PDA

View Full Version : Here's my idea.



OtisRNeedleman
02-04-2014, 06:15 PM
I had an idea this morning. (Millions of people nationwide faint dead away.)

Been a lot of talk about cutting military benefits, increasing fees, etc.

I want to see a law stating that any percentage cuts in military benefits (including percentage raises in premiums, fees, or commissary surcharges) shall not go into effect unless these cuts are matched by the same percentage cuts in benefits for Federal civilian workers and the total amount spent on Federally-funded welfare programs. Cuts in all three areas will be approved as a package or none of the cuts will be approved.

To those who say, "That will hurt older people and children", I say cuts in military benefits also hurt older people and children. Go to the commissary any day, for example. You'll see many older shoppers and families with children. There are an awful lot of them.

I also want to know why the Pentagon seems so eager to cut military personnel benefits. The people in the Pentagon screaming the loudest to cut benefits earn salaries that are multiples of what Sergeant Jane or Major Jack earn. Didn't hear of too many flag officers carried out in a box from Iraq or Afghanistan. They simply aren't taking the same risks. Why are they trying to deprive the men and women who have actually fought the battles of these benefits? Our troops have earned these benefits many times over, far more than any "gimmedats" going to welfare recipients. In the same vein, the retired generals who think cutting military benefits need to cease and desist. Their retirement pay is easily a multiple of the average retirement pay. Easy to hurt others when you can't feel pain. Your actions are a disgrace. Just go away.

I don't want to hear that welfare is an "entitlement", either. Shouldn't be. Welfare is provided to help the needy get through the toughest times. While I have no problem with the aged or the genuinely disabled getting benefits, I don't feel the same way about otherwise able-bodied people sucking up the bennies our tax dollars pay for.

I also want to remind those wanting to cut military benefits that we help fund our benefits through the taxes we pay. Welfare recipients don't pay a whole lot of taxes, far as I know.

Lastly, check out the news. National debt limit needs raising. What's at stake? Possible impacts on Social Security and military pay. What? No impact on those welfare checks? That's bass-ackward. If anything, military pay and benefits should never be in doubt. Let those who are only takers worry about their welfare checks. The people whose blood has nourished the American tree of liberty should never need to worry about their salaries being paid.

Otis

DWWSWWD
02-04-2014, 06:25 PM
I had an idea this morning. (Millions of people nationwide faint dead away.)

Been a lot of talk about cutting military benefits, increasing fees, etc.

I want to see a law stating that any percentage cuts in military benefits (including percentage raises in premiums, fees, or commissary surcharges) shall not go into effect unless these cuts are matched by the same percentage cuts in benefits for Federal civilian workers and the total amount spent on Federally-funded welfare programs. Cuts in all three areas will be approved as a package or none of the cuts will be approved.

To those who say, "That will hurt older people and children", I say cuts in military benefits also hurt older people and children. Go to the commissary any day, for example. You'll see many older shoppers and families with children. There are an awful lot of them.

I also want to know why the Pentagon seems so eager to cut military personnel benefits. The people in the Pentagon screaming the loudest to cut benefits earn salaries that are multiples of what Sergeant Jane or Major Jack earn. Didn't hear of too many flag officers carried out in a box from Iraq or Afghanistan. They simply aren't taking the same risks. Why are they trying to deprive the men and women who have actually fought the battles of these benefits? Our troops have earned these benefits many times over, far more than any "gimmedats" going to welfare recipients. In the same vein, the retired generals who think cutting military benefits need to cease and desist. Their retirement pay is easily a multiple of the average retirement pay. Easy to hurt others when you can't feel pain. Your actions are a disgrace. Just go away.

I don't want to hear that welfare is an "entitlement", either. Shouldn't be. Welfare is provided to help the needy get through the toughest times. While I have no problem with the aged or the genuinely disabled getting benefits, I don't feel the same way about otherwise able-bodied people sucking up the bennies our tax dollars pay for.

I also want to remind those wanting to cut military benefits that we help fund our benefits through the taxes we pay. Welfare recipients don't pay a whole lot of taxes, far as I know.

Lastly, check out the news. National debt limit needs raising. What's at stake? Possible impacts on Social Security and military pay. What? No impact on those welfare checks? That's bass-ackward. If anything, military pay and benefits should never be in doubt. Let those who are only takers worry about their welfare checks. The people whose blood has nourished the American tree of liberty should never need to worry about their salaries being paid.

Otis Good words, my brother. Of course the reason is that different cost solutions have different political prices associated with them. Pollsters tell the aids to tell the politician which route will cost them the least number of votes. These guys have no stomach for a hard line on welfare or imigration because welfare folks and minorities make up such a huge part of their base. The wars are fading and the military is a soft target right now. Lawmakers won't cut the programs or shut the excess installations so all that's left is personel costs.

SomeRandomGuy
02-04-2014, 06:28 PM
I had an idea this morning. (Millions of people nationwide faint dead away.)

Been a lot of talk about cutting military benefits, increasing fees, etc.

I want to see a law stating that any percentage cuts in military benefits (including percentage raises in premiums, fees, or commissary surcharges) shall not go into effect unless these cuts are matched by the same percentage cuts in benefits for Federal civilian workers and the total amount spent on Federally-funded welfare programs. Cuts in all three areas will be approved as a package or none of the cuts will be approved.

To those who say, "That will hurt older people and children", I say cuts in military benefits also hurt older people and children. Go to the commissary any day, for example. You'll see many older shoppers and families with children. There are an awful lot of them.

I also want to know why the Pentagon seems so eager to cut military personnel benefits. The people in the Pentagon screaming the loudest to cut benefits earn salaries that are multiples of what Sergeant Jane or Major Jack earn. Didn't hear of too many flag officers carried out in a box from Iraq or Afghanistan. They simply aren't taking the same risks. Why are they trying to deprive the men and women who have actually fought the battles of these benefits? Our troops have earned these benefits many times over, far more than any "gimmedats" going to welfare recipients. In the same vein, the retired generals who think cutting military benefits need to cease and desist. Their retirement pay is easily a multiple of the average retirement pay. Easy to hurt others when you can't feel pain. Your actions are a disgrace. Just go away.

I don't want to hear that welfare is an "entitlement", either. Shouldn't be. Welfare is provided to help the needy get through the toughest times. While I have no problem with the aged or the genuinely disabled getting benefits, I don't feel the same way about otherwise able-bodied people sucking up the bennies our tax dollars pay for.

I also want to remind those wanting to cut military benefits that we help fund our benefits through the taxes we pay. Welfare recipients don't pay a whole lot of taxes, far as I know.

Lastly, check out the news. National debt limit needs raising. What's at stake? Possible impacts on Social Security and military pay. What? No impact on those welfare checks? That's bass-ackward. If anything, military pay and benefits should never be in doubt. Let those who are only takers worry about their welfare checks. The people whose blood has nourished the American tree of liberty should never need to worry about their salaries being paid.

Otis

Your idea sounds great but politcally it just isn't possible. With that being said I have a counter proposal that could fix the budget problems. Literally, there is one simple change that would cut DoD spending by probably about 10%. What is that change? It's quite simple, get rid of the requirement to spend all appropriated funds or else lose them. Basically, treat every DoD organization like a working capital fund. Funding would flow down from Congress to unit based on their composition and mission. You could easily set funding levels based on organization size, current budget, and comparable organtizations.

The plan would be simple. You get a budget authorization at the beginning of the year. You are free to spend it however you wish, but when it runs out that's it. If your organization is a good financial steward you get to carry over funds to the next year. I really wish I could make some of the data I see everyday public. It is amazing to me how much we spend on supplies and equipment. My guess is that hundreds of thoseands of dollars in office supplies and equipment walk out of this place every year.

Last year my computer was replaced because the warranty expired on the old one. The replacement I was given was is not any better than the old one. The specs on both of them are actually very similar. I feel like I could have used my old PC for at least another 2 years. Who cares that the warranty is expired? Isn't that why we pay our own IT folks? Last year we had between $50-$100K in "fallout money" that we had to spend at the end of the year. The reason we had the fallout money was because we furloughed our civilian employees. In my opinion it was kind of an insult to force them to take a 10% pay cut and then at the end of teh year tell them we have a bunch of extra money and we need your help spending it. I wonder where the money came from?

socal1200r
02-04-2014, 06:39 PM
Welcome to the world of public-sector accounting. It's not about profit and loss, like the private-sector, but how you "manage" the funds you're given. You're actually penalized if you go under budget, because the powers that be will decide that if you came in under budget, then you must not need that much money, and they'll reduce your line accordingly. So, in order to avoid that, the mindset is, if I have anything left, I better spend it, or else I won't get it for next year.

Hindsight is 20/20, but Congress should've enacted some kind of "war tax" for OIF and OEF. Institute a national sales tax increase of 1 percent or something, that way EVERYONE is contributing SOMETHING to the war efforts. Had they done that, I'm sure we wouldn't be in the financial mess we're in now. You mentioned something about this whole process being backasswards. I'd have to agree, because what we're doing now is "right-sizing" the force to meet the budget, instead of budgeting to meet the OTE requirements our mission needs.

jshiver15
02-04-2014, 06:47 PM
Last year my computer was replaced because the warranty expired on the old one. The replacement I was given was is not any better than the old one. The specs on both of them are actually very similar. I feel like I could have used my old PC for at least another 2 years. Who cares that the warranty is expired? Isn't that why we pay our own IT folks? Last year we had between $50-$100K in "fallout money" that we had to spend at the end of the year. The reason we had the fallout money was because we furloughed our civilian employees. In my opinion it was kind of an insult to force them to take a 10% pay cut and then at the end of teh year tell them we have a bunch of extra money and we need your help spending it. I wonder where the money came from?

We're currently going through this in my detachment and I honestly don't understand. Our two operational computers that we have at our briefer counter could legitimately use an update as the programs we're using require more RAM. However, the 10+ we have in our back office are used for admin purposes and there really is no real need for anything more than 4GB of memory. However, leadership is trying to replace every computer because they've exceeded their "2 year lifespan". I said outright that I think it's wasteful, but the general opinion is that those funds need to be spent and they might as well be spent on new computers.

:mmph

SomeRandomGuy
02-04-2014, 07:00 PM
We're currently going through this in my detachment and I honestly don't understand. Our two operational computers that we have at our briefer counter could legitimately use an update as the programs we're using require more RAM. However, the 10+ we have in our back office are used for admin purposes and there really is no real need for anything more than 4GB of memory. However, leadership is trying to replace every computer because they've exceeded their "2 year lifespan". I said outright that I think it's wasteful, but the general opinion is that those funds need to be spent and they might as well be spent on new computers.

:mmph

It really is a strange enviroment. A few years ago I had a friend who was the resource advisor for Mission Support Group. That included the budgets for Security Forces, Services, and Personnel. He had a few competing requirements on his desk. One of them was an order for like 10-15 sets of nightvision goggles for security forces. The other order was gym equipment and some maintenance from Services. On the surface it seemed like a no brainer that SFS needed to night vision goggles for deployments he had to order those. Most people would have stopped there are just went with the SFS order. This guy decided to dig a little deeper. He went over to SFS and talked to their supply guys. They had something like 30 sets of night vision goggles on their shelf and the person working said he didn't even know that more were ordered. The gym equipment was ultimately what they decided to buy. Apparantly, the person submitting the night vision goggles was just stocking up.

In finance we normally send out an email asking what requirements each shop has. We ask that they rack and stack their own requests and explain what is and is not mission critical. The problem is that you can pretty much justify anything as mission critical and I have no way to know what is truely important. Hell, I had someone send me a mission critical request the other day that was designing and installing a new logo on their shop door. That's mission critical? Really? If your customers don't see your sweet new logo on your door the mission is going to fail? I highly doubt it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-04-2014, 07:40 PM
Base cutting from overseas and bringing troops home so they would spend their paychecks in the states instead of other countries economies. Not to mention the taxes and "rent" paid to countries like Germany, GB, Italy, and S Korea. All just a huge waste of our capital going into other countries economies who dont need help in their GDP. Everyone of the liberals talks about the fiscal aid to Isreal, but over look the foreign aid we give to 90% of the world through bases and troops how spend everything they make on bootleg merchendise.

garhkal
02-04-2014, 07:51 PM
Last year my computer was replaced because the warranty expired on the old one. The replacement I was given was is not any better than the old one. The specs on both of them are actually very similar. I feel like I could have used my old PC for at least another 2 years. Who cares that the warranty is expired? Isn't that why we pay our own IT folks? Last year we had between $50-$100K in "fallout money" that we had to spend at the end of the year. The reason we had the fallout money was because we furloughed our civilian employees. In my opinion it was kind of an insult to force them to take a 10% pay cut and then at the end of teh year tell them we have a bunch of extra money and we need your help spending it. I wonder where the money came from?

That was one thing i always found laughable. We send these "IT workers" to these schools and such to get all these Certifications and such, but when it comes to them doing their job and fixing computers.. na we just farm that out to civilians who get paid more.
And teh whole 'replace all pcs every 3 years' rather than replace those which are broke.. Stupid.

retiredAFcivvy
02-04-2014, 11:16 PM
It really is a strange enviroment. A few years ago I had a friend who was the resource advisor for Mission Support Group. That included the budgets for Security Forces, Services, and Personnel. He had a few competing requirements on his desk. One of them was an order for like 10-15 sets of nightvision goggles for security forces. The other order was gym equipment and some maintenance from Services. On the surface it seemed like a no brainer that SFS needed to night vision goggles for deployments he had to order those. Most people would have stopped there are just went with the SFS order. This guy decided to dig a little deeper. He went over to SFS and talked to their supply guys. They had something like 30 sets of night vision goggles on their shelf and the person working said he didn't even know that more were ordered. The gym equipment was ultimately what they decided to buy. Apparantly, the person submitting the night vision goggles was just stocking up.

In finance we normally send out an email asking what requirements each shop has. We ask that they rack and stack their own requests and explain what is and is not mission critical. The problem is that you can pretty much justify anything as mission critical and I have no way to know what is truely important. Hell, I had someone send me a mission critical request the other day that was designing and installing a new logo on their shop door. That's mission critical? Really? If your customers don't see your sweet new logo on your door the mission is going to fail? I highly doubt it.
I didn't realize it was finance who determined whether or not a requirement was mission critical.

SomeRandomGuy
02-05-2014, 01:31 AM
I didn't realize it was finance who determined whether or not a requirement was mission critical.

Who were you thinking makes that call? We have been operating under a continuing resolution authority (CRA) for the better part of the last 4 years. Money gets doled out based on what was submitted in the bogey. With that being said who do you think the bogeys get submitted to? Also when it comes time for fallout money who do you think hands it out? Finance people don't decide what is mission critical but they do decide which item gets funded when they have competing requirements.

retiredAFcivvy
02-05-2014, 05:41 AM
Who were you thinking makes that call? We have been operating under a continuing resolution authority (CRA) for the better part of the last 4 years. Money gets doled out based on what was submitted in the bogey. With that being said who do you think the bogeys get submitted to? Also when it comes time for fallout money who do you think hands it out? Finance people don't decide what is mission critical but they do decide which item gets funded when they have competing requirements.

I realize that not every base is going to use the exact same procedures but in my experience those end of year buydown lists are reviewed by senior management and priorities assigned. If money comes available then those with highest priorities are funded.

giggawatt
02-05-2014, 07:44 AM
I had an idea this morning. (Millions of people nationwide faint dead away.)

Been a lot of talk about cutting military benefits, increasing fees, etc.

I want to see a law stating that any percentage cuts in military benefits (including percentage raises in premiums, fees, or commissary surcharges) shall not go into effect unless these cuts are matched by the same percentage cuts in benefits for Federal civilian workers and the total amount spent on Federally-funded welfare programs. Cuts in all three areas will be approved as a package or none of the cuts will be approved.

To those who say, "That will hurt older people and children", I say cuts in military benefits also hurt older people and children. Go to the commissary any day, for example. You'll see many older shoppers and families with children. There are an awful lot of them.

I also want to know why the Pentagon seems so eager to cut military personnel benefits. The people in the Pentagon screaming the loudest to cut benefits earn salaries that are multiples of what Sergeant Jane or Major Jack earn. Didn't hear of too many flag officers carried out in a box from Iraq or Afghanistan. They simply aren't taking the same risks. Why are they trying to deprive the men and women who have actually fought the battles of these benefits? Our troops have earned these benefits many times over, far more than any "gimmedats" going to welfare recipients. In the same vein, the retired generals who think cutting military benefits need to cease and desist. Their retirement pay is easily a multiple of the average retirement pay. Easy to hurt others when you can't feel pain. Your actions are a disgrace. Just go away.

I don't want to hear that welfare is an "entitlement", either. Shouldn't be. Welfare is provided to help the needy get through the toughest times. While I have no problem with the aged or the genuinely disabled getting benefits, I don't feel the same way about otherwise able-bodied people sucking up the bennies our tax dollars pay for.

I also want to remind those wanting to cut military benefits that we help fund our benefits through the taxes we pay. Welfare recipients don't pay a whole lot of taxes, far as I know.

Lastly, check out the news. National debt limit needs raising. What's at stake? Possible impacts on Social Security and military pay. What? No impact on those welfare checks? That's bass-ackward. If anything, military pay and benefits should never be in doubt. Let those who are only takers worry about their welfare checks. The people whose blood has nourished the American tree of liberty should never need to worry about their salaries being paid.

Otis

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xjJXGIeY6G0/UIR9f1ujDpI/AAAAAAAAApU/BF5eLAuDJ8U/s320/The%2BRock%2BClapping.gif

Agreed.

Shaken1976
02-05-2014, 03:00 PM
Some of the stuff really gets me. I have an acquaintance that has been on some sort of welfare the entire time I have been in the military....over 18 years. She has been on Food Stamps, housing assistance, and who knows what else. She has a couple of kids by different dads. But her stuff isn't getting cut. She will continue on the welfare wagon forever.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-05-2014, 03:35 PM
Some of the stuff really gets me. I have an acquaintance that has been on some sort of welfare the entire time I have been in the military....over 18 years. She has been on Food Stamps, housing assistance, and who knows what else. She has a couple of kids by different dads. But her stuff isn't getting cut. She will continue on the welfare wagon forever.

Our raise was a measly 1%. Welfare recieved a 34% raise. hmmm....No, Obama and liberals dont breed dependency at all. lol

imported_DannyJ
02-05-2014, 04:29 PM
I still argue that ALL welfare reciepients should be subject to random drug testing and welfare should have a max time frame for benefits.

CYBERFX1024
02-05-2014, 05:15 PM
Some of the stuff really gets me. I have an acquaintance that has been on some sort of welfare the entire time I have been in the military....over 18 years. She has been on Food Stamps, housing assistance, and who knows what else. She has a couple of kids by different dads. But her stuff isn't getting cut. She will continue on the welfare wagon forever.

My x-wife is the exact same way. She tries everything she can in order to get benefits. When she had custody of the kids and I was a contractor in Afghan, I was sending back $2k a month, on top of the $1k of childcare every single month. She then went to the DSS and submitted paperwork for food stamps. She got those until they wanted a letter from me saying how much I sent her every single month, she wanted me to write it saying that I gave her $1000 a month overall. I said hell no and she lost food stamps.

Move forward 1 year and I come back and send $1k a month, and she starts receiving food stamps. DSS comes after me for money, and I give them all the documentation on what I was sending. Lo and behold she was spending the food stamps on cigarettes and to get cash back from stores. She had no job and still does not have job at all.

CYBERFX1024
02-05-2014, 05:19 PM
I had an idea this morning. (Millions of people nationwide faint dead away.)
Been a lot of talk about cutting military benefits, increasing fees, etc.
I want to see a law stating that any percentage cuts in military benefits (including percentage raises in premiums, fees, or commissary surcharges) shall not go into effect unless these cuts are matched by the same percentage cuts in benefits for Federal civilian workers and the total amount spent on Federally-funded welfare programs. Cuts in all three areas will be approved as a package or none of the cuts will be approved.
To those who say, "That will hurt older people and children", I say cuts in military benefits also hurt older people and children. Go to the commissary any day, for example. You'll see many older shoppers and families with children. There are an awful lot of them.
I also want to know why the Pentagon seems so eager to cut military personnel benefits. The people in the Pentagon screaming the loudest to cut benefits earn salaries that are multiples of what Sergeant Jane or Major Jack earn. Didn't hear of too many flag officers carried out in a box from Iraq or Afghanistan. They simply aren't taking the same risks. Why are they trying to deprive the men and women who have actually fought the battles of these benefits? Our troops have earned these benefits many times over, far more than any "gimmedats" going to welfare recipients. In the same vein, the retired generals who think cutting military benefits need to cease and desist. Their retirement pay is easily a multiple of the average retirement pay. Easy to hurt others when you can't feel pain. Your actions are a disgrace. Just go away.

I don't want to hear that welfare is an "entitlement", either. Shouldn't be. Welfare is provided to help the needy get through the toughest times. While I have no problem with the aged or the genuinely disabled getting benefits, I don't feel the same way about otherwise able-bodied people sucking up the bennies our tax dollars pay for.

I also want to remind those wanting to cut military benefits that we help fund our benefits through the taxes we pay. Welfare recipients don't pay a whole lot of taxes, far as I know.

Lastly, check out the news. National debt limit needs raising. What's at stake? Possible impacts on Social Security and military pay. What? No impact on those welfare checks? That's bass-ackward. If anything, military pay and benefits should never be in doubt. Let those who are only takers worry about their welfare checks. The people whose blood has nourished the American tree of liberty should never need to worry about their salaries being paid.
Otis

I am a Federal Civilian and I approve this message. I also believe that if we should make cuts then it needs to be ACROSS THE BOARD no picking and choosing. Cut x amount from every single department and agency and that's how we can save this country.

A report came out today that interest on our debt will quadruple over the next 10 years. How can we pay that without making sure to pay down our debt as well? It's already a known fact that Social Security will not be around in the same fashion as it is today when I retire in 35 years, and that people like me will pay more in than we will ever receive.

Rusty Jones
02-05-2014, 06:27 PM
I want to see a law stating that any percentage cuts in military benefits (including percentage raises in premiums, fees, or commissary surcharges) shall not go into effect unless these cuts are matched by the same percentage cuts in benefits for Federal civilian workers and the total amount spent on Federally-funded welfare programs. Cuts in all three areas will be approved as a package or none of the cuts will be approved.

Okay, so... we got a 1% payraise this year after a four-year freeze, while the military was still getting raises. Are you SURE you want what federal civilians have? My healthcare premium jump up $70 per payday. Are you SURE you want what federal civilians have? That's just gonna result in more cuts on your end.


Our raise was a measly 1%. Welfare recieved a 34% raise. hmmm....No, Obama and liberals dont breed dependency at all. lol

Welfare got a 34% raise? You got a link for that?


I still argue that ALL welfare reciepients should be subject to random drug testing and welfare should have a max time frame for benefits.

You haven't been paying attention lately, then. In Florida, only 2% popped positive. With what it cost for the state to administer the drug test, vs how much the state saved by revoking welfare benefits... Florida actually lost money.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-05-2014, 06:30 PM
My x-wife is the exact same way. She tries everything she can in order to get benefits. When she had custody of the kids and I was a contractor in Afghan, I was sending back $2k a month, on top of the $1k of childcare every single month. She then went to the DSS and submitted paperwork for food stamps. She got those until they wanted a letter from me saying how much I sent her every single month, she wanted me to write it saying that I gave her $1000 a month overall. I said hell no and she lost food stamps.

Move forward 1 year and I come back and send $1k a month, and she starts receiving food stamps. DSS comes after me for money, and I give them all the documentation on what I was sending. Lo and behold she was spending the food stamps on cigarettes and to get cash back from stores. She had no job and still does not have job at all.

Going through my divorce, mine claimed she had the kids, which she didnt, and recieved at least $300 a month for food stamps. That was also while I was paying for everything but her new trailer rent. Its too easy to get on food stamps.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-05-2014, 06:43 PM
Welfare got a 34% raise? You got a link for that?Sorry, it grew 19%....in 2012. Dont have the numbers on how much its grown since then. I guess I can look later.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/welfare-state-grows-nearly-19-under-obama-almost-1-trillion-year

You haven't been paying attention lately, then. In Florida, only 2% popped positive. With what it cost for the state to administer the drug test, vs how much the state saved by revoking welfare benefits... Florida actually lost money.
But why is it that if less than 2% of people would be affected by voter ID laws, is it still not still considered racist? 2% of people that have foodstamps popping positive for Drugs shouldnt be on foodstamps. If they have money for drugs, then they have money for food. Hell CO is opening up EBT to be used at pot stores.

Rusty Jones
02-05-2014, 06:57 PM
Sorry, it grew 19%....in 2012. Dont have the numbers on how much its grown since then. I guess I can look later.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/welfare-state-grows-nearly-19-under-obama-almost-1-trillion-year

That's 19% for the overall cost of welfare, including new people who had to go on it. Not 19% benefit raises.


But why is it that if less than 2% of people would be affected by voter ID laws, is it still not still considered racist? 2% of people that have foodstamps popping positive for Drugs shouldnt be on foodstamps. If they have money for drugs, then they have money for food. Hell CO is opening up EBT to be used at pot stores.

Isn't the argument about where your tax dollars are going? By administering these tests, more of your tax dollars are being spent than what's being saved - in other words, it's a net loss. So... why do you still want to keep pouring money into the drug tests?

garhkal
02-05-2014, 07:27 PM
I realize that not every base is going to use the exact same procedures but in my experience those end of year buydown lists are reviewed by senior management and priorities assigned. If money comes available then those with highest priorities are funded.

Not by my recollections. Heck most commands i have been at in the navy flat out told everyone TO spam all sorts of orders to 'finish up end of year funds' even if it meant stocking up on stuff not needed, just so it can be spent, so we get the same budget next year.



Some of the stuff really gets me. I have an acquaintance that has been on some sort of welfare the entire time I have been in the military....over 18 years. She has been on Food Stamps, housing assistance, and who knows what else. She has a couple of kids by different dads. But her stuff isn't getting cut. She will continue on the welfare wagon forever.
Our raise was a measly 1%. Welfare recieved a 34% raise. hmmm....No, Obama and liberals dont breed dependency at all. lol

And you look at how the CBO is stating things will get with Obama care, where people are flat out incentived to NOT work, just so they can keep their govt subsidies for health care, vice actually WORK and lose them, and we are breeding MORE dependency.


I still argue that ALL welfare reciepients should be subject to random drug testing and welfare should have a max time frame for benefits.

Agreed. If i have to take a drug test to even GET a job (and for some of the places i tried applying for, to even just get my foot in the door for an interview), or to keep it, so too should it be a requirement to get/stay on govt assistance.
As to that max time benefit, look at how often they have increased the 'unemployment' time, and are arguing yet again about whether to increase it yet again.


My x-wife is the exact same way. She tries everything she can in order to get benefits. When she had custody of the kids and I was a contractor in Afghan, I was sending back $2k a month, on top of the $1k of childcare every single month. She then went to the DSS and submitted paperwork for food stamps. She got those until they wanted a letter from me saying how much I sent her every single month, she wanted me to write it saying that I gave her $1000 a month overall. I said hell no and she lost food stamps.

Move forward 1 year and I come back and send $1k a month, and she starts receiving food stamps. DSS comes after me for money, and I give them all the documentation on what I was sending. Lo and behold she was spending the food stamps on cigarettes and to get cash back from stores. She had no job and still does not have job at all.

And until the govt cracks down on fraudsters like this, and HARD, people will still do it as they see no or little repercussions for those who do get caught.



You haven't been paying attention lately, then. In Florida, only 2% popped positive. With what it cost for the state to administer the drug test, vs how much the state saved by revoking welfare benefits... Florida actually lost money.

SO because in ONE state, for the limited time it was up and operational, it only caught 2% of all those tested, it should NOT be done anywhere period?

Rusty Jones
02-05-2014, 07:29 PM
SO because in ONE state, for the limited time it was up and operational, it only caught 2% of all those tested, it should NOT be done anywhere period?

Ever heard of "escalation of commitment"? That seems to be the direction where you suggest that lawmakers head.

Rusty Jones
02-05-2014, 07:37 PM
I really get the impression that people who are for the drug testing of welfare recipients don't see the testing as the means to an end, but as the end itself.

Greg
02-05-2014, 07:50 PM
I really get the impression that people who are for the drug testing of welfare recipients don't see the testing as the means to an end, but as the end itself.

And if their eyes are closed tight enough, and their count long enough, the problem will go away.

CYBERFX1024
02-05-2014, 09:23 PM
Going through my divorce, mine claimed she had the kids, which she didnt, and recieved at least $300 a month for food stamps. That was also while I was paying for everything but her new trailer rent. Its too easy to get on food stamps.

Yeah it took me over 4 months in almost constant contact with DSS to actually get out of them hounding me. It took her actually going to jail for heroin possession for her to get off my back, and that was only NC. The stupid c*nt from Davidson County NC DSS actually contacted the county of Los Angles DSS because she figured I was deadbeat before she even talked to me. That took another 5 months and TWO in person visits to get them off my back. I told them that if I have show up again I will bring the children with me.

Yeah my deadbeat x-wife just got out of jail 3 weeks ago and has only called the kids she "loves so much" twice. She is part of what's wrong with this country today.

garhkal
02-06-2014, 05:44 AM
I really get the impression that people who are for the drug testing of welfare recipients don't see the testing as the means to an end, but as the end itself.

And to me, those who are against it (cause it might cost more than it might save) are the same sort of people who don't want to push other fraud catching initiatives and the like.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 12:25 PM
That's 19% for the overall cost of welfare, including new people who had to go on it. Not 19% benefit raises.Yeah, about that great recovery under Obama and the Kensyen (sp) economics BS, doesnt seem to work so well now does it? But hey, lets cut military spending and retirement cola increases to fix the problem instead of welfare.


Isn't the argument about where your tax dollars are going? By administering these tests, more of your tax dollars are being spent than what's being saved - in other words, it's a net loss. So... why do you still want to keep pouring money into the drug tests?
Yes, its about where the tax dollars are going. Are they going to people who need it or to people that use it for drug money. 2% in voter fraud could have meant Having Romney elected over Obama, but lets minimalize what 2% actually means right?

AJBIGJ
02-06-2014, 01:20 PM
Speaking of expensive, I wonder how much we would save nationally by not incarcerating people who experimented a little with MJ in the wrong place at the wrong time, (and possibly while being the wrong race)?

Absinthe Anecdote
02-06-2014, 01:40 PM
Speaking of expensive, I wonder how much we would save nationally by not incarcerating people who experimented a little with MJ in the wrong place at the wrong time, (and possibly while being the wrong race)?

Where are experimental users of MJ being locked up at?

The vast majority of states issue citations for small amounts of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. What leads to jail time is repeated offenses.

While I'll be the first to acknowledge that our War-on-Drugs is a miserable failure, the way you characterize it in that remark is a vast oversimplification of a complex issue with multiple layers of cause and effect.

I realize you were probably being tongue and cheek with that remark, but the War-on-Poverty can never be won if the poor don't fight it, along side the government.

Not all poor people use drugs; however, if you are poor and a drug user, I have a hard time justifying any monetary assistance until you clean yourself up.

An individual choice to stay the fuck away from drugs is the first step in improving one's life. If a person is unwilling to take that first step, how can anyone, or any government program help them?

AJBIGJ
02-06-2014, 01:52 PM
the War-on-Poverty can never be won

That is sufficient

Absinthe Anecdote
02-06-2014, 01:55 PM
That is sufficient

True, you will always have people with less.

AJBIGJ
02-06-2014, 02:17 PM
True, you will always have people with less.

As to the personal responsibility elements, agree completely. The statistics themselves are not all that impressive. ~0.7% of the total prison population on simple possession charges, ~0.1% first time offenders. My personal big issue with the War on Drugs in general is it creates a black market of a variety, as does any type of prohibition. The very predictable results of a prominent black market is that violence and other criminal activities always seem to get roped in along with it when it exists, especially in low income areas. Decriminalizing the activities takes the power away from the drug lords because they no longer control the supply side of the exchange.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 03:17 PM
And to me, those who are against it (cause it might cost more than it might save) are the same sort of people who don't want to push other fraud catching initiatives and the like.


Yes, its about where the tax dollars are going. Are they going to people who need it or to people that use it for drug money. 2% in voter fraud could have meant Having Romney elected over Obama, but lets minimalize what 2% actually means right?

What the two above quotes seem to be proving is that when people complain about where their tax dollars are going in terms of public assistance, it's really a bullshit façade. This, right here, shows that people who complain about this simply want to engage in malicious behavior towards people on public assistance. And they're willing to pay more in taxes in order to do it. Tsk, tsk.


Yeah, about that great recovery under Obama and the Kensyen (sp) economics BS, doesnt seem to work so well now does it? But hey, lets cut military spending and retirement cola increases to fix the problem instead of welfare.

You bitch about cutting the costs of military spending, yet you have a Ron Paul avatar? Oh, the irony!

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 04:17 PM
What the two above quotes seem to be proving is that when people complain about where their tax dollars are going in terms of public assistance, it's really a bullshit façade. This, right here, shows that people who complain about this simply want to engage in malicious behavior towards people on public assistance. And they're willing to pay more in taxes in order to do it. Tsk, tsk.How is drug testing for public assistance "malicious"?


You bitch about cutting the costs of military spending, yet you have a Ron Paul avatar? Oh, the irony!
Dude, do you even understand Ron Pauls stance on the military? He doesnt call to cut spending by cutting the force, he is for better R&D procedures like a private company does. Hes for cutting costs by closing bases overseas that have no bearing other than to put political preasure on foreign countries. And to pull out places like Saudi to avoid retribution from some crazed terrorist who may fly planes into buildings. Our government said they did it because they hate our freedom, OBL stated it was because we had people in his country and effecting their political climate. So, what was our response? Less freedom and more troops in the middle east killing more of their citizens and spying on our own. Yeah, figure out RP beliefs before you try to claim "irony". Irony is when people claim to be more enlightened for being liberal when they are illiterati about other peoples views.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 04:20 PM
True, you will always have people with less.

And the people in this nation who have "less" have MORE than those in the rest of the world in the same position.

sandsjames
02-06-2014, 04:20 PM
You bitch about cutting the costs of military spending, yet you have a Ron Paul avatar? Oh, the irony!

To be fair, if we followed Ron Paul's vision on what the military should be doing, we'd be in far fewer locations overseas, making the military budget cuts much simpler.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 04:37 PM
How is drug testing for public assistance "malicious"?

You can't be serious.


Dude, do you even understand Ron Pauls stance on the military? He doesnt call to cut spending by cutting the force, he is for better R&D procedures like a private company does. Hes for cutting costs by closing bases overseas that have no bearing other than to put political preasure on foreign countries. And to pull out places like Saudi to avoid retribution from some crazed terrorist who may fly planes into buildings. Our government said they did it because they hate our freedom, OBL stated it was because we had people in his country and effecting their political climate. So, what was our response? Less freedom and more troops in the middle east killing more of their citizens and spying on our own. Yeah, figure out RP beliefs before you try to claim "irony". Irony is when people claim to be more enlightened for being liberal when they are illiterati about other peoples views.

Negotiating with, and cowering down to the demands of, terrorists. Yep... that's how Ron Paul wants to cut our military.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 04:56 PM
You can't be serious.Yes, yes i am. Just like when I have to pee in a cup when I am "randomly" selected or when someone else goes for a job offer, how is peeing in a cup upon requesting public assistance "malicious"


Negotiating with, and cowering down to the demands of, terrorists. Yep... that's how Ron Paul wants to cut our military.
The arrogance that you and many like you have is why so many people hate Americans. When will you get it through your head that just like in America, we shouldnt be telling other people how to live their lives in other parts of the world. Pulling forces out of countries is "cowering down" or "negotiating"? That is such a farce.

sandsjames
02-06-2014, 05:01 PM
You can't be serious.





I'll never understand why there's an issue with this. If you receive a check from the government, you are essentially a government employee. Every other government employee is subject to pissing in a cup.

Now I'm all for the government providing rehab for the people receiving assistance. Assistance checks should be tied to attendance. If the people don't show, don't make an effort, then the checks should stop.

I've heard the claim that drug testing welfare recipients is another racist ploy, just like ID cards. I suppose that's true if one wants to claim that only poor black people use drugs. I highly doubt that is true.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 05:05 PM
I'll never understand why there's an issue with this. If you receive a check from the government, you are essentially a government employee. Every other government employee is subject to pissing in a cup.

Now I'm all for the government providing rehab for the people receiving assistance. Assistance checks should be tied to attendance. If the people don't show, don't make an effort, then the checks should stop.

I've heard the claim that drug testing welfare recipients is another racist ploy, just like ID cards. I suppose that's true if one wants to claim that only poor black people use drugs. I highly doubt that is true.

Thats a funny one since there are more whites on welfare than blacks and to assume that they arent smoking weed or meth is just plain ignorant.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 05:48 PM
I'll never understand why there's an issue with this. If you receive a check from the government, you are essentially a government employee. Every other government employee is subject to pissing in a cup.

Not true. Generally, and there may be some exceptions, GS employees are not subject to drug testing. WG employee generally are. Why?

Employers don't test test people "just because" or they simply want to catch someone in the act, just so they can fire them (unlike those who want drug testing for welfare recipients).

Employers do this in order to protect themselves from lawsuits, in case someone is injured or killed on the job due to a drug related mishap. Employers have to be able to show that they have programs in place to prevent this.

Because GS employees are generally white collar, this normally doesn't apply to us. Different story with WG employees.

Private sector employees may or not drug test ALL of their employees, just for the sake of fairness and holding everyone to the same standard. But that's their prerogative and, in the end, it's to protect themselves in case something happens on the job.

So... why employers do drug testing can't be used to justify drug testing welfare recipients.


Now I'm all for the government providing rehab for the people receiving assistance. Assistance checks should be tied to attendance. If the people don't show, don't make an effort, then the checks should stop.

I can understand this. Because then, the intent is to help people better themselves while they're on assistance. But have you seen any drug testing proposals include such provisions? I haven't.


I've heard the claim that drug testing welfare recipients is another racist ploy, just like ID cards. I suppose that's true if one wants to claim that only poor black people use drugs. I highly doubt that is true.

Yes and no. Usually, when you hear many conservatives describe the personalities and habits of people on welfare, they're making reference to stereotypes about blacks, and sometimes Latinos.

WJ5 brings up the fact that there are more whites than blacks on welfare.

But, we've discussed this before: there is a HUGE difference between how whites and minorities view the poor among them.

If you're white and poor and live in the trailor park, conservative upper and middle class whites are ashamed of you. You're a blight on their race. If they want to target blacks and Latinos in yanking welfare, they'll have no problem doing it... even if that means that poor whites end up being collateral damage.

Blacks and Latinos are a bit more inclusive when it comes to socioeconomics among their own - but don't get it twisted, because I DO believe that it's to a fault... where middle and upper class blacks and Latinos will dumb themselves down for their poor, instead of making it the other way around instead.

But the point is this... race may or may not be a factor in the drug testing of welfare. The fact that whites may be affected can't be used to discredit that. Not that you're saying that, but obviously WJ5 is.


Thats a funny one since there are more whites on welfare than blacks and to assume that they arent smoking weed or meth is just plain ignorant.

So people on welfare MUST be doing drugs? I knew from the beginning that this was an "ah ha, gotcha" thing. We've already seen that only 2% popped positive in Florida. what next?

I know: they're going to come up with something else that they think people on welfare are doing, and try to catch them in the act of doing THAT. And if that doesn't work, you come up with another assumption. Anything to justify sticking to those leeches of society!

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 06:22 PM
Yes and no. Usually, when you hear many conservatives describe the personalities and habits of people on welfare, they're making reference to stereotypes about blacks, and sometimes Latinos.Wow, this is a pretty bold statement that no conservative ever references. Its only libs that bring race into an arguement when it comes to government handouts being cut. But thanks for showing your own stereotyping of others, even though it isnt true.

WJ5 brings up the fact that there are more whites than blacks on welfare.

But, we've discussed this before: there is a HUGE difference between how whites and minorities view the poor among them.
If you're white and poor and live in the trailor park, conservative upper and middle class whites are ashamed of you. You're a blight on their race. If they want to target blacks and Latinos in yanking welfare, they'll have no problem doing it... even if that means that poor whites end up being collateral damage.

Blacks and Latinos are a bit more inclusive when it comes to socioeconomics among their own - but don't get it twisted, because I DO believe that it's to a fault... where middle and upper class blacks and Latinos will dumb themselves down for their poor, instead of making it the other way around instead.

But the point is this... race may or may not be a factor in the drug testing of welfare. The fact that whites may be affected can't be used to discredit that. Not that you're saying that, but obviously WJ5 is.I might have missed this, but are you talking about how whites who are the right tell poor whites to stop making excuses for being poor, as do blacks on the right say the same thing to poor blacks? I dont think its a racial thing, more of a political thing. You only distinguished white as being left or right. What do lefty whites think about the poor whites living in trailer parks?

But you dont seem to see that there are minorities on the right that say the exact samething as the whites do about their own race. It looks more like to me that Liberals would rather just playcate the poor and buy their votes (white or minority) with government handouts while the right tries get out of the way for business owners so the private sector can hire the poor. We see this time and time again, Obamacare is prime example right now.

So people on welfare MUST be doing drugs? I knew from the beginning that this was an "ah ha, gotcha" thing. We've already seen that only 2% popped positive in Florida. what next?Did I say it was because they were poor? No.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 06:40 PM
Wow, this is a pretty bold statement that no conservative ever references. Its only libs that bring race into an arguement when it comes to government handouts being cut. But thanks for showing your own stereotyping of others, even though it isnt true.

That's bullshit, and you know it. How many times do you hear conservatives speak of people on welfare driving Cadillacs or buying expensive sneakers (eg, the latest Jordans)? Are you going to tell me that you've never heard these, among other things? Those are stereotypes about blacks. And they use those SAME stereotypes to reference people on welfare.

Don't pretend that you're not aware.


I might have missed this, but are you talking about how whites who are the right tell poor whites to stop making excuses for being poor, as do blacks on the right say the same thing to poor blacks? I dont think its a racial thing, more of a political thing. You only distinguished white as being left or right. What do lefty whites think about the poor whites living in trailer parks?

Stop making excuses for being poor? Ah, you think people choose to be poor. Tsk, tsk.

No, it's a racial thing. For the past 50 years, the black community has been preaching "black unity" and bad consequences have come of, that many aren't aware of - for example, still being inclusive of those who are a liability to that community and allowing them to further damage it.

Conservative blacks... do you see them out and about telling poor blacks to do anything? No, they're too busy trying to show everyone else that "See? I'm not one of THEM!"


But you dont seem to see that there are minorities on the right that say the exact samething as the whites do about their own race. It looks more like to me that Liberals would rather just playcate the poor and buy their votes (white or minority) with government handouts while the right tries get out of the way for business owners so the private sector can hire the poor. We see this time and time again, Obamacare is prime example right now.

Yeah? Name ONE law or program implemented by the post-Southern Strategy Republican Party that was designed to do this. Name ONE.


Did I say it was because they were poor? No.

Yes, you did. You said it was ignorant to assume that people on welfare aren't doing drugs. Your own words.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-06-2014, 07:46 PM
That's bullshit, and you know it. How many times do you hear conservatives speak of people on welfare driving Cadillacs or buying expensive sneakers (eg, the latest Jordans)? Are you going to tell me that you've never heard these, among other things? Those are stereotypes about blacks. And they use those SAME stereotypes to reference people on welfare.

Don't pretend that you're not aware.Those are your stereo types. The right doesnt bash people who buy Clothes or cars, either on welfare or rich. Cadis arent blacks only cars either, but if you want to stick with an 80's meme, go right ahead and keep living in the past. But if these things are true, wouldnt your examples show a lack of means testing for government assistance?


Stop making excuses for being poor? Ah, you think people choose to be poor. Tsk, tsk.Well, lets see right here how you totally ignore the point and bring up a strawman. You take what I said as what those on the right say when a McDs worker says they arent paid a "livable" wage, and you turn it into me thinking the poor chose to be poor. Stay on subject. Those two sentence are not one in the same.


No, it's a racial thing. For the past 50 years, the black community has been preaching "black unity" and bad consequences have come of, that many aren't aware of - for example, still being inclusive of those who are a liability to that community and allowing them to further damage it.

Conservative blacks... do you see them out and about telling poor blacks to do anything? No, they're too busy trying to show everyone else that "See? I'm not one of THEM!"Watch "Runaway Slave" and tell me you dont know about the Black conservatives who dont say to the black community about government programs breaking the black families apart. The ones that preach "black unity" are race baiters and husslers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who profit greatly from causing strife against whites.


Yeah? Name ONE law or program implemented by the post-Southern Strategy Republican Party that was designed to do this. Name ONE.I said tried, not implemented. You seem to forget that Congress has been controlled by Dems the majority of the time since the so called "southern Strategy". One that has been tried is the abolishment of the min wage which actually has been shown to harm the poor because it devalues the currency and the purchasing power that the min wage is raised to reestablishes back to what it was raised from. It harms the middle class too because now what they worked hard to achieve in pay doesnt go up and they lose out on being compensated now that the rung has been raised.


Yes, you did. You said it was ignorant to assume that people on welfare aren't doing drugs. Your own words.
No, I said white poor people do drugs too, not BECAUSE they are poor.

garhkal
02-06-2014, 08:18 PM
What the two above quotes seem to be proving is that when people complain about where their tax dollars are going in terms of public assistance, it's really a bullshit façade. This, right here, shows that people who complain about this simply want to engage in malicious behavior towards people on public assistance. And they're willing to pay more in taxes in order to do it. Tsk, tsk.
!

SO cause i would like to see those on welfare and other public assistance, DO THE SAME as us in the military (or going for lots of jobs these days), which is pee in a cup periodically to test for illegal drugs in their system, i am malicious. I guess all those companies in the civilian sector that do this TO GET employment there are also Malicious, or is that only those who want the 'poor' to do it who get labeled malicious?


Employers don't test test people "just because" or they simply want to catch someone in the act, just so they can fire them (unlike those who want drug testing for welfare recipients).

Employers do this in order to protect themselves from lawsuits, in case someone is injured or killed on the job due to a drug related mishap. Employers have to be able to show that they have programs in place to prevent this.

So Goodyear tyre, one of the places i was asked to take a drug test, just to even get an interview on site for, is only doing it to stop lawsuits? Not so they can 'weed out those who may have higher health care costs that will hurt the companies bottom line.
Got it.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 08:21 PM
Those are your stereo types. The right doesnt bash people who buy Clothes or cars, either on welfare or rich. Cadis arent blacks only cars either, but if you want to stick with an 80's meme, go right ahead and keep living in the past. But if these things are true, wouldnt your examples show a lack of means testing for government assistance?

The right doesn't criticize the poor for what they spend their money on??? I'm not even gonna address the rest of your post. This conversation just went down the shitter with that.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 08:29 PM
SO cause i would like to see those on welfare and other public assistance, DO THE SAME as us in the military (or going for lots of jobs these days), which is pee in a cup periodically to test for illegal drugs in their system, i am malicious. I guess all those companies in the civilian sector that do this TO GET employment there are also Malicious, or is that only those who want the 'poor' to do it who get labeled malicious?

And... you completely ignored what I was about WHY the drug tests are done in the first place.


So Goodyear tyre, one of the places i was asked to take a drug test, just to even get an interview on site for, is only doing it to stop lawsuits? Not so they can 'weed out those who may have higher health care costs that will hurt the companies bottom line.
Got it.

Considering the fact that I AM a human resources professional with both a bachelor's and a master's degree in, I'm a pretty credible source of information on that; if I do say so myself.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 08:29 PM
SO cause i would like to see those on welfare and other public assistance, DO THE SAME as us in the military (or going for lots of jobs these days), which is pee in a cup periodically to test for illegal drugs in their system, i am malicious. I guess all those companies in the civilian sector that do this TO GET employment there are also Malicious, or is that only those who want the 'poor' to do it who get labeled malicious?

And... you completely ignored what I said about WHY the drug tests are done in the first place.


So Goodyear tyre, one of the places i was asked to take a drug test, just to even get an interview on site for, is only doing it to stop lawsuits? Not so they can 'weed out those who may have higher health care costs that will hurt the companies bottom line.
Got it.

Considering the fact that I AM a human resources professional with both a bachelor's and a master's degree in, I'm a pretty credible source of information on that; if I do say so myself.

Rusty Jones
02-06-2014, 08:48 PM
Ignore the first three duplicates. It's not letting me delete them. What's in the last is the edit that I meant to use.

AJBIGJ
02-06-2014, 10:03 PM
Ignore the first three duplicates. It's not letting me delete them. What's in the last is the edit that I meant to use.
I first want to state that your longer post REALLY got me thinking about what my feelings are on the subject, which I would take as a compliment, that doesn't happen very often.

I think you are absolutely correct in your assertions about why businesses include drug testing in their hiring practices, nothing I have learned directly contradicts it and it makes a lot of logical sense. This alone, coupled with my own personal opinions about the War on Drugs almost led me to revise my own position on the issue, at the very least it has evolved a little bit.

What has given me pause as of yet, I still think it is important that states be given the freedom to decide for themselves whether to include drug testing into being a condition of receiving welfare. To me, accepting welfare of any variety can (and should) be looked upon as a contractual agreement between the beneficiary and the taxpayers providing the subsidies. If the taxpayers will only agree to the subsidies when it includes drug testing (and even shifting the burden of the costs onto the applicant) I do think it is their prerogative to decide to make that a condition. Privacy is a right in my opinion, but welfare benefits are not. Should an applicant choose to waive the former as a condition towards receiving the latter, that would be their prerogative. I think states are there to enact rules to ensure their taxpayers' are represented fairly in the contract, and can decide how the program of welfare application is administered (I fully realize the reality here is a little different, some of this is "pie in the sky" type of thinking.) The welfare applicant will either enter in the contract under the agreed upon terms, forego the welfare benefits, or find a state that offers contractual conditions more to their own liking.

I will say you have made some pretty convincing arguments, and I'm not sure which way I'd vote if it was made into an agenda in the state of Virginia.

garhkal
02-07-2014, 07:56 AM
True, he has made some decent arguments, but usually when i talk to people and they rally against drug testing for welfare, they are also all FOR companies not hiring smokers, drinkers or other 'segments of society' they feel. Which to me is hypocratic. Why should it be ok for private companies to say "No you can't get a job here cause of XYZ" but the govt is ok to say we care not, you want welfare, here it is!

AJBIGJ
02-07-2014, 12:33 PM
True, he has made some decent arguments, but usually when i talk to people and they rally against drug testing for welfare, they are also all FOR companies not hiring smokers, drinkers or other 'segments of society' they feel. Which to me is hypocratic. Why should it be ok for private companies to say "No you can't get a job here cause of XYZ" but the govt is ok to say we care not, you want welfare, here it is!

Psst... Hypocritical, he's not taking an oath to practice medicine! :tongue3:

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-07-2014, 01:31 PM
The right doesn't criticize the poor for what they spend their money on??? I'm not even gonna address the rest of your post. This conversation just went down the shitter with that.

Eh, your right, they do. I take it back. But its not specifically targeted to Cadis and Jordans. But please, show me the interview that specifically said these two examples. I am sure there have been references to monster trucks, Cowboy boots, and makeup.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-07-2014, 01:38 PM
I first want to state that your longer post REALLY got me thinking about what my feelings are on the subject, which I would take as a compliment, that doesn't happen very often.

I think you are absolutely correct in your assertions about why businesses include drug testing in their hiring practices, nothing I have learned directly contradicts it and it makes a lot of logical sense. This alone, coupled with my own personal opinions about the War on Drugs almost led me to revise my own position on the issue, at the very least it has evolved a little bit.

What has given me pause as of yet, I still think it is important that states be given the freedom to decide for themselves whether to include drug testing into being a condition of receiving welfare. To me, accepting welfare of any variety can (and should) be looked upon as a contractual agreement between the beneficiary and the taxpayers providing the subsidies. If the taxpayers will only agree to the subsidies when it includes drug testing (and even shifting the burden of the costs onto the applicant) I do think it is their prerogative to decide to make that a condition. Privacy is a right in my opinion, but welfare benefits are not. Should an applicant choose to waive the former as a condition towards receiving the latter, that would be their prerogative. I think states are there to enact rules to ensure their taxpayers' are represented fairly in the contract, and can decide how the program of welfare application is administered (I fully realize the reality here is a little different, some of this is "pie in the sky" type of thinking.) The welfare applicant will either enter in the contract under the agreed upon terms, forego the welfare benefits, or find a state that offers contractual conditions more to their own liking.

I will say you have made some pretty convincing arguments, and I'm not sure which way I'd vote if it was made into an agenda in the state of Virginia.

My question is about if welfare is a temporary situation which most liberals claim it to be till the poor get a job(s), then why would the government not want drug testing if the government knows people wont be hired if they are going for a pee test for the private business? Wouldnt it make sense that if people wont be hired because of the reasons Rusty claims, why should they be able to claim the "bridge" of welfare when they arent truly actively searching for a job as most libs claim people on welfare are doing? Its like those people that are claiming unemployment having to show they are looking for jobs to keep recieving extended benefits, but when they submit a resume, they fill it up with crap about being ninjas.

AJBIGJ
02-07-2014, 04:02 PM
My question is about if welfare is a temporary situation which most liberals claim it to be till the poor get a job(s), then why would the government not want drug testing if the government knows people wont be hired if they are going for a pee test for the private business? Wouldnt it make sense that if people wont be hired because of the reasons Rusty claims, why should they be able to claim the "bridge" of welfare when they arent truly actively searching for a job as most libs claim people on welfare are doing? Its like those people that are claiming unemployment having to show they are looking for jobs to keep recieving extended benefits, but when they submit a resume, they fill it up with crap about being ninjas.

I'm a bit torn on the issue myself, since you're quoting me I presume you're at least partially asking me. Already we have two things under consideration, welfare, which in principle I'm already supposed to, and privacy, which is something I very much support. It makes it a tougher issue for me. I personally like Federalism as a role in the government intervening in commerce issues because, while my views are very libertarian they are very "minarchist" rather than "anarchist" in nature so I far prefer 50 smaller governments experimenting with ways to do things most effectively over 1 juggernaut monopolistic/oligopolistic symbiotically parasitical relationship between a Federal entity and the most powerful lobbyists. If say, California wants to offer benefits to recipients, no strings attached, I say let the California leverage the difference in any manner they like (that does not burden people in 49 other states). If Florida wants to leverage drug testing in a contractual fashion, they can as well.

I hold the opinion, over the periods of decades, we will see a dynamic geographical demographical shift as people decide what things they like and what things they don't like in government. It won't always be for the politics themselves, but those who seek economic freedom to run their businesses will gradually transition to where they have the most freedom to make it happen. Those who like to work in these jobs will transition as well. On the flip side, those who rely partially on subsidies from government will gravitate towards the location the subsidies are offered the most freely.

Rusty Jones
02-07-2014, 04:44 PM
True, he has made some decent arguments, but usually when i talk to people and they rally against drug testing for welfare, they are also all FOR companies not hiring smokers, drinkers or other 'segments of society' they feel.

Where in the FUCK did you get THIS from?


Which to me is hypocratic. Why should it be ok for private companies to say "No you can't get a job here cause of XYZ" but the govt is ok to say we care not, you want welfare, here it is!

Because if we allow people to go without food and shelter - despite what you and I may think of what we might consider to be their personality flaws - then we don't live in a civilized society. That's why.


Eh, your right, they do. I take it back. But its not specifically targeted to Cadis and Jordans. But please, show me the interview that specifically said these two examples.

I Googled "welfare jordans," and here's the result - see it for yourself:

https://www.google.com/#q=welfare+jordans

Here's the Google search for "welfare cadillac -drake" (I added the "-drake" in order filter out the Drake song:

https://www.google.com/#q=welfare+cadillac+-drake


I am sure there have been references to monster trucks, Cowboy boots, and makeup.

I bet there aren't. I Googled "welfare 'monster truck,'" and while there are some articles that have all of the words in it, it's not mentioning the two in the same context. Furthermore, cowboy hats and makeup aren't exactly things that are known to be too expensive for poor people.


My question is about if welfare is a temporary situation which most liberals claim it to be till the poor get a job(s), then why would the government not want drug testing if the government knows people wont be hired if they are going for a pee test for the private business? Wouldnt it make sense that if people wont be hired because of the reasons Rusty claims, why should they be able to claim the "bridge" of welfare when they arent truly actively searching for a job as most libs claim people on welfare are doing? Its like those people that are claiming unemployment having to show they are looking for jobs to keep recieving extended benefits, but when they submit a resume, they fill it up with crap about being ninjas.

You act like conservatives wanting the drug testing actually give two shits about people on welfare making good life decisions. I can at least give sandsjames some credit, because he at least suggested mandatory rehab for those who pop positive in order to retain benefits.

But for everyone else? They don't believe in what you just said. That's just something that might be said in order to win an argument.

What conservatives really want it for is because they really want to yank welfare anyway. And they THOUGHT the big shortcut to do it en masse would be through drug testing. And, as it turns out, it didn't work.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-07-2014, 05:38 PM
I Googled "welfare jordans," and here's the result - see it for yourself:

https://www.google.com/#q=welfare+jordans

Here's the Google search for "welfare cadillac -drake" (I added the "-drake" in order filter out the Drake song:

https://www.google.com/#q=welfare+cadillac+-drakeWell, you want me to sift through all of these blogs and internet troll posts to find the conservative interview attributing welfare recipients to black stereo types of Jordans and Cadis?


You act like conservatives wanting the drug testing actually give two shits about people on welfare making good life decisions. I can at least give sandsjames some credit, because he at least suggested mandatory rehab for those who pop positive in order to retain benefits.So, conservatives making prohabition of drugs thinking that would make it harder to buy them isnt being concerned with the poor making good life decisions? I am with you and Sand for rehab, but I am also not for the prohabition that allows the rise of the criminal syndicate to thrive. But hey, you have such a negative view of the other side that you never believe their stated intention to be true. Funny that Conservatives believe Obama's stated words to be true, like how he wants to destroy american jobs and raise the price of energy for everyone.


But for everyone else? They don't believe in what you just said. That's just something that might be said in order to win an argument.What does this mean? Who is "everyone else" and who are "they" that you speak of? And what was said to win an argument? You honestly lost me on this line.


What conservatives really want it for is because they really want to yank welfare anyway. And they THOUGHT the big shortcut to do it en masse would be through drug testing. And, as it turns out, it didn't work.
Hmm, I guess. Where did you hear that one? Now, I will agree, we cant just take it away since the FED has made the dollar so worthless, that a mother making $22k/year along with subsidies really equate to $60k/year. You cant really just expect her to find a job tomorrow paying that kind of salary. This is where the GOP is wrong in their assesment of getting rid of public assistance. But I am sure they would be more willing to negotiate if there wasnt so many videos of welfare people driving expensive cars and buying fancy clothes....

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-07-2014, 05:40 PM
I'm a bit torn on the issue myself, since you're quoting me I presume you're at least partially asking me. Already we have two things under consideration, welfare, which in principle I'm already supposed to, and privacy, which is something I very much support. It makes it a tougher issue for me. I personally like Federalism as a role in the government intervening in commerce issues because, while my views are very libertarian they are very "minarchist" rather than "anarchist" in nature so I far prefer 50 smaller governments experimenting with ways to do things most effectively over 1 juggernaut monopolistic/oligopolistic symbiotically parasitical relationship between a Federal entity and the most powerful lobbyists. If say, California wants to offer benefits to recipients, no strings attached, I say let the California leverage the difference in any manner they like (that does not burden people in 49 other states). If Florida wants to leverage drug testing in a contractual fashion, they can as well.

I hold the opinion, over the periods of decades, we will see a dynamic geographical demographical shift as people decide what things they like and what things they don't like in government. It won't always be for the politics themselves, but those who seek economic freedom to run their businesses will gradually transition to where they have the most freedom to make it happen. Those who like to work in these jobs will transition as well. On the flip side, those who rely partially on subsidies from government will gravitate towards the location the subsidies are offered the most freely.

There is a lot of examples today of this happening. Blacks are moving to the south in mass because they are tired of the liberal north and the poverty they have experienced up there.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 06:08 PM
Because if we allow people to go without food and shelter - despite what you and I may think of what we might consider to be their personality flaws - then we don't live in a civilized society. .

Why should we live in a civilized society? If there is no God, then there is no need to be civilized. If there is no God, then I don't have to fear any punishment in the afterlife. I can live my life on my terms and let the poor starve. I can go live in Thailand and shack up with a couple of twenty year old women and enjoy life. If there is no God, then why should I care if the poor starve. That's their problem. I'm sure that you think less of me because of my opinion, but why should I care what you think? You are a nobody. You are just a tiny little man with a big chip on his shoulder.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 06:27 PM
Because if we allow people to go without food and shelter - despite what you and I may think of what we might consider to be their personality flaws - then we don't live in a civilized society. .

Income taxes are a sign that our society is NOT civilized. The government uses the law to take money from us. If we try to resist, then we go to jail.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-07-2014, 06:37 PM
Income taxes are a sign that our society is NOT civilized. The government uses the law to take money from us. If we try to resist, then we go to jail.

Great point. I would have to say, having to FORCE people to take care of the poor is not very civilized.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 06:51 PM
Great point. I would have to say, having to FORCE people to take care of the poor is not very civilized.

Very true. Additionally, forcing people to take care of the freeloaders in our society is a sign that our society may soon collapse.

Rusty Jones
02-07-2014, 07:02 PM
Well, you want me to sift through all of these blogs and internet troll posts to find the conservative interview attributing welfare recipients to black stereo types of Jordans and Cadis?

No. Just reading the titles and the small passages on the search results page should clue you in as to what's going on in these articles.


So, conservatives making prohabition of drugs thinking that would make it harder to buy them isnt being concerned with the poor making good life decisions?

No, it's a desire to remove them from society by putting them in jail.


I am with you and Sand for rehab, but I am also not for the prohabition that allows the rise of the criminal syndicate to thrive.

Well if you believe that people aren't committing a crime by using drugs, then why do you want to test welfare recipients for drugs?


But hey, you have such a negative view of the other side that you never believe their stated intention to be true. Funny that Conservatives believe Obama's stated words to be true, like how he wants to destroy american jobs and raise the price of energy for everyone.

Because the truth comes out in the bills that they introduce. For example, I've already pointed out to sandsjames that there are no provisions for mandatory rehab in bills for the testing of welfare recipients. The bills are strictly designed to yank welfare away from those who pop positive.


What does this mean? Who is "everyone else" and who are "they" that you speak of? And what was said to win an argument? You honestly lost me on this line.

Everyone else, as in sandsjames being the only person here who suggested mandatory rehab for welfare recipients who pop positive for illegal drug use.


Hmm, I guess. Where did you hear that one? Now, I will agree, we cant just take it away since the FED has made the dollar so worthless, that a mother making $22k/year along with subsidies really equate to $60k/year.

And... the big lie that you bought into. Thinking that people on welfare are somehow living the good life. I live in Norfolk, VA. Look me up if you're ever in my neck of the woods, and I'll show you around town so you can see how people on welfare are living.


You cant really just expect her to find a job tomorrow paying that kind of salary. This is where the GOP is wrong in their assesment of getting rid of public assistance. But I am sure they would be more willing to negotiate if there wasnt so many videos of welfare people driving expensive cars and buying fancy clothes....

And... many people don't realize how people on welfare get these things. There's alot of illegal money to be made in the ghetto. Hell, before they tore down Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, it was estimated that between $50,000 to $100,000 worth of drug deals took place there DAILY.

Also, do you know what "tricking" is? You are, or were, in the military... so you see it everyday. Poor schmuck who has yet to learn about life, blowing his paycheck on local women who are using him. And it's not just men in the military who do this. Many poor women, including those on public assistance, use men with both legitimate and legitimate jobs everyday. And they will even give some of that money and other goods from the men tricking on them to other men.

That people ASSUME is on welfare with the latest iPhone? If she is on welfare, I bet you - some idiot bought it for her. I wouldn't even advise anyone to put money on that not being the case. The fun bet would be on whether or the trick is actually having sex with her.


There is a lot of examples today of this happening. Blacks are moving to the south in mass because they are tired of the liberal north and the poverty they have experienced up there.

Nope, not true. The racism in the north is different from the racism in the south. Southern racism is hostile in nature, where northern racism is condescening in nature.

The south is less segregated, but there's more opportunity up north.

Southern racism is basically "We don't care how close you get, but don't go too high;" where northern racism is "We don't care how high you go, but don't get too close."

Northern racism, I'll grant you, is responsible for the current state of the black community (again, watch The Pruitt-Igoe Myth if you haven't); but most blacks aren't conscious of that - most still think that slavery is responsible, when most of the problems didn't begin until the Great Migration North.

However, where you're wrong is the insinuation that black people have a problem with liberals, and want to go places that are run by conservatives. The remigration south is a cultural thing. The culture of southern blacks has caught on and gone mainstream, and this has been the case for the past 15 years.


Why should we live in a civilized society? If there is no God, then there is no need to be civilized. If there is no God, then I don't have to fear any punishment in the afterlife. I can live my life on my terms and let the poor starve. I can go live in Thailand and shack up with a couple of twenty year old women and enjoy life. If there is no God, then why should I care if the poor starve. That's their problem.

Yep, that's your problem. You think that someone has to believe in God in order to care about their fellow man.


I'm sure that you think less of me because of my opinion, but why should I care what you think?

Yep, I sure do.


You are a nobody. You are just a tiny little man with a big chip on his shoulder.

No, you are. You're the one who expresses so much hate.


Income taxes are a sign that our society is NOT civilized. The government uses the law to take money from us. If we try to resist, then we go to jail.

Tell me something: do you really believe the kind of bullshit that you put out on this forum? Or are you trying to portray some caricature of anti-social right wing nutjob idiocy?

AJBIGJ
02-07-2014, 07:16 PM
Everyone else, as in sandsjames being the only person here who suggested mandatory rehab for welfare recipients who pop positive for illegal drug use.

For the record, this would probably be an make-or-break factor if I were to vote in favor of drug testing in Virginia, if it was in question. Having been a DAPA myself it's hard to think otherwise.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 07:29 PM
Yep, that's your problem. You think that someone has to believe in God in order to care about their fellow man.

If there is no God, then why should I care about my fellow man, especially if he is a freeloader? I'm just askin'.


No, you are. You're the one who expresses so much hate.

It is not hate. It is tough love.


Tell me something: do you really believe the kind of bullshit that you put out on this forum? Or are you trying to portray some caricature of anti-social right wing nutjob idiocy?

Here we go again,... more shaming language from Rusty. I find it interesting that people like you dismiss organized religion, yet you frequently attempt use the main tool used by organized religion, i.e. shaming language, to manipulate and control people. Personally, I don't think that you'll have much luck manipulating and controlling people with shaming language because, unlike organized religion, you can not scare the masses with threats of the wrath of a supreme deity.

Rusty Jones
02-07-2014, 07:49 PM
If there is no God, then why should I care about my fellow man, especially if he is a freeloader? I'm just askin'.

Didn't you get it the first time? Religion is not a prerequisite for compassion. Hell, from what I'm seeing, it's probably more likely to be a detractor. At least, that's the impression that I'm getting.


It is not hate. It is tough love.

No, it's hate. The state that you'd rather see people that you deem to be beneath you as a result of yanking public assistance from them is nothing but pure hate, plain and simple. More often than not, the claim of "tough love" is bullshit, and is used to mask hate.


Here we go again,... more shaming language from Rusty. I find it interesting that people like you dismiss organized religion, yet you frequently attempt use the main tool used by organized religion, i.e. shaming language, to manipulate and control people. Personally, I don't think that you'll have much luck manipulating and controlling people with shaming language because, unlike organized religion, you can not scare the masses with threats of the wrath of a supreme deity.

It's not shaming language. It's my disbelief that anyone can actually say the kind of shit you're saying with a straight face.

imnohero
02-07-2014, 07:52 PM
Rusty. USN is posting only to 'get your goat' and watch you get riled up. He takes pleasure in and find it humorous to upset you. Ignore him. Whatever you say he will just twist it around anyway.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-07-2014, 07:57 PM
Why should we live in a civilized society? If there is no God, then there is no need to be civilized. If there is no God, then I don't have to fear any punishment in the afterlife. I can live my life on my terms and let the poor starve. I can go live in Thailand and shack up with a couple of twenty year old women and enjoy life. If there is no God, then why should I care if the poor starve. That's their problem. I'm sure that you think less of me because of my opinion, but why should I care what you think? You are a nobody. You are just a tiny little man with a big chip on his shoulder.

Is the only the only reason you act civilized is because you fear punishment from God?

If that is the case, I say you are not a good person.

What about being a civilized person because it is the right thing to do?

If it takes an omnipotent spirit to keep you in line, you can't really be trusted, and are a piece of crap.

You better go to Thailand and spend as much time with those 20 year olds while you can.

Because your God sees through that weak bullshit and is going to punish your ass real good.

AJBIGJ
02-07-2014, 08:11 PM
R.I.P. Thread...

Rusty Jones
02-07-2014, 08:14 PM
R.I.P. Thread...

You're right about that. Whenever USN-Retired comes in and does his thing, threads get locked up.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 08:39 PM
Is the only the only reason you act civilized is because you fear punishment from God?

If that is the case, I say you are not a good person.



So? Why should I care what you think of me? You are nobody. And someday, you will be dead.

And leave the shaming language to organized religion. You simply aren't qualified to handle something as dangerous as shaming language. You might hurt yourself.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 08:40 PM
You're right about that. Whenever USN-Retired comes in and does his thing, threads get locked up.

I couldn't do it without you.

USN - Retired
02-07-2014, 08:52 PM
Rusty. USN is posting only to 'get your goat' and watch you get riled up. He takes pleasure in and find it humorous to upset you. Ignore him. Whatever you say he will just twist it around anyway.

I appreciate the compliment, but honestly, I'm not doing much twisting. The Rusty's liberal agenda is already twisted.

garhkal
02-07-2014, 09:33 PM
Where in the FUCK did you get THIS from?


As i mentioned. From talking with other people. I don't just talk to people on this site when i discuss public issues.

imnohero
02-07-2014, 09:52 PM
R.I.P. Thread...

Appropriate, this thread died about 3 pages ago.

UncaRastus
02-08-2014, 01:41 AM
Get back to the subject at hand, or this thread will be locked.

Capt Alfredo
02-08-2014, 02:10 AM
Get back to the subject at hand, or this thread will be locked.

Or, you could appropriately discipline the people who are posting against the rules and leave the thread open for those who choose to continue the original discussion. I'm tired of the "one person poops his pants, everyone wears diapers" way of doing business around here.

Back to the topic.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-08-2014, 03:47 AM
Or, you could appropriately discipline the people who are posting against the rules and leave the thread open for those who choose to continue the original discussion. I'm tired of the "one person poops his pants, everyone wears diapers" way of doing business around here.

Back to the topic.

God! I can not decide which is more of an appealing course of action; forking a heaping amount of Alfredo noodles into my gullet, or promptly shitting my pants.

Frankly, I could go either way, because it shifts the burden to an inarticulate UncaRastus as to how he will respond.

Either way, I think we should be forgiving and tolerant of his incoherent grunts of authority.

He doesn't really understand the nature of our discourse and should be forgiven.

TJMAC77SP
02-08-2014, 05:30 AM
Get back to the subject at hand, or this thread will be locked.

Just lock the frapping thread.


So sick and tired of the fucking 'hammer'

Mjölnir
02-08-2014, 11:21 PM
:(

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-10-2014, 04:49 PM
No. Just reading the titles and the small passages on the search results page should clue you in as to what's going on in these articles.So you attribute troll posts to all conservatives? Wow.


No, it's a desire to remove them from society by putting them in jail.Right, if you believe that, how do you not believe planned parenthood isnt doing worse by setting up shop in low income minority neighborhoods 80% of the time and killing off more minorities in a year than the KKK ever did in history? That was the origional stated purpose of PP in the first place. And by the way, illegalizing drugs came from Dems who made it only illegal for minorities in the beginning. The GOP made it illegal for everyone when it turned into a moral issue, and that includes Regean and the war on drugs.


Well if you believe that people aren't committing a crime by using drugs, then why do you want to test welfare recipients for drugs?Because they typically will be drug tested by the private companies and will be rejected and continue to recieve welfare.


Because the truth comes out in the bills that they introduce. For example, I've already pointed out to sandsjames that there are no provisions for mandatory rehab in bills for the testing of welfare recipients. The bills are strictly designed to yank welfare away from those who pop positive.That doesnt mean its a racial issue. Its one of the reasons for the TEA party esq groups (libertarians) that are trying to out the ol guard from the GOP. But remember, if you put in these bills that thos that pop positive for drugs should go to rehab, then isnt the fear of the government knowing your private life coming true? The point of just denying public assistance is the least they can do.


And... the big lie that you bought into. Thinking that people on welfare are somehow living the good life. I live in Norfolk, VA. Look me up if you're ever in my neck of the woods, and I'll show you around town so you can see how people on welfare are living.


And... many people don't realize how people on welfare get these things. There's alot of illegal money to be made in the ghetto. Hell, before they tore down Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, it was estimated that between $50,000 to $100,000 worth of drug deals took place there DAILY.

Also, do you know what "tricking" is? You are, or were, in the military... so you see it everyday. Poor schmuck who has yet to learn about life, blowing his paycheck on local women who are using him. And it's not just men in the military who do this. Many poor women, including those on public assistance, use men with both legitimate and legitimate jobs everyday. And they will even give some of that money and other goods from the men tricking on them to other men.

That people ASSUME is on welfare with the latest iPhone? If she is on welfare, I bet you - some idiot bought it for her. I wouldn't even advise anyone to put money on that not being the case. The fun bet would be on whether or the trick is actually having sex with her.I would bet there are a great deal of those people "tricking" the government for the iPhone. The free phones (obamaphones) expense has greatly exploded from the price tag under Bush to what it is under Obama.


Nope, not true. The racism in the north is different from the racism in the south. Southern racism is hostile in nature, where northern racism is condescening in nature.So hostile is better than condesending? Guess blacks would rather live in a place where you think their lives are in danger rather than have boosted test scores for college exams. But thank you for admitting to the racism of the liberals.


The south is less segregated, but there's more opportunity up north.More opportunity how?


Southern racism is basically "We don't care how close you get, but don't go too high;" where northern racism is "We don't care how high you go, but don't get too close."The second line doesnt make sense. Going "high" means they will be closer than anything. Are you saying blacks would rather be around whites than to succeed?


Northern racism, I'll grant you, is responsible for the current state of the black community (again, watch The Pruitt-Igoe Myth if you haven't); but most blacks aren't conscious of that - most still think that slavery is responsible, when most of the problems didn't begin until the Great Migration North.Interesting suggestion, I will check out if it is on netflix while I am on convelecent.


However, where you're wrong is the insinuation that black people have a problem with liberals, and want to go places that are run by conservatives. The remigration south is a cultural thing. The culture of southern blacks has caught on and gone mainstream, and this has been the case for the past 15 years.Ah, so because of hip hop "repping the dirty south", blacks are moving back because of the fad and lack of success they may achieve. Its amazing what people do because of what they see on TV.



Tell me something: do you really believe the kind of bullshit that you put out on this forum? Or are you trying to portray some caricature of anti-social right wing nutjob idiocy?
Really? Being for taxation is "Social"? When was the last time you saw your tax collector and followed them to hand YOUR money to a poor person at the welfare line? Taxation is the biggest form of being anti-social because you dont have to see anyone to vote for MORE taxes on someone else to be given to someone you dont know.