D.T.W.A.

[BigBallinStalin]

.




Let us give the keyboards a rest, take some of the communal cyber-valium, sit back for a while, and scroll through some tranquil scenes of nature:

[natty dread]

.

[size=140][b]Let us give the keyboards a rest, take some of the communal cyber-valium,

We can't, we'll lose our cyber-welfare.

[PLAYER57832]

Why do all you guys think drugs are okay for people on welfare?

You are not that stupid, so stop it.
No one is saying drugs are OK, with the possible exception to marihuana (and that's not "its OK".. more that the harm of controlling it is worse than the harm of letting it go). EVERYONE is saying this program is a very poorly designed, expensive program that has nothing truly to do with cutting drug use and all about political ploys and making money for the testing company.

How are drugs different from beer or smokes or lottery tickets?

No one is suggesting random blood tests for those. In fact, they are using methods mosre similar to what we have ALL said would work well (targeting behaviors, etc). than to this program.

[PLAYER57832]

john9blue.. the above post, asking us all why we want people to be on drugs, is why Phattscotty is dishonest. In fact, much of this thread has been about showing why this program won't do what Phattscotty seems to think it will do, but instead, he insists on launching into these "you just want people on drugs".. or "you don't care about saving money", etc. Our point is that it won't do that.

And, while that point may be debated, Phattscotty keeps diverting and denying that this is the real debate... and that IS intellectually dishonest. And, yes, at some point, humor, laughter, whatever is a reasonable response to lack of reason.

[Dukasaur]

.
Let us give the keyboards a rest, take some of the communal cyber-valium, sit back for a while, and scroll through some tranquil scenes of nature:

Can't go wrong with a nice Kraken...

[Dukasaur]

Why do all you guys think drugs are okay for people on welfare? How are drugs different from beer or smokes or lottery tickets?

Funny, when I asked a similar question way back at the beginning of the thread, you ignored it. But I won't be petty and beat that to death. Let's just move forward, now that you're finally willing to address it.

Drugs aren't any different from beer or smokes or lottery tickets, speaking from a fiscal responsibility point-of-view. They're all stupid things that people waste money on. Okay if you can afford it, but potentially devastating if you can't. We could actually expand that list quite a bit though: cable TV, 1-976 sex lines, fortune tellers and televangelists, and quite a few other things. Actually, the list of things on that list is probably a lot longer than the list of things not on that list.

So how about you go the other way: instead of listing all the things you don't want your welfare recipient to buy, why not list the things you do want him to buy? So it goes something like food, shelter, basic no-frills phone, and a bus pass. Instead of giving him money, you can arrange for all of those things. You can pay money directly to building owners to provide welfare apartments, you can pay money directly to the transit authority to provide bus passes to unemployed people, grocery stores to provide a balanced bundle of groceries, and so on. Fair enough. If your only motive is to prevent welfare money from being wasted on pointless shit, that would work, and it would be morally consistent.

Giving people money and then prosecuting them when they don't spend it wisely is not morally consistent. It's almost as bad as the "God" schtick: here, you can have Free Will, but if you actually use it you're going to Hell.

[PLAYER57832]

So how about you go the other way: instead of listing all the things you don't want your welfare recipient to buy, why not list the things you do want him to buy? So it goes something like food, shelter, basic no-frills phone, and a bus pass. Instead of giving him money, you can arrange for all of those things. You can pay money directly to building owners to provide welfare apartments, you can pay money directly to the transit authority to provide bus passes to unemployed people, grocery stores to provide a balanced bundle of groceries, and so on. Fair enough. If your only motive is to prevent welfare money from being wasted on pointless shit, that would work, and it would be morally consistent.

Giving people money and then prosecuting them when they don't spend it wisely is not morally consistent. It's almost as bad as the "God" schtick: here, you can have Free Will, but if you actually use it you're going to Hell.

You make some good points here. However, the one part to counter this is that many people on welfare truly don't know how to manage their money better. Its not that they cannot learn (those people belong on SSI or similar managed situations), its that no one has ever taught them things that most of us learn at home. That, and many policies of Welfare actually get in the way of them learning responsibility. (This is the real difference between a classic liberal and conservative. A classic liberal thinks that forcing people without pairing it with education is dooming people to harm. The conservatives tend to think that they force .. and then people will automatically, almost "magically" learn what they need.)

I remember hearing an interview by one of Oprah's former associates. She was earning millions, but says she had a "welfare mentality" regarding money. By that, she meant that when you are on welfare, you have to spend what you have to get more. And.. things like property taxes, etc are not worries. Note, this was by no means a stupid or ineffective lady in many ways. She did have some self-appreciation issues and such, but she was very "teachable". Yet, no one sat her down and told her that she had to save money for the future, had to make sure certain issues were taken care of, etc. Was that her "fault"? OF COURSE! But, as a society, did we benefit by the fact that nowhere in her schooling, no where did she learn the basics of just how to save, budget with real money (not just scrimp to get what you have to have however you can.. a different skill instead) etc.? A little bit more education would have helped her avoid bankruptcy, etc. Bankruptcy is a cost to society.

I don't know fully what the answer to that is, and this is not really the thread to discuss it anyway.

One other note.. the difference between the limits on cigarettes and lottery are that thes limits are placed at the point of purchase. They target only those people who are attempting to pursue the "bad behavior", make the "bad purchases". This drug testing program targets EVERYONE, most of whom are utterly innocent of any wrong-doing. In fact, they get targeted just for the "crime" of asking for help.. even before they actually recieve help.

In truth, this amounts to an application fee, but one that goes to this drug company instead of the state.

[Woodruff]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

More lies by Phatscotty. See where the intellectual integrity is, John?

that's not a lie, that's scotty being a douche lol.

It's not a lie? Really? Perhaps then, since Phatscotty has neglected to do so, you can point to where natty_dread gave that advice?

Why is mr. put the wrong words in everyone's mouth all up in arms that somebody correctl repeated what another said? You know Natty does drugs, she talks about it all the time. Why in the world would you doubt that one/call it a lie? If it feels good do it is Liberalism 101, why do you doubt that/a lie? Just a few pages ago she said to give questioning your parents values a try, as if people don't do that automatically if it doesn't make sense to them. Why is that a lie. SHE JUST SAID IT!!!!

Oh, it's Phatscotty. Just call him a liar and move on.

CCMM (conquerclub Media Matters) Gang of Four - Woody, Greecepwns, Player, Natty

Are you drunk? Or just doing the Phatscotty Disco again?

[Woodruff]

So how about you go the other way: instead of listing all the things you don't want your welfare recipient to buy, why not list the things you do want him to buy? So it goes something like food, shelter, basic no-frills phone, and a bus pass. Instead of giving him money, you can arrange for all of those things. You can pay money directly to building owners to provide welfare apartments, you can pay money directly to the transit authority to provide bus passes to unemployed people, grocery stores to provide a balanced bundle of groceries, and so on. Fair enough. If your only motive is to prevent welfare money from being wasted on pointless shit, that would work, and it would be morally consistent.

Giving people money and then prosecuting them when they don't spend it wisely is not morally consistent. It's almost as bad as the "God" schtick: here, you can have Free Will, but if you actually use it you're going to Hell.

You make some good points here. However, the one part to counter this is that many people on welfare truly don't know how to manage their money better.

That's precisely Dukasaur's point. Don't give them the option of having to manage their welfare money.

[Phatscotty]

Why do all you guys think drugs are okay for people on welfare? How are drugs different from beer or smokes or lottery tickets?

Funny, when I asked a similar question way back at the beginning of the thread, you ignored it. But I won't be petty and beat that to death. Let's just move forward, now that you're finally willing to address it.

I am sorry but I did not see it or do not remember it. I do not think they are and different as far as that it should be difficult to spend welfare money on them all. I am wondering why you would ask me that tho, given you could guess I feel the same way. Spilled milk forging ahead

Drugs aren't any different from beer or smokes or lottery tickets, speaking from a fiscal responsibility point-of-view. They're all stupid things that people waste money on. Okay if you can afford it, but potentially devastating if you can't. We could actually expand that list quite a bit though: cable TV, 1-976 sex lines, fortune tellers and televangelists, and quite a few other things. Actually, the list of things on that list is probably a lot longer than the list of things not on that list.

So how about you go the other way: instead of listing all the things you don't want your welfare recipient to buy, why not list the things you do want him to buy? So it goes something like food, shelter, basic no-frills phone, and a bus pass. Instead of giving him money, you can arrange for all of those things. You can pay money directly to building owners to provide welfare apartments, you can pay money directly to the transit authority to provide bus passes to unemployed people, grocery stores to provide a balanced bundle of groceries, and so on. Fair enough. If your only motive is to prevent welfare money from being wasted on pointless shit, that would work, and it would be morally consistent.

Giving people money and then prosecuting them when they don't spend it wisely is not morally consistent. It's almost as bad as the "God" schtick: here, you can have Free Will, but if you actually use it you're going to Hell.

Well, I would be all for your examples with the transit authority and grocery stores. That way everyone would see how much of their money goes to other people and get fed up even quicker. Obviously this would not work, as it has been tried, somewhat. This gentleman here tried over and over again to kick this guy off food stamps, asking him for his address so he could mail his money directly. The food stamp recipient repeated over and over again "I don't want your money, I just want the benefits." Even some of the recipients don't understand where the money comes from. From a pro-welfare point of view, one would probably want the redistribution of the money as complicated as possible.

We don't have to get into fortune tellers, but when liquor store receipts show that an average101 EBT swipe purchases registered on file at the local liquor store show there is a problem there, and it's an easy fix. No EBT cards at liquor stores. That's just smart.

Now, in my state, if someone wants to purchase liquor or lottery tickets or cigarettes with an EBT card, they have to take someone to the grocery store and buy them food, and then they get cash that way, usually at a discount. Yes, that could be difficult, but it F'n should be.

The saddest thing is that the person who is giving the recipient the money for the food actually ends up being the one who receives the benefit.

Anyone who got something out of the guy who is the "voice of welfare", he called back a few months later..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJGSbbqGOTY

[PLAYER57832]

So how about you go the other way: instead of listing all the things you don't want your welfare recipient to buy, why not list the things you do want him to buy? So it goes something like food, shelter, basic no-frills phone, and a bus pass. Instead of giving him money, you can arrange for all of those things. You can pay money directly to building owners to provide welfare apartments, you can pay money directly to the transit authority to provide bus passes to unemployed people, grocery stores to provide a balanced bundle of groceries, and so on. Fair enough. If your only motive is to prevent welfare money from being wasted on pointless shit, that would work, and it would be morally consistent.

Giving people money and then prosecuting them when they don't spend it wisely is not morally consistent. It's almost as bad as the "God" schtick: here, you can have Free Will, but if you actually use it you're going to Hell.

You make some good points here. However, the one part to counter this is that many people on welfare truly don't know how to manage their money better.

That's precisely Dukasaur's point. Don't give them the option of having to manage their welfare money.

Yes, but if you are going to ever get people off welfare, they have to learn how to do it. That said, controlling the money might well be a good answer for many more people than not. And, education can come in other ways than with blowing taxpayer money meant for support.

[Woodruff]

From a pro-welfare point of view, one would probably want the redistribution of the money as complicated as possible.

Why do you even make such clearly false statements? Do you just enjoy looking foolish?

[Phatscotty]

From a pro-welfare point of view, one would probably want the redistribution of the money as complicated as possible.

Why do you even make such clearly false statements? Do you just enjoy looking foolish?

Easy to do when you pull one line out of 5 paragraphs. Do you enjoy context dropping and employing cowardly tactics?

[Woodruff]

From a pro-welfare point of view, one would probably want the redistribution of the money as complicated as possible.

Why do you even make such clearly false statements? Do you just enjoy looking foolish?

Easy to do when you pull one line out of 5 paragraphs.

I didn't take anything out of context. Please...provide the context I deleted that will make your statement NOT "clearly false". You may begin now.

Do you enjoy context dropping and employing cowardly tactics?

I did no such thing. Do you enjoy lying? (Well...the answer to that is clearly "yes".)

[Phatscotty]

How about you scroll up a few posts and read the entire paragraph. You are pestering so bad right now.

I'll tell you what else. If you have a problem with me, that is fine, but unless you want to talk about the topic at hand, keep your forked tongue to yourself. I have no interest in your attacks or your name calling or your derailing or pulling out your wedgie.

You are not bedazzling me, or ordering me around. What's with all these demands? Post this post that....how about spend less time flaming people and more time reading the posts you reply to.

[Iliad]

How about you scroll up a few posts and read the entire paragraph. You are pestering so bad right now.

I'll tell you what else. If you have a problem with me, that is fine, but unless you want to talk about the topic at hand, keep your forked tongue to yourself. I have no interest in your attacks or your name calling or your derailing or pulling the wedgie out of your ass.

You are not bedazzling me, or ordering me around. What's with all these demands? Post this post that....how about spend less time flaming people and more time reading the posts you reply to.

Every fucking time.

Whenever anyone asks Phatscotty to back up his assertions as Woodruff is doing here, Phatscotty will get pissed off, accuse the other of placing words into his mouth, attack the other person and act shocked and outraged that he has been asked to show the proof for his claim and then storms out in this faux-outrage.

[Phatscotty]

How about you scroll up a few posts and read the entire paragraph. You are pestering so bad right now.

I'll tell you what else. If you have a problem with me, that is fine, but unless you want to talk about the topic at hand, keep your forked tongue to yourself. I have no interest in your attacks or your name calling or your derailing or pulling the wedgie out of your ass.

You are not bedazzling me, or ordering me around. What's with all these demands? Post this post that....how about spend less time flaming people and more time reading the posts you reply to.

Every fucking time.

Whenever anyone asks Phatscotty to back up his assertions as Woodruff is doing here, Phatscotty will get pissed off, accuse the other of placing words into his mouth, attack the other person and act shocked and outraged that he has been asked to show the proof for his claim and then storms out in this faux-outrage.

So I should retype 5 paragraphs rather than have the guy scroll up 4 posts? All he needs to do is read the post he just quoted... "Every fucking time"

pathetic

[Woodruff]

How about you scroll up a few posts and read the entire paragraph. You are pestering so bad right now.

Yeah, I didn't think you could provide the context that I deleted which would make it an accurate statement either. Why do you continue to claim you don't dodge, when that's clearly all you CAN do.

I'll say it again...provide the context that I allegedly deleted which would make your statement an accurate one. You may begin now.

I'll tell you what else. If you have a problem with me, that is fine, but unless you want to talk about the topic at hand, keep your forked tongue to yourself. I have no interest in your attacks or your name calling or your derailing or pulling out your wedgie.

I AM on topic. Why are you dodging so much instead of providing your proof, Phatscotty? Is it because you know there isn't any? That's what I know...I'm just waiting for you to admit it.

You are not bedazzling me, or ordering me around. What's with all these demands? Post this post that....how about spend less time flaming people and more time reading the posts you reply to.

I read it. That's how I know it was a lie. You apparently didn't read your own post, since you seem to believe it was not a lie and that it was simply taken out of context.

Stop lying, Phatscotty.

How about you scroll up a few posts and read the entire paragraph. You are pestering so bad right now.

I'll tell you what else. If you have a problem with me, that is fine, but unless you want to talk about the topic at hand, keep your forked tongue to yourself. I have no interest in your attacks or your name calling or your derailing or pulling the wedgie out of your ass.

You are not bedazzling me, or ordering me around. What's with all these demands? Post this post that....how about spend less time flaming people and more time reading the posts you reply to.

Every fucking time.

Whenever anyone asks Phatscotty to back up his assertions as Woodruff is doing here, Phatscotty will get pissed off, accuse the other of placing words into his mouth, attack the other person and act shocked and outraged that he has been asked to show the proof for his claim and then storms out in this faux-outrage.

So I should retype 5 paragraphs rather than have the guy scroll up 4 posts? All he needs to do is read the post he just quoted... "Every fucking time"
pathetic

It's pathetic alright, watching you continue to dodge your own stupid-ass statements. I have read those paragraphs and there is absolutely nothing in them which would provide any context to make the statement I quoted more accurate. Nothing, Phatscotty...not one iota. So...if you believe there is, please EXPLAIN why that context makes the statement I quoted more accurate. Don't just regurgitate...try to actually form coherent analysis and use objective reasoning for a change. Here's your chance to prove us wrong, Phatscotty...prove to us that you're not just The Dodge King. Prove to us that you're not just an embarrassingly-bad troll.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, I would be all for your examples with the transit authority and grocery stores. That way everyone would see how much of their money goes to other people and get fed up even quicker. Obviously this would not work, as it has been tried, somewhat. This gentleman here tried over and over again to kick this guy off food stamps, asking him for his address so he could mail his money directly. The food stamp recipient repeated over and over again "I don't want your money, I just want the benefits." Even some of the recipients don't understand where the money comes from.

and you ask kids in some places what job they want when they grow up and they say "relief".. They live in communities where most people are on relief and just think that's how things are.
This is a matter of education.. something you have shown yourself quite happy to CUT.
Some people, no matter the education are going to stay idiots. Limits will help them be a tad less idiotic, but won't change their views on many things.

From a pro-welfare point of view, one would probably want the redistribution of the money as complicated as possible.

Where on earth would you even possibly think that could be a true statement. NO, that's not logic. That's simply you deciding you don't like wefare, so anything negative you can say is OK. Try critical thinking, not stupidity..because that WAS a very stupid comment. If ANYONE wants getting welfare to be complicated, it is those against welfare, because the more complicated it is, the fewer people will benefit.

We don't have to get into fortune tellers, but when liquor store receipts show that an average101 EBT swipe purchases registered on file at the local liquor store show there is a problem there, and it's an easy fix. No EBT cards at liquor stores. That's just smart.

First, show DATA that this is actually happening. Happening on a major scale, not just on a few occasions. I don't care what you do, some people are going to commit fraud, steal, etc. But is this a real problem? Seems more like your earlier stereotypical opinion that masses of people on welfare use drugs.

Now, in my state, if someone wants to purchase liquor or lottery tickets or cigarettes with an EBT card, they have to take someone to the grocery store and buy them food, and then they get cash that way, usually at a discount. Yes, that could be difficult, but it F'n should be.

HUH.. you think that is OK? Its fraud, plain and simple!

The saddest thing is that the person who is giving the recipient the money for the food actually ends up being the one who receives the benefit.

This statement is utterly illogical. The REAL beneficiary of welfare is twofold.. those who recieve it AND THE MERCHANTS who benefit from the sales they otherwise would not get. In fact, the merchants benefit triply, because the fact that these people are getting benefits cuts down on some theft (note, I did not say "eliminates" it A lot of theft has nothing to do with need) AND the need for law enforcement. The safer overall environment means they are more likely to get other customers. (some stores with a lot of welfare people are, indeed avoided by others, but its not so much that people there are on welfare, its that those stores are more often in "bad" areas ).

[PLAYER57832]

For the record, I am in favor of limiting where people can us food and welfare cards (food stamps are no longer paper, its all by a kind of debit card). The issue with liquor stores is that many double as grocery stores in some areas... (and many grocery stores sell alchohol). Still, some things are and should be prohibited purchases.

There also needs to be a better watch for fraud. But, the truth is that at some point, if someone wants to skim the system, they can. Selling food is one way. Its illegal, absolutely illegal, but you find criminals everywhere in every walk of life and the effort needed to catch each and every one is not only highly oppressive to ALL (in this case, definitely not just those on welfare or food stamps), its not even close to cost-effective. I would say requiring ID, maybe limiting stores where people can go (similar to WIC restrictions).. that type of thing might work. If someone has certain indicators of problems (previous drug dependence might be one), then maybe they should be cycled into some sort of "soup" kitchen type deal, etc. Section 8 rent payments already are paid directly to the landlord. (usually the person has to pay a portion, which might come from cash assistance?.. not sure about that)

BUT.. and this is key, we also need "feeder programs" that truly enable people to learn to wean themselves off of welfare. This bit about "spend every penny you have" and then "go one cent over x and it all stops" wind up standing in the way of people going off support.

AND, though this isn't the place to debat this itself, Medicaid limits absolutely are among the biggest impedements to people coming off assistance. Most of us would sacrafice a LOT for the health of our children. You have NO idea how many people stay on assistance or stay in lower income jobs simply to keep their kids enrolled with Medicaid. Mostly, I don't mean people who ignore buying insurance. I mean people who don't get insurance OR who can only get insurance that is so piss-poor, they go without so their kids can stay on Medicaid (or CHIP). And, yes, I know you are going to claim that the problem is CHIP/Medicaid limits are too liberal. But, think about that. You are saying its perfectly OK that someone making a low wage gets something their company calls "insurance", but which covers almost nothing and mostly serves to make their kids ineligible for CHIP? Like I said, I can debate the particulars (again) in the socialized medicine thread, but the point I wanted to make is that healthcare is a BIG reason why people might stay on welfare who otherwise might possibly get some kind of work... at least enough to mean they don't need welfare. (they might still need other assistance.. in particular, health insurance).

[Dukasaur]

Now, in my state, if someone wants to purchase liquor or lottery tickets or cigarettes with an EBT card, they have to take someone to the grocery store and buy them food, and then they get cash that way, usually at a discount. Yes, that could be difficult, but it F'n should be.

HUH.. you think that is OK? Its fraud, plain and simple!

He isn't saying that fraud is okay, he's saying that if you can't stop people from cheating, you can at least make it difficult. It isn't particularly difficult if you actually try to read the whole paragraph instead of just scanning and picking out the first phrase that meets your eye.

[PLAYER57832]

Now, in my state, if someone wants to purchase liquor or lottery tickets or cigarettes with an EBT card, they have to take someone to the grocery store and buy them food, and then they get cash that way, usually at a discount. Yes, that could be difficult, but it F'n should be.

HUH.. you think that is OK? Its fraud, plain and simple!

He isn't saying that fraud is okay, he's saying that if you can't stop people from cheating, you can at least make it difficult. It isn't particularly difficult if you actually try to read the whole paragraph instead of just scanning and picking out the first phrase that meets your eye.

I realize that was not his intent. Actually he's just making any attack he can on welfare. That is what the whole paragraph says, but to get that context, you have to also read the rest of what he has written.

The bit about liquor stores is really nothing. The problem is some liquor stores do sell food and groceries sell liquor in some areas. (not in PA) But did you read what I wrote? Because it was hardly a quick answer. What would make it difficult is better tracking and enforcement of retailers...and prosecution of the true abusers, like people who sell their food to buy booze.

Oh, in PA you can buy a lottery ticket, but if you win... you gotta deduct what the state gave you.

[john9blue]

omg you did some research! lol. i'm kind of impressed actually. i think i could cobble together some of my quotes and make myself look like a huge douchebag, so thanks for not doing that lol.

You act as if you're above the whole "chose one side and bash the other stuff" when that's pretty much all you've manage to do. That is my response. And if you think my political posts are without any evidence or research you quite simply don't read any of them. I think BBS or someone can vouch for me here. Or, you know, you doing some reasearch. lol.

i think i know why you don't understand my posts now. i'm not defending scotty in this thread because i think his political views are right. i have no opinion on this subject of giving welfare applicants drug tests. i'm defending scotty because he uses personal attacks and cop-outs far less than his opponents.

just because i don't want to choose a side doesn't mean i think i'm superior. it just means that i know my limits.

[Woodruff]

i'm not defending scotty in this thread because i think his political views are right. i have no opinion on this subject of giving welfare applicants drug tests. i'm defending scotty because he uses personal attacks and cop-outs far less than his opponents.

Stop right there...enough of the bullshit. I'll grant that Phatscotty doesn't use personal attacks very often, but how can you with ANY CONSCIENCE AT ALL claim that he uses cop-outs far less than his opponents? He is the cop-out artist. You're either not paying any attention at all or you're dishonest.

just because i don't want to choose a side doesn't mean i think i'm superior. it just means that i know my limits.

It just means you want to pretend not to choose a side, that's all it means.

[john9blue]

i'm not defending scotty in this thread because i think his political views are right. i have no opinion on this subject of giving welfare applicants drug tests. i'm defending scotty because he uses personal attacks and cop-outs far less than his opponents.

Stop right there...enough of the bullshit. I'll grant that Phatscotty doesn't use personal attacks very often, but how can you with ANY CONSCIENCE AT ALL claim that he uses cop-outs far less than his opponents? He is the cop-out artist. You're either not paying any attention at all or you're dishonest.

agree to disagree. i haven't read the entire thread so it's possible that he's been really stupid on this subject.

just because i don't want to choose a side doesn't mean i think i'm superior. it just means that i know my limits.

It just means you want to pretend not to choose a side, that's all it means.

why don't you tell me which side i'm on? then i will argue for the other side of the issue to prove that you're full of shit.