D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

Go ahead, throw it right in my face. I said I will address it.

I suppose now you are gonna start calling me scared?

Just reread the last few pages of any healthcare thread. Chances are you will find at least a few.

[Woodruff]

The point is that welfare is meant to help people.
Is a welfare recipient who spends the welfare check on drugs being helped?

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Dodged? There was no dodge there. You asked if someone on drugs is being helped by being given more drugs. From the drug user's perspective, I would say that is a "yes" in most cases. As I asked before (and YOU dodged), do you believe your opinion of "helping them" is more valid than theirs?

In "their mind"? Like I'm asking them... "Excuse me welfare recipient, but do drugs help you?"

Not quite. More like "Excuse me welfare recipient, but would it help you if I gave you money for drugs?"

I'm asking you. Care to take another swing at it?

You're asking me what? I already answered you. I then asked you a question...and received no response.

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

Why do you believe you are better equipped to decide what is better for a drug addict on welfare?

[Woodruff]

I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

The healthcare threads probably have the most.

I can tell by your attitude that you know you're gonna be doing a lot of looking.......dont ya

PhatScotty, it's not even difficult. There are examples in this very thread. The only reason we'd be "doing a lot of looking" is because there are so damn many examples to look at.

[Woodruff]

I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

Go ahead, throw it right in my face. I said I will address it.

Yes, just as you've said you would address it many times before. And yet, you manage to never do so. Why do you believe anyone thinks it's worth the time to bother yet again?

I suppose now you are gonna start calling me scared?

No need to...the truth is obvious.

[PLAYER57832]

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

I believe you have just given a pretty good explanation for why this program will not work.

[Phatscotty]

In their mind? I would say "yes" in most cases. Is your opinion of that more valid than theirs, necessarily?

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Dodged? There was no dodge there. You asked if someone on drugs is being helped by being given more drugs. From the drug user's perspective, I would say that is a "yes" in most cases. As I asked before (and YOU dodged), do you believe your opinion of "helping them" is more valid than theirs?

In "their mind"? Like I'm asking them... "Excuse me welfare recipient, but do drugs help you?"

Not quite. More like "Excuse me welfare recipient, but would it help you if I gave you money for drugs?"

I'm asking you. Care to take another swing at it?

You're asking me what? I already answered you. I then asked you a question...and received no response.

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

Why do you believe you are better equipped to decide what is better for a drug addict on welfare?

I do not believe that at all. How you can still be this confused is beyond me.

I simply believe that drugs are nowhere to be found in the category "what is better" and drugs are only to be found in the category "what is worse", especially for a poor person. Are you able to agree with this? (not asking for you to answer for anybody else)

[Phatscotty]

I will allow you Timminz, to show me any or every example of any dodge ever committed by myself, and I will address it. Don't be flattered, is the same coupon deal I give everyone anytime they try to say that same old bullshit.

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

The healthcare threads probably have the most.

I can tell by your attitude that you know you're gonna be doing a lot of looking.......dont ya

PhatScotty, it's not even difficult. There are examples in this very thread. The only reason we'd be "doing a lot of looking" is because there are so damn many examples to look at.

Funny. that's the only answer I ever get.

The bogo deal is for Timminz so MYOB and you dodge was still epic.

[Phatscotty]

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

I believe you have just given a pretty good explanation for why this program will not work.

based on Woodys dodge of whether or not the addict is helped?

[Phatscotty]

FYI, there is legislation aimed at making these tests a reality in 26 states. 26 different versions. I am seeing some better ones than FL has, a lot of great ideas out there.

I wish the reform was based on principle rather than cash-straped-ness.

[BigBallinStalin]

Drug testing for welfare recipients discriminates against a people of a certain socioeconomic background because other recipients of "welfare" won't be drug tested.

The cost incurred by welfare recipients are partly subsidized by revenue raised through taxes, which in turn makes welfare recipients receivers of a government subsidy. In order to ensure that no particular socioeconomic category is discriminated against, then almost everyone* whose costs are subsidized by the government should also be drug tested. In effect, anyone who has received a "tax break" or "tax credit," which was NOT due to overpayment of taxes, must be drug tested because tax breaks and tax credits are essentially a form of a government subsidy.

This would supposedly ensure that recipients of government subsidies act responsibly (lolwut?).


*What special exceptions preclude recipients of government subsidies from this drug test?

In that case, there are already plenty of "BBS defined welfare" sectors who require drug tests. People who are on probation (see BBS definition of welfare) have to pee in a cup every month or 3 months or what have you. Oh, if they are caught, they go to jail. Or, we could go much more realistically, with certain sectors of government employment who do have to take a test at the interview, specifically people who drive cars and trucks. There aren't really that many like that tho...ya know

Your argument only slightly holds up when viewed strictly through a socio-economic lens. Unfortunately, the topic is not socio-economics.

Not to mention, your entire posts apparently lives in a world where if we test one person, we have to test everyone? That won't even be the case in this specific thread issue. They can't possibly test every recipient every month. It will be random or upon suspicion. You can slap my hand for assuming, but I would bet that someone who would be smart enough to implement this program would also have a plan to make sure they aren't requiring someone to piss in a cup or give a hair sample that comes up clean for 36 months straight....

You got it wrong. I didn't say, "Test every single person." You did, and ya "missed" the point, Dodge King.

You're still advocating a drug testing policy that discriminates against welfare recipients. Simply because we use a different word at face value, it does not change the fact that welfare recipients' costs are subsidized like other people's costs are subsidized.

One of your contentions is that since they receive government money, they should be drug tested, so that they would be incentivized to not do drugs, because you think that doing drugs would fix their problems. Why? Because it would make them more responsible/accountable.


I'm saying, "That's retarded. If that really was the case, then why not apply the same policy to anyone who receives government subsidies? --- Especially those who receive large amounts of it. According to your logic, if those guys did drugs, then drug testing would make them more accountable/responsible."


You say, "no no no, I'm not discriminating (or I won't admit it); 1) there's lots of sectors that do drug tests, 2) you're just using a socio-economic perspective, and 3) you want every single person to be tested; therefore, your argument is invalid."

facepalm.jpg



EDIT: OH NOES! I did say, "everyone must be tested" but that's out of jest to make sure that no one does drugs, so that they can be responsible citizens according to Phatscotty! (What is a hyperbole? ... )

[BigBallinStalin]

^^^^


Excellent dodge by the Dodge King---in detail.


(Notice how he fails to show that welfare recipients' aren't subsidized by the government, and that he ignores that he is supporting a discriminatory policy.)


DODGE KING IN ACTION---YEEEEE HAWW!!!

[Night Strike]

FYI, there is legislation aimed at making these tests a reality in 26 states. 26 different versions. I am seeing some better ones than FL has, a lot of great ideas out there.

I wish the reform was based on principle rather than cash-straped-ness.

Read an article in my local paper about Missouri doing it.

[natty dread]

[spurgistan]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1667599

this popped up on google scholar:

Abstract:
Before every broadcast, the producers of Sunday morning talk shows must answer two basic questions: (1) what views will be represented on our show? and (2) who will present those views? When the topic involves policy and politics and the guest is a Member of Congress – as it often is – the answer to the first question has important implications for what millions of interested viewers learn about what matters in American policy and politics, and the answer to the second question is equally important for what those viewers learn about who matters in American politics.

This article examines how the talk shows answer the second question – the one about who matters. In short, the answer is that in 2009 the talk shows told us (by their selection of congressional guests) that the people who matter are disproportionately white, male, senior, and Republican – disproportionate not just when compared to the American population overall, but also when compared to the population of Congress itself.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

[PLAYER57832]

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

I believe you have just given a pretty good explanation for why this program will not work.

based on Woodys dodge of whether or not the addict is helped?

Your statement rejecting the idea that a drug addict thinks. In order for your ideas to work, they would have to actually think. They don't and drugs numb the pain they do feel. More pain, at some point is more or less irrelevant. Or, simply moves them into more "depravity".. theft, prostitution, etc.

And.. a line sticks in my mind from an interview with the man who went from being homeless to being a successful stockbroker... At one point, he had a cheap place, but no money for food. There were times when the only reason he or his child ate was the $5 bills that the "ladies of the evening" stuffed in his pockets. Here was a man truly working hard to get himself up. He did finally get some help from the missions, but even in that very liberal area, some of the best, most important help he got was not from the "do gooders", or the government, it was from the very people upon whom most of us look down our noses.

[natty dread]

Your statement rejecting the idea that a drug addict thinks. In order for your ideas to work, they would have to actually think. They don't and drugs numb the pain they do feel. More pain, at some point is more or less irrelevant. Or, simply moves them into more "depravity".. theft, prostitution, etc.

Not all drug addicts let their lives be completely destroyed by their drug addiction. Lots of drug addicts have jobs, are responsible people, who just happen to be addicted to drugs. You might even know some of them, you'd never think they are drug addicts. I've known some people who have kept a stable drug addiction (and I'm talking about hard drugs, not just cannabis) for years. They're sort of "in the closet" with their drug habit. They're afraid to seek help for their addiction, because it often means losing their job, possibly losing their children, etc.

[thegreekdog]

BBS - thanks for the mathematics example. The government takes money from you, which is perhaps conversion, so they can give it to other people, corporations, unions, other entities and organizations (including foreign lenders), and themselves. The credit you receive is when you overpay your taxes based upon what you paid in during the year compared to what you owe once you do your tax return.

Uh... greekdog, you must be tired (and were you not a tac professional, I would probably let this slide as irrelevant, but.. you are )

A tax refund is overpaid money from the year. A tax credit is money you get off from your tax bill. [for any other readers:] It is at least theoretically to encourage some behavior or compensate for some loss, be it haivng children, losing your house in Katrina or buying solar energy systems.

A refund is irrelevant to the tax rate, tax payment. Someone owing $200 a year could get more, as much or less a refund than someone owing $20,000, depending on how much they overpay. A credit, however will change the actual tax rate paid.

YARGH! NO IT'S NOT! Oh my holy mother of pearls...

Let's say there is a child tax credit (so you get a credit for having children). Over the course of the year, I pay $10,000 into my federal taxes through withholding. At the end of the year, I do my tax return and lo and behold my tax calculates to $10,000, before credits. Then I apply my child tax credit ($1,000) and I owe, in taxes, $9,000. But I paid in $10,000 so the government gives me $1,000 back. Is this is a refund of my money? Sure. It's also a tax credit.

Now let's say there is a child tax credit. Over the course of the year I pay $500 into my federal taxes through withholding. At the end of the year, I do my tax return and lo and behold my tax calculates to $500, before credits. Then I apply my child tax credit ($1,000) and I owe, in taxes, negative $500. Do I get $1,000? No. I get $500 because that's what I paid in. That's how a typical credit works. A refundable credit, on the other hand, would give me the entire $1,000 so I get subsidized by other taxpayers for this child tax credit.

[spurgistan]

So, that sounds pretty regressive, then, right? The only people that would matter to are people who don't pay much in taxes, who get less money than they would, yes? What are we talking about, again?

[thegreekdog]

So, that sounds pretty regressive, then, right? The only people that would matter to are people who don't pay much in taxes, who get less money than they would, yes? What are we talking about, again?

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit, so the "working poor" are getting subsidized through this credit.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, that sounds pretty regressive, then, right? The only people that would matter to are people who don't pay much in taxes, who get less money than they would, yes? What are we talking about, again?

THIS:

[PLAYER57832]

Your statement rejecting the idea that a drug addict thinks. In order for your ideas to work, they would have to actually think. They don't and drugs numb the pain they do feel. More pain, at some point is more or less irrelevant. Or, simply moves them into more "depravity".. theft, prostitution, etc.

Not all drug addicts let their lives be completely destroyed by their drug addiction. Lots of drug addicts have jobs, are responsible people, who just happen to be addicted to drugs. You might even know some of them, you'd never think they are drug addicts. I've known some people who have kept a stable drug addiction (and I'm talking about hard drugs, not just cannabis) for years. They're sort of "in the closet" with their drug habit. They're afraid to seek help for their addiction, because it often means losing their job, possibly losing their children, etc.

Yes, however these are generally not the ones on welfare. At any rate, I was mostly just pointing out the illogic of Phatt's position.

[PLAYER57832]

YARGH! NO IT'S NOT! Oh my holy mother of pearls...

Let's say there is a child tax credit (so you get a credit for having children). Over the course of the year, I pay $10,000 into my federal taxes through withholding. At the end of the year, I do my tax return and lo and behold my tax calculates to $10,000, before credits. Then I apply my child tax credit ($1,000) and I owe, in taxes, $9,000. But I paid in $10,000 so the government gives me $1,000 back. Is this is a refund of my money? Sure. It's also a tax credit.

It may or may not be a refund, simply depending on how you set up your deductions. If you take enough deductions, you can owe several million in taxes and still get a refund or you can take so few (mostly if you are student) that you wind up paying, even if your tax is only $100.

Come on greekdog.. think about what I am saying.

Now let's say there is a child tax credit. Over the course of the year I pay $500 into my federal taxes through withholding. At the end of the year, I do my tax return and lo and behold my tax calculates to $500, before credits. Then I apply my child tax credit ($1,000) and I owe, in taxes, negative $500. Do I get $1,000? No. I get $500 because that's what I paid in. That's how a typical credit works. A refundable credit, on the other hand, would give me the entire $1,000 so I get subsidized by other taxpayers for this child tax credit.

Now this tax credit is recieved off of your total tax bill, regardless of how much you withold. The two are not related, except that,, as you note you normally want to estimate your actualy payment so that you are not giving the government a free loan. (which is, of course all a refund means).

This can be even better illustrated by the EIC. You might (?) not be that familiar with this, dealing mainly with higher income people (?), but that credit is gained even if a person pays no taxes at all. All other (well.. better make that almost all, because there might be exceptions) credits are taken off your total tax bill.


Again BOTH are irrelevant to your refund. Your tax payment is calculated by your status, your rate basedon earnings minus credits and deductions (unless, of course you fall into the alterantive tax trap). Your tax refund is irrelevant to that. Your tax rate is based on government rules. Your tax refund or payment level is based on how good a tax planner you are. The government has little to do with your refund, at least for most individuals (I know that companies and high income earners have to pay quarterly taxes and such, not clear on if that changes their rates or not-- not sure if they still get assessed the overall yearly rate or not).

[MeDeFe]

the government gives me $1,000

Thank you. That means it's a subsidy and you should have to undergo drug testing in order to get it.

[Woodruff]

I am actually impressed by how you dodged that.

Dodged? There was no dodge there. You asked if someone on drugs is being helped by being given more drugs. From the drug user's perspective, I would say that is a "yes" in most cases. As I asked before (and YOU dodged), do you believe your opinion of "helping them" is more valid than theirs?

In "their mind"? Like I'm asking them... "Excuse me welfare recipient, but do drugs help you?"

Not quite. More like "Excuse me welfare recipient, but would it help you if I gave you money for drugs?"

I'm asking you. Care to take another swing at it?

You're asking me what? I already answered you. I then asked you a question...and received no response.

your answer was what you assume a drug addict on welfare thinks? REJECTED! forgive me if you are a drug addict on welfare...

Why do you believe you are better equipped to decide what is better for a drug addict on welfare?

I do not believe that at all. How you can still be this confused is beyond me.

You've made it clear that you don't believe that individual is capable of making the decision. So who then are you passing the decision on to as to whether their life is being helped?

I simply believe that drugs are nowhere to be found in the category "what is better" and drugs are only to be found in the category "what is worse", especially for a poor person.

That's the problem here, Phatscotty...those words "I simply believe" should not be involved in what you take away from someone else.

Are you able to agree with this? (not asking for you to answer for anybody else)

No, I do not agree with that.

[Woodruff]

And you keep saying this...and keep getting shown examples...which you keep ignoring. It's happened so often it's almost a ConquerClub meme.

The healthcare threads probably have the most.

I can tell by your attitude that you know you're gonna be doing a lot of looking.......dont ya

PhatScotty, it's not even difficult. There are examples in this very thread. The only reason we'd be "doing a lot of looking" is because there are so damn many examples to look at.

Funny. that's the only answer I ever get.

No, it absolutely is not the only answer you "ever got". It is probably the only answer you've gotten recently because you've avoided answering it so often in the past that everyone has just given up on you.

The bogo deal is for Timminz so MYOB and you dodge was still epic.

It wasn't a dodge, as you well know. But admitting that would mean admitting that you want to force other people to live their lives according to your preferences.