D.T.W.A.

[GreecePwns]

I think I said this earlier, but...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand /thread

[Symmetry]

Guys- I guess I've had a fair few questions about my reply to Night Strike, so I'll try to cover the most FAQs.

What are the chances of Night Strike actually responding to the above post?

I'm guessing 1/10. He usually wusses when it comes to replying when he gets called out.

If he does reply, what are the chances of it being more than two lines?

Personally I think if he does reply he'll just go for two and an emoticon before he runs out of steam.

What are the chances of an emoticon being present in place of an argument?

Almost certain.

Aren't you baiting Night Strike with this?

I'll leave that up to the moderators

Isn't Night Strike a moderator?

Oh bugger.

[HapSmo19]

What are the chances of Night Strike actually responding to the above post?

I'm guessing 1/10. He usually wusses when it comes to replying when he gets called out.

What did you call him out on? A different subject? You've got alot of time on your hands, dontcha?

I'm pretty sure he agrees(don't quote me on this) that they(the banks) should've filed bankruptcy.

The topic at hand is drug tests for individuals receiving public money.

When a person has to take a drug test before they get a chance to earn their money, it's really not unreasonable to ask people to do the same for a handout, subject.

[Night Strike]

What are the chances of Night Strike actually responding to the above post?

I'm guessing 1/10. He usually wusses when it comes to replying when he gets called out.

What did you call him out on? A different subject? You've got alot of time on your hands, dontcha?

I'm pretty sure he agrees(don't quote me on this) that they(the banks) should've filed bankruptcy.

The topic at hand is drug tests for individuals receiving public money.

When a person has to take a drug test before they get a chance to earn their money, it's really not unreasonable to ask people to do the same for a handout, subject.

I'll quote you on it because I DO agree with you: the banks should have NEVER been bailed out. But either way, this thread is about welfare recipients, not corporations that received bailouts. For some reason, I don't think you can actually do a drug test on a corporation. I didn't know a business could piss in a cup. It's pretty irrelevant though: saying that "Oh, we can't drug test welfare recipients because we don't drug test bailout recipients." isn't even a valid argument as it's comparing two completely different groups. That's not an argument against the welfare drug tests; it's just another argument to do nothing and preserve the massive governmental handouts.

And I don't need an emoticon, just a simple chart:

If you take a read, TARP lasted for 2 years and over those 2 years, it spent about the same amount of money as welfare handouts spent. Yet welfare will continue to last for many more years, so yes, if we can stop giving money to drug addicts, I'm all for it.

[BigBallinStalin]

>usgovernmentspending.com
>"welfare" not defined

lol

[Phatscotty]

Apparently, Phatty considers anything that keeps the poor suppressed a good thing.

How is doing drug tests on welfare recipients suppressing the poor? Drugs suppress the poor, not the tests that are designed to catch drug abusers.

[Symmetry]

What are the chances of Night Strike actually responding to the above post?

I'm guessing 1/10. He usually wusses when it comes to replying when he gets called out.

What did you call him out on? A different subject? You've got alot of time on your hands, dontcha?

I'm pretty sure he agrees(don't quote me on this) that they(the banks) should've filed bankruptcy.

The topic at hand is drug tests for individuals receiving public money.

When a person has to take a drug test before they get a chance to earn their money, it's really not unreasonable to ask people to do the same for a handout, subject.

I'll quote you on it because I DO agree with you: the banks should have NEVER been bailed out. But either way, this thread is about welfare recipients, not corporations that received bailouts. For some reason, I don't think you can actually do a drug test on a corporation. I didn't know a business could piss in a cup. It's pretty irrelevant though: saying that "Oh, we can't drug test welfare recipients because we don't drug test bailout recipients." isn't even a valid argument as it's comparing two completely different groups. That's not an argument against the welfare drug tests; it's just another argument to do nothing and preserve the massive governmental handouts.

And I don't need an emoticon, just a simple chart:

If you take a read, TARP lasted for 2 years and over those 2 years, it spent about the same amount of money as welfare handouts spent. Yet welfare will continue to last for many more years, so yes, if we can stop giving money to drug addicts, I'm all for it.

Ha- fair enough. Although it's worth pointing out that the Supreme Court did seem to decide that corporations have the same rights as individuals. That's just me being fatuous though.

I do think that if we're arguing for all recipients of governmental welfare money receive drug tests, that bankers should also be forced to receive regular drug tests if they've received handouts from the government.

I think you can appreciate that I'm not asking for corporations to piss into a cup. I'm simply suggesting that individual bankers employed by said corporations should be tested if they're handling money given to them by the government. I don't think that's off topic, merely symmetrical to the arguments employed elsewhere on the thread with regard to welfare recipients.

I would even push the point a bit further and say that if a major corporation, handling billions of dollars worth of tax payers money, and being so big that it can't be allowed to fail by a (let's face it) fairly bipartisan consensus should perhaps be rigorously checked for drug users. Particularly those users who might be addicted to cocaine as it's kind of known for causing feelings of massive over-confidence and recklessness.

I think if it's really the case that we want to make (and this is purposefully an extreme case) a sufferer of multiple sclerosis choose between smoking a joint to alleviate the pain and receiving a welfare check that allows her to get by for another month, then it's not unreasonable to ask that the CEO and major investment bankers of say, Goldman Sachs, not be high while piloting the global economy.

[Phatscotty]

The drug tests are upon suspicion/"random". For the most part people lose their benefits when they get arrested for drugs or go to the hospital or something.

[Symmetry]

The drug tests are upon suspicion/"random". For the most part people lose their benefits when they get arrested for drugs or go to the hospital or something.

Seems like a fair compromise. If a banker visits a hospital or medical facility, and it's found that they work for a corporation that has received public money, then they should be tested for drugs. It's only fair. I suspect that won't win many votes as a matter of public policy, and might be kind of anathema to the right in particular, but it would seem a little hypocritical if we were just arguing that drugs are bad for poor people, and not also a problem among the rich who receive public money.

After all, that cocaine isn't cheap and it's not as if bankers are growing it in their basements for medicinal purposes.

[natty dread]

Go go Symmetry. Seems like Night Strike & his little clique is hard pressed to come up with a logical counter to Symmetry's argument. It will be interesting to see how they try to wiggle out of this one.

Pass the popcorn please

[SirSebstar]

I predict somewhat increased rates of poverty, those hit the hardest will be the children who are already in a shitty situation. Lawsuits are also highly likely due to the possibility of false positives.

It seems fairly typical. Judging from the short article you linked to it's a law designed to appeal to a large number of voters and make the governor and those who proposed the law seem as though they do something to improve public health, curb abuse of the welfare system, and act to reduce drug abuse. Ultimately I believe the law will probably be ineffective in achieving any positive results for society as a whole, it may well succeed in getting someone re-elected, though.

I think this above said it all, whether it be bankers or welfare recipients.

alternativly
Now if there were random testing and then a help program would get activated, that would help more to all parties involved. even bankers..
I think however it is much cheaper to dope up welfare recipients by the state then banning then from dope and welfare alike. Reason: doped up people do not care, and they eat less, so give em some to keep am happy and out of the way, that should please most everybody... And yes this is exaggeration to prove a point.

Welfare should be accessible to those who need it. If you feel someone else should not receive it, go examine your head again, and try to buy back your heart in the pawnshop

[PLAYER57832]

Reason: doped up people do not care, and they eat less, so give em some to keep am happy and out of the way, that should please most everybody... And yes this is exaggeration to prove a point.

Uh-- depends on the drug (or so I have been told)

Welfare should be accessible to those who need it. If you feel someone else should not receive it, go examine your head again, and try to buy back your heart in the pawnshop

Welfare, ironically enough, is actually a cost-effective way to deal with the truly poor. People who are starving go to great lengths that people who are fed do not, never mind the "humanity". In fairness, I will say that Nightstrike has previously indicated he thoght churches and individuals should step in, just not the government -- but while that might sound wonderful, can be when done well, history shows that too many people use then needs of the poor to force them into "bully pulpit" or other situations not really compatable with US values )or even sense in some cases).

Government welfare absolutely needs reform, whether it is for bankers or the poor. Elimination is going too far. Also, to go back to the chart above-- one big difference between money given in welfare and bankers is that wefare recipients SPEND their money almost immediately within the community for food, etc. Do some abuse that and do other things? YES! Do some bankers embessel, cheat, etc.. YES! Criminals exist in all levels of society. Not sure why the bankers get so much more of a free pass than those on welfare. They, too are using OUR money .. and not just to survive, but to make pretty nice profits and salaries.

[SirSebstar]

Different drugs have different effects. Some get the munchies from weed, but hardcore heroine stops the need for food, or so i have been told.

I think some see the basic problem with welfare being that it rewards people who contribute little, be it intentional or not. It is like a giant leach sucking the life out of a system and people. Like in ancient Egypt where the cost of building and maintaining the temple simply grew larger that the state could afford, contributing to its decline. The problem is that welfare is not all that expencive and is actually more cost-effective, as player also stated. Welfare can indeed be done more efficiently. It is the government that sucks the life out of society. Welfare and a few other subject should be neither a playground for the left nor the right, but simply a task that should be well managed. It is too important to leave it up to churches and individuals, but there is no reason why gov should bypass those. There were it is adequately managed there is no reason for gov to step in. efficiency first, politics second.

But above all, there should be a social safety net. Anything else would be anti-social

[natty dread]

hardcore heroine stops the need for food, or so i have been told.

No drug can stop the need for food, or so I have been told. It can make you feel like you don't need food, or so I have been told, but you can still starve if you don't eat, or so I have been told.

[SirSebstar]

true natty, i was trying to refer to the feeling of hunger that was being stopped instead of the physical need for sustanance

[Night Strike]

Go go Symmetry. Seems like Night Strike & his little clique is hard pressed to come up with a logical counter to Symmetry's argument. It will be interesting to see how they try to wiggle out of this one.

Pass the popcorn please

Why do I have to come up with a logical counter to an argument that isn't even on the topic of doing drug tests on welfare recipients? If he wants to support drug tests for people in companies that accepted bailout money, so be it. It has no bearing on the relevancy of my position.

[GreecePwns]

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

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

[Night Strike]

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

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

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

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

[BigBallinStalin]

Thank you Symmetry for summarizing several pages of this debate from that other thread. It is amusing to see the same people squirm because they don't want to be labeled as hypocrites (which they really are, or at the very least, they support an unfair discriminatory policy).


Here's my question for the Night Strikers:

A) Why should there be drug tests for welfare recipients?


B) Why is there no mention of conducting a study on two variables: 1) drug usage, 2) performance. How accountable are illegal drugs for lack of productivity?


C) Then, with "drugs," why is it for only illegal drugs? Why not alcohol or cigarettes? Those can be very counter-productive drugs, and if we don't want tax-money being spent to support such counter-productive habits, then why omit such habits from the conditions to receive welfare?

[notyou2]

Night why don't you want to be fair to all levels of society? It seems you are promoting something simply to the disadvantaged and not to all levels of society.

[GreecePwns]

Oh and that chart, I could write a around 2 pages with how comically pathetic it is.

Furthermore, if drugs tests SHOULD be done on welfare recipients, why not on those receiving bailout money?

What is stopping the government from, following finding out that their money was spent on coke and hookers, ask for it to be paid back?

[Phatscotty]

Night why don't you want to be fair to all levels of society? It seems you are promoting something simply to the disadvantaged and not to all levels of society.

So much for being free.

We should be free to choose who we want to help and how. As it stands today, too much of the help is wasted on bureaucrats and waste, not to mention a huge amount on drugs that funds lives of drug dealers n crime. Pretty backwards.

A tragedy if you ask me.

[notyou2]

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

[notyou2]

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

[notyou2]

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