

There isn't a FICA withholding on paychecks of 6.2% (and another 6.2% for the employer portion) for TANF. Nor to my knowledge have I ever received a letter from the TANF administration explaining what my benefits will be if I ever need to apply for benefits.

Manhattan Buckeye;386965 wrote:There isn't a FICA withholding on paychecks of 6.2% (and another 6.2% for the employer portion) for TANF. Nor to my knowledge have I ever received a letter from the TANF administration explaining what my benefits will be if I ever need to apply for benefits.

I don't know, I guess the fact that TANF is supported by Income taxes and Social Security is supported by consumption taxes in the form of wage taxes doesn't seem like a worthwhile distinction to me. But hey, agree to disagree.

BoatShoes;386989 wrote:I don't know, I guess the fact that TANF is supported by Income taxes and Social Security is supported by consumption taxes in the form of wage taxes doesn't seem like a worthwhile distinction to me. But hey, agree to disagree.

How about the fact that Manhattan would receive the exact same compensation as I would in spite of his having paid several times more into the "system"? Pretty significant distinction IMO.

queencitybuckeye;387005 wrote:How about the fact that Manhattan would receive the exact same compensation as I would in spite of his having paid several times more into the "system"? Pretty significant distinction IMO.

I think what you're saying is that...in the event that Manhattan had to go on TANF; because perhaps he paid more federal income taxes (because TANF is supported by block grants to the states from from the feds), than you might have, he would still receive the same amount of money in welfare as you would even though you paid less taxes. Is that what you're saying? Certainly a difference in the way the programs work...but I don't see why that distinction would have any bearing on why welfare recipients should get drug tested in the name of making sure crackheads don't get welfare money and people who receive social security dollars shouldn't also get drug tested. Even if that's true...it still doesn't seem clear to me why, if it's justified to drug test a recipient of money from the treasury through TANF why it wouldn't also be justified to drug test a recipient of money from the treasury through SS.

How about the fact that some TANF recipients may never pay into the program, and are you really advocating testing senior citizens? As much as I think SS was/is an awful program (at least in the execution and sustainability) and will hurt the future of many Americans if not the fabric of this country itself, I doubt too many 70ish and 80ish year olds are huffing paint, hoarding oxycontin or tweaking crystal meth.

Welfare isn't social security, and social security was't sold as welfare. If you truly believe that social security is welfare - fine. Have at it. Heck I might support you, the sooner the young people realize that the U.S. has ponzied itself on promising unsustainable entitlements, the sooner we can address the solution.

Watch out for all the objective facts you're using here BoatShoes.

Might get accused of being some liberal academic wacko or something.

LOL which fact? This one:

"I guess the fact that TANF is supported by Income taxes and Social Security is supported by consumption taxes in the form of wage taxes doesn't seem like a worthwhile distinction to me."

When did a wage tax become a consumption tax? A wage tax sounds an awful lot like an income tax to me, but then again I'm not a liberal academic weirdo, I'm just a guy that knows when taxes are taken from income, and FICA is taken from income, not from a sales or use tax which most citizens would ordinarily call a consumption tax.

At any rate I have no idea what the heck he/she is talking about, the crux of the issue isn't simply where the money is coming from, the crux is what is promised in the program. SS was promised to everyone that paid into the system, you didn't have to be in desperate need. If Bill Gates paid into SS for 30 years he is entitled to his SS check, regardless of his wealth.

Welfare and social security are two different programs. Period. Think of social security as an annuity that citizens paid for. TANF is a poverty-related redistribution.

Belly35;384096 wrote:I think every one should be tested (renew you driver license get tested, new driver get tested, apply for a home mortgage get tested ..... I even think Local, State and Federal Employees and Politicians should be tested every six months failure to pass the test ……….fired, rejected for license and mortgage…..simple and effective.

This is ludacris. If someone wants to apply for a mortgage, you think they should be drug tested? Why? They are not receiving any public monies. You want the government to interfere with private business? That is more socialist than any politician I have heard of.

Belly35;384200 wrote:
Note: I have nothing to hide ....the only people that have something to hide are those that don't like testing for drugs......

I have nothing to hide either, but I am not giving up my liberty to appease the government. Now for employment or when I was in the military, I was happy to take drug tests, but just to prove that I do not take drugs to whomever, I don't think so.

Jason Bourne;384320 wrote:What are the pitfalls of not having government welfare?

Sadly, if we took away government assisstance, it is my opinion that crime would skyrocket. It is unfortunate that generations of government legislation have turned generations of citizens into dependents of the government. This is exactly what they have done. Many people are born into it and have no knowledge of anything else.

I am not an advocate of government assistance at all, but I know that our government has turned it into a neccessary evil because they need dependants who are guaranteed votes.

Education is the first step. Many people are beyond that, so we must start with the younger generations. Teach them the value of hardwork and self reliance. Instill a sense of pride in them. This is the only way to ease the government assistance dilemma, by education the youth.

QuakerOats;385421 wrote:
We must end the dependency cycle, and now is a good time to start.

100% agree with this statement.

believer;385994 wrote:Oh I'm absolutely certain the government would foul-up mandatory drug testing and it would be insanely over budget, but if Hector Crack Head wants my money to support his drug habit, he should jump through a hoop or two - or at least piss in a cup - to get it.

The sad thing is that many people work harder right now to get government assistance than they would at a job. The paperwork and hoops they need to jump through is quite a lot. I'm not sure why these people can't realize that they are doing more work to stay on government assistance than they would at a job in which their pay and benefits would most likely be better.

I'm on disability. It's not really a government handout because I paid into social security all those years. Nevertheless, it is a government paycheck. I would resist being tested for drugs if it came down to that even though I have never used an illegal drug in my life. Unfortunate people like me should not be singled out.

Please do the math as to what you paid in and what you have drawn and get back to us.

oletiger;387464 wrote:Please do the math as to what you paid in and what you have drawn and get back to us.

I'm 62 years old and I paid in plenty to social security. Believe me, my conscience is not bothering me.

FairwoodKing;387518 wrote:I'm 62 years old and I paid in plenty to social security. Believe me, my conscience is not bothering me.

With respect to you ...you are the perfect person that should want to be tested and push for testing. Why because you can force those that abuse the system out in hope to better your situation and benifits.

dwccrew;387326 wrote: I am not an advocate of government assistance at all, but I know that our government has turned it into a neccessary evil because they need dependants who are guaranteed votes.

Do you really believe this? Do you believe a panty waste liberal like say Ted Kennedy said to himself "Yes, if we create welfare so that way I can create mindless minions who will causally relate their monies to my being and Congress and continue to vote for me so I can keep beautiful power....mmmmmmm.....I just came."

Now, maybe he and his kind are idiots and failed to reasonably foresee the consequences of such kinds of programs but this idea that liberals create programs by design to create dependent sheeple is a fantasy. I don't know. I mean I guess I just don't get libertarians....everyone who works in government is incompetent as a general rule because the best and brightest work in the private sector.....but as a general rule, the folks in government are able to pull off massive plots to keep the citizenry down?

I don't know...I think liberals just think life is puppy dogs and rainbows and don't get economics. See the Link;

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

Sorry don't know how to make a link in the new software cus it doesn't have an easy button

dwccrew;387326 wrote: Education is the first step. Many people are beyond that, so we must start with the younger generations. Teach them the value of hardwork and self reliance. Instill a sense of pride in them. This is the only way to ease the government assistance dilemma, by education the youth.

Yeah but you're a Ron Paul guy aren't you? I mean, you're aware that guaranteed access to a public education is a part of the American welfare state right?

BoatShoes;387655 wrote:Do you really believe this? Do you believe a panty waste liberal like say Ted Kennedy said to himself "Yes, if we create welfare so that way I can create mindless minions who will causally relate their monies to my being and Congress and continue to vote for me so I can keep beautiful power....mmmmmmm.....I just came."

Now, maybe he and his kind are idiots and failed to reasonably foresee the consequences of such kinds of programs but this idea that liberals create programs by design to create dependent sheeple is a fantasy. I don't know. I mean I guess I just don't get libertarians....everyone who works in government is incompetent as a general rule because the best and brightest work in the private sector.....but as a general rule, the folks in government are able to pull off massive plots to keep the citizenry down?

I don't know...I think liberals just think life is puppy dogs and rainbows and don't get economics. See the Link;

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

Sorry don't know how to make a link in the new software cus it doesn't have an easy button

First off, I never singled out liberals or conservatives. And no, I don't think they started it to create votes, but they continue it so that they have the votes. Originally it was supposed to be a temporary program but somehow became permanent. So yes, I do believe they use it as a form of vote capturing.

BoatShoes;387660 wrote:Yeah but you're a Ron Paul guy aren't you? I mean, you're aware that guaranteed access to a public education is a part of the American welfare state right?

I never said education through schools. It can be through churches, community outreach programs, etc. Your two previous posts are assumptions based on what you think I am stating. You have assumed wrong. Are you just looking for a debate?

"I mean I guess I just don't get libertarians....everyone who works in government is incompetent as a general rule because the best and brightest work in the private sector.....but as a general rule, the folks in government are able to pull off massive plots to keep the citizenry down?"

Why is it a massive plot? Most large cities are a one-party operation. What I don't get is how people cannot see that the lack of competition is the problem, whether it is a private sector monopoloy or the government which inherently is a monopoly. Yet "non-libertarians" seem to think the less choice the better.

Boatshoes, you ever buy a new car? We did Memorial Day weekend.

1) The car itself, dozens of competitors, and usually with zoning laws dealerships within a few miles of each other. My wife test drove everything from a Hyundai to an X5, while I sat in the showroom getting free bottles of evian and watching sportscenter with salespeople kissing my rear end. The process was lengthy, but it was lengthy due to our choices as a consumer, not by the producer.

2) Financing. Don't want to pay all cash up front? I can negotiate...with the manufacturer sponsored deal or with the local banks that are happy to get my business. Process took less than 15 minutes and we came to an agreement that was win-win for both the lender and us as a borrower...again dozens of choices. If we were unhappy with the rates quoted by the dealer sponsor, we'd compare and negotiate local banks' offers on lending on a secured asset.

3) Car insurance. A necessity. And again an industry where there are options and the insurance providers work to please the consumer. I've been a satisfied GEICO customer and although we could probably save a few dollars/year by going with State Farm, I like the ease of service with GEICO. In a call less than 10 minutes long the car and the rest of our vehicles were insured and rates were readjusted. Within 10 minutes. Amazing.

4) Tags for the vehicle. Scrreeeeeeecccch. Halt. How can a transaction with a $30,000+ tag get bulloxed by a freaking $45 license plate and registration? Answer - involve a player that has no competition and has no motivation to please the consumer as the consumer has no options. I can't go to another state and get tags. I have no option other than go to the DMV, take my number and sit in line while the surly SEIU employee is p.o.'ed that their 3 day weekend is over and they have to work an 8 hour shift. So on the Tuesday after Memorial Day my wife is pissed because she can't drive her new wheels to work, I'm sitting on plastic government seating and can't even go to the government cafeteria or else I'd lose my place in line if my number is called without my presence. 3 hours of waiting we get our plates, but the state university alumni plates I wanted (and was willing to pay extra for) - oh, sorry, they are out of those for now.

To borrow a phrase from a Sesame Street bit, "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things do not belong." 1-3 involve a competitive marketplace where the consumer has choices and the service provider has external stimuli in addition to internal stimuli to provide the service properly. If the consumer is unhappy, they can simply take their business elsewhere.

4? No competition and no external stimuli and very little internal stimuli. Why would the SEIU worker care that my productivity or general well-being is hindered by their inability to do something as simple as plating a vehicle. There isn't a reason. Their pay and job security has no bearing on the service provided. And people really want more government expansion?!?!

BoatShoes;387655 wrote:Do you really believe this? Do you believe a panty waste liberal like say Ted Kennedy said to himself "Yes, if we create welfare so that way I can create mindless minions who will causally relate their monies to my being and Congress and continue to vote for me so I can keep beautiful power....mmmmmmm.....I just came."

Now, maybe he and his kind are idiots and failed to reasonably foresee the consequences of such kinds of programs but this idea that liberals create programs by design to create dependent sheeple is a fantasy.

BS,

If you don't think that at least some government programs (mainly social) aren't created without at least a little politics involved, you're either in denial or very naive. Or both.

I'm not saying that the end purpose is to create a borg type of society, but ... they want to generate as much support and public endearment as they can. So they make/support legislation that will make millions and millions of citizens grateful and supportive of them; therefore creating champions of a cause.

CenterBHSFan;387804 wrote:BS,

If you don't think that at least some government programs (mainly social) aren't created without at least a little politics involved, you're either in denial or very naive. Or both.

I'm not saying that the end purpose is to create a borg type of society, but ... they want to generate as much support and public endearment as they can. So they make/support legislation that will make millions and millions of citizens grateful and supportive of them; therefore creating champions of a cause.

Not to mention votes which equates to political power.

Belly35;387541 wrote:With respect to you ...you are the perfect person that should want to be tested and push for testing. Why because you can force those that abuse the system out in hope to better your situation and benifits.

It is very hard to get on disability. It took me three years to get it. When I finally appeared in front of a judge, I was so nervous that I nearly broke down. If the judge hadn't ruled in my favor, I would have lost my home.

I have never used an illegal drug in my life and I have never smoked. I also don't drink. But it would take just one false positive from a drug test to destroy me. That is why I would fight being tested.

You have to realize that a lot of people who get government checks deserve them. I don't want to be on disability. I would rather work. But at this point, I can't.

Touche Fairwood some do deserve it and my heart goes out to you but you can understand our feelings to the ones abusing our taxes.