D.T.W.A.

[jimboston]

Hey. A lot of people don't want to pay for any welfare at all. There is no constitutional right to welfare or to be taken care of. It can be taken away. It can be made harder to get. Budgets are strapped all around the country

I have said a few times the drug testing program is in progress so lets wait and see the results.

No constitutional right for the tests either though. Testing people would cost money, and budgets are strapped.

Moot point.

Welfare is a privilege not a right... If the people want to make recipients take a test for the privilege of receiving welfare it is the people's right to do so. Regardless of wether or not there are savings.

Point # 2... The article said there was savings. The savings were minimal but they were there. The stats don't factor in many other savings, like....
- People who didn't bother applying because they knew they would fail.
- People who stopped (even for a little while) so they could pass.
- The public's long-term opinion of welfare... If the public is reasonably sure that druggies don't get our money we will be more likely / more open to funding welfare better.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

But then you also have the cranky old people (aka most of Florida) who will see this as somehow enabling drug use among welfare recipients. Remember, these people voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. In droves.

edit. I finally voted in the poll. I say, maybe. If the tests were
a) provided free of charge to the state by the provider, which just happens to be Rick Scott's company. Sacrifice for society, bitch.
b) mandatory for anybody who gets taxpayer money. So, everybody.
c) tested for both illegal and easily abusable drugs (hey there, alcohol)
d) thrown into a trash bin, or maybe used to demonstrate how laughable the insinuation that drug addiction is a lower-class affliction, then thrown out.

Then I could agree to it. I'm even negotiable on [d]. I'm not unreasonable. The other ones are pretty important, though.

If I was in Phatscotty's camp, I'd have to at least be reasonable and admit that (c) should be done. Because, we don't want to waste our taxpayer dollars on people's addictions, right, Phatscotty?

Maybe if they see good results it will be free or reduced. I think it's bunk too that they have to pay for it.

Also none of this has anything to do with stereotypes or one that implies the poor are bigger users. It's the principal that it's taxpayer money and welfare is supposed to help people.

To put it generally, it's just one form of welfare abuse. If the welfare is being abused, then we shouldn't provide the abuser with welfare. What's wrong with that?

If you feel that welfare doesn't help people in the long-run, then filtering out a very small proportion for addiction to illicit drugs isn't the correct solution.

[natty dread]

Just read a bunch of Phatscotty posts? Have no fear, the help is near:

[PLAYER57832]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

I see, and you don't think a problem coming up with a $50 application fee mattered?

We fully realize that YOUR real goal is just to make welfare as ineffective and painful as possible. The problem is this is an EXTREMELY dishonest way to go about it....

[BigBallinStalin]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

I see, and you don't think a problem coming up with a $50 application fee mattered?

We fully realize that YOUR real goal is just to make welfare as ineffective and painful as possible. The problem is this is an EXTREMELY dishonest way to go about it....

Don't waste your time with the Dodge King until he addresses the following link, which might properly defend his discriminatory and ineffective policy.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=1005#p3334180


Until then, the Dodge King shall continue to bear the crown.

[PLAYER57832]

LOL... seems there are about 68 pages of people trying to get Phattscotty to admit his assumptions here were wrong.

[Phatscotty]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

I see, and you don't think a problem coming up with a $50 application fee mattered?

We fully realize that YOUR real goal is just to make welfare as ineffective and painful as possible. The problem is this is an EXTREMELY dishonest way to go about it....

The fewer people on welfare, the better. Do you agree?

[Phatscotty]

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

But then you also have the cranky old people (aka most of Florida) who will see this as somehow enabling drug use among welfare recipients. Remember, these people voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. In droves.

edit. I finally voted in the poll. I say, maybe. If the tests were
a) provided free of charge to the state by the provider, which just happens to be Rick Scott's company. Sacrifice for society, bitch.
b) mandatory for anybody who gets taxpayer money. So, everybody.
c) tested for both illegal and easily abusable drugs (hey there, alcohol)
d) thrown into a trash bin, or maybe used to demonstrate how laughable the insinuation that drug addiction is a lower-class affliction, then thrown out.

Then I could agree to it. I'm even negotiable on [d]. I'm not unreasonable. The other ones are pretty important, though.

If I was in Phatscotty's camp, I'd have to at least be reasonable and admit that (c) should be done. Because, we don't want to waste our taxpayer dollars on people's addictions, right, Phatscotty?

Maybe if they see good results it will be free or reduced. I think it's bunk too that they have to pay for it.

Also none of this has anything to do with stereotypes or one that implies the poor are bigger users. It's the principal that it's taxpayer money and welfare is supposed to help people.

To put it generally, it's just one form of welfare abuse. If the welfare is being abused, then we shouldn't provide the abuser with welfare. What's wrong with that?

If you feel that welfare doesn't help people in the long-run, then filtering out a very small proportion for addiction to illicit drugs isn't the correct solution.

I found it interesting to learn today that there are fewer people serving time in prison for non violent drug offenses than there are drug addicted welfare abusers, even at the minimal 2% level. I'm not sure where you are on NVDoffeners doing prison time, but perhaps that should not even be an issue since it's a very small percentage of people.

Welfare can help people and it can hurt people. There isn't anything wrong with me pointing out one part of the hurt and trying to make it better. All I am askin for is a little bit of oversight.

The reason I'm never going to give up on this is because, as I have said before, I know people who are scamming the system on so many levels that it's disgusting. See I'm not pretending like a lot of you are. I'm talking about an issue that affects friends/family/neighbors etc. I'm talking about them getting free medical insurance, food stamps, welfare even though they live with their parents, and with that insurance every month he gets his medications for free and then sells them on the street and buys even more drugs, and this guy is perfectly able to work, except, he can't stay clean..... The whole fucking scenario is absolutely sickening. You guys can imagine how you think it is or isn't, I'm only doing this because of what I know it is, and that is severe abuse of the system.

No, charging the applicants for their owns tests is not the best idea, or application fees, there are a thousand different ways to deal with the problems. This is just one small step in returning our county to fiscally stability and personal responsibility overall.

[Phatscotty]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

I see, and you don't think a problem coming up with a $50 application fee mattered?

We fully realize that YOUR real goal is just to make welfare as ineffective and painful as possible. The problem is this is an EXTREMELY dishonest way to go about it....

Don't waste your time with the King until he addresses the following link, which might properly defend his regulatory ideas and and principles of personal responsibility and accountability.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=1005#p3334180


Until then, the King shall continue to bear the crown.

I'll deal with your 8 pronged 4 section questionnaire when I get a minute! I didn't see it until just now.

[Phatscotty]

Just read a bunch of Phatscotty posts? Have no fear, the help is near:

And when it comes to the "Scoreboard", this about sums up your attitude.



Taxpayers have a say, and I am having mine. Deal with it

[PLAYER57832]

Just read a bunch of Phatscotty posts? Have no fear, the help is near:

And when it comes to the "Scoreboard", this about sums up your attitude.



Taxpayers have a say, and I am having mine. Deal with it

LOL... LOL... LOL
the sad part is you actually believe you are on the side of intelligence and thought, when just about everything you yourself presented here was either wrong, misstated by you or evidence of just what a poor idea this program is.

If you wish to discuss welfare in general.. start another thread. Here, you are just trying to salvage a hopelessly lost cause becuase you cannot seem to admit you are wrong... and you ARE!

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe if they see good results it will be free or reduced. I think it's bunk too that they have to pay for it.

Also none of this has anything to do with stereotypes or one that implies the poor are bigger users. It's the principal that it's taxpayer money and welfare is supposed to help people.

To put it generally, it's just one form of welfare abuse. If the welfare is being abused, then we shouldn't provide the abuser with welfare. What's wrong with that?

If you feel that welfare doesn't help people in the long-run, then filtering out a very small proportion for addiction to illicit drugs isn't the correct solution.

I found it interesting to learn today that there are fewer people serving time in prison for non violent drug offenses than there are drug addicted welfare abusers, even at the minimal 2% level. I'm not sure where you are on NVDoffeners doing prison time, but perhaps that should not even be an issue since it's a very small percentage of people.

Phatscotty, that isn't my position. My position is that since illicit drug users account for only 2% of the total, then the potential benefits become very, very slim. If that figure was 50%, then your policy would be easier to justify. Since it's 2%, it becomes harder to justify, because the costs are more likely to offset the benefits. (Besides, NVD offenders account for roughly 33% of the penal system, which is about 2,000,000 people; however, the costs incurred by society, their family, the loss in production, etc. are enormous.

If you actually cared about the negative effects of drug addiction, then you wouldn't focus on only welfare recipients. You'd focus on the bottom 20% up to the middle class, AND you'd focus on mitigating the negative effects of drug addiction... but you don't. Not at all... which seems suspicious.

Welfare can help people and it can hurt people. There isn't anything wrong with me pointing out one part of the hurt and trying to make it better. All I am askin for is a little bit of oversight.

You ask for oversight (a.k.a. reduction of liberty) with good intentions, but your good intentions don't guarantee good results simply because they're good intentions. Soviet economists believed that through socialist calculus, they could design a better life for people. Again, good intentions, with terrible results.

The hurt which you target isn't welfare itself nor the reasons for it because you only focus on the effects of only illegal drugs with a policy that would ineffectively mitigate such a problem compared to more effective solutions.

The reason I'm never going to give up on this is because, as I have said before, I know people who are scamming the system on so many levels that it's disgusting. See I'm not pretending like a lot of you are. I'm talking about an issue that affects friends/family/neighbors etc. I'm talking about them getting free medical insurance, food stamps, welfare even though they live with their parents, and with that insurance every month he gets his medications for free and then sells them on the street and buys even more drugs, and this guy is perfectly able to work, except, he can't stay clean..... The whole fucking scenario is absolutely sickening. You guys can imagine how you think it is or isn't, I'm only doing this because of what I know it is, and that is severe abuse of the system.

If scamming welfare is the issue, then drug-testing wouldn't effectively address scamming the system.

If the issue is the detrimental effects of welfare itself, then drug-testing wouldn't effectively address that.

And your story is adorable, but it's just a story--no real facts. Give me some research on the detrimental effects of welfare, and then we can have a proper discussion. Until then, you're grabbing at unrelated issues in order to justify your drug-testing policy.

No, charging the applicants for their owns tests is not the best idea, or application fees, there are a thousand different ways to deal with the problems. This is just one small step in returning our county to fiscally stability and personal responsibility overall.

If fiscal policy is the issue, then why waste so much time on such a measly sum? You're talking about the chance to filter out roughly 2% of all welfare applicants based on some unknown cost. According to the Heritage Foundation, "in fiscal year (FY) 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion."

So, 2% of $714 billion is $14.3 billion, assuming that 2% is the national figure and assuming that your policy is 100% effective, costs $0.00, and incurs no additional costs from unintended consequences (e.g. increased crime from drug users whose recent funding was cut; increased spending on police to combat the increase in crime; increased court costs; etc.).

In order for you to reasonably support such a position, you still need to provide real costs and estimated additional costs. Until then, you support this issue because you feel like it. It's merely pleasing to you--no matter how weak and/or unrelated your justifications are.

[Phatscotty]

I disagree. As I said the study both supports and opposes "everything I have said"

You are wrong about thinking you can draw a final conclusion based on an initial report that admittedly a rough draft of a program that has been going on for 30 days. Laugh it up Player and stay classy.

[PLAYER57832]

keep trying BBS... the rest of us have obviously failed.

[BigBallinStalin]

keep trying BBS... the rest of us have obviously failed.

I'm pretty much done. This details the information Phatscotty is missing and this explains what Phatscotty is doing wrong and/or is failing to explain.



I may be in dire need of some environmentally friendly Brain Bleach produced from the good-hearted people of Finland.

[Phatscotty]

keep trying BBS... the rest of us have obviously failed.

I'm pretty much done. This details the information Phatscotty is missing and this explains what Phatscotty is doing wrong and/or is failing to explain.



I may be in dire need of some environmentally friendly Brain Bleach produced from the good-hearted people of Finland.

Then you obviously have all the answers.

Welfare abuse is welfare abuse.

[BigBallinStalin]

keep trying BBS... the rest of us have obviously failed.

I'm pretty much done. This details the information Phatscotty is missing and this explains what Phatscotty is doing wrong and/or is failing to explain.



I may be in dire need of some environmentally friendly Brain Bleach produced from the good-hearted people of Finland.

Then you obviously have all the answers.

Welfare abuse is welfare abuse.

Given that you have failed to answer some very pertinent questions concerning your policy, we can conclude with certainty that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Although that most likely isn't new knowledge to anyone here, it enables me to justify treating you with no respect in the fora, which I eagerly look forward to. May this thread serve as the leading justification for Operation: Down with the Dodge King. lolololol.


Now that I think about you, personally, I realize this:

Based on the history of your posts, you don't know much about the actual ideals for which Ron Paul represents, and you fail to truly grasp Libertarianism, free market principles, and especially liberty--as you have clearly shown here. Whenever you spout your nonsense about these ideas, you tarnish their image in the minds of others because you provide people with a very poor representation of said ideas.

You are just another zombie of political marketing, who is indifferent to grasping concepts which you allegedly support. Instead you subvert said ideals in order to advance your own agenda, which is descriptive of the neo-conservatives.

Unfortunately, you continue to disgrace the quest toward liberty, and you have absolutely failed the Founding Fathers, who will now give you stern looks, indifferent gazes, and the occasional smirk:

[spurgistan]

Also, Ben Franklin may be a zombie, for some reason. I blame the troll.

[Phatscotty]

keep trying BBS... the rest of us have obviously failed.

I'm pretty much done. This details the information Phatscotty is missing and this explains what Phatscotty is doing wrong and/or is failing to explain.



I may be in dire need of some environmentally friendly Brain Bleach produced from the good-hearted people of Finland.

Then you obviously have all the answers.

Welfare abuse is welfare abuse.

Given that you have failed to answer some very pertinent questions concerning your policy, we can conclude with certainty that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You think you can boss me around? Like I must answer 17 questions of yours on demand? and if I don't, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Good Times

[BigBallinStalin]

keep trying BBS... the rest of us have obviously failed.

I'm pretty much done. This details the information Phatscotty is missing and this explains what Phatscotty is doing wrong and/or is failing to explain.



I may be in dire need of some environmentally friendly Brain Bleach produced from the good-hearted people of Finland.

Then you obviously have all the answers.

Welfare abuse is welfare abuse.

Given that you have failed to answer some very pertinent questions concerning your policy, we can conclude with certainty that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You think you can boss me around? Like I must answer 17 questions of yours on demand? and if I don't, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Good Times

I'm not bossing you around. No one is. I patiently tried to show you the gaps in your justifications while ever so slowly trying to steer you on topic. Your poor dodges and lame attempts at providing good reasons for your policy shows everyone that you don't know what you're talking about--not even remotely.

And what's funnier is that you purport yourself to be someone for Liberty and for the Founding Fathers, yet here you are in this thread, making an appeal to invade people's privacy with mass drug tests with the expectation of poorly grasped results. And why? Because a clever politician marketed toward zombies like you. You're a complete mockery of Liberty. Another mindless follower who repeatedly fails to critically think. You may perceive yourself to be a clever troll, but instead, the following picture best describes you:

[Phatscotty]

Dude I'm tired and not getting into your post tonight, and that is final.

I disagree with your premise, so why even get into the details. You think that taking a test to apply for public assistance violates peoples liberty? I don't think so

[BigBallinStalin]

Dude I'm tired and not getting into your post tonight, and that is final.

Have nice dreams appealing to state intervention in people's privacy!

[Phatscotty]

Dude I'm tired and not getting into your post tonight, and that is final.

Have nice dreams appealing to state intervention in people's privacy!

welfare is a private issue? who knew?

what have you been smoking?

insert insulting childish photo here

[BigBallinStalin]

Dude I'm tired and not getting into your post tonight, and that is final.

Have nice dreams appealing to state intervention in people's privacy!

welfare is a private issue? who knew?

what have you been smoking?

insert insulting childish photo here

"Oh gosh darnit, I'm so angry."

Thanks for letting me practice writing skills earlier. I think the best part was calling you a "mindless zombie of political marketing."

That just applies so neatly to you!

[Phatscotty]

Dude I'm tired and not getting into your post tonight, and that is final.

Have nice dreams appealing to state intervention in people's privacy!

welfare is a private issue? who knew?

what have you been smoking?

insert insulting childish photo here

"Oh gosh darnit, I'm so angry."

Thanks for letting my practice writing skills earlier. I think the best part was calling you a "mindless zombie of political marketing."

That just applies so neatly to you!

Ignoring welfare abuse is probably better. For sure it is easier