23
   

Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

 
 
NotreDame05
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I might also add deductions in my taxes is different from welfare. All deductions do is permit me to keep more of the money I earned, i.e. permits me to keep more of my income by shrinking the amount of my income which may be taxed, which is vastly different than taxpayers' money going directly to a welfare recipient, i.e. free money.


The two are one and the same. The only difference is that you see yourself as superior to those who are forced to apply for welfare.

In the case of the stadium under question, while the city or county may OWN the stadium, profits off of events that are held there are realized by the operators of the stadium - the Miami Marlins. So it's entirely accurate to say that the state of FL subsidized the profits of this company, by paying hundreds of millions of dollars to build a building in which this company could realize profits.

Cycloptichorn


No, they are not the same. Receving taxpayer money in the mail, for free, is not the same as Miami-Dade County/City paying for a stadium for them to own. Furthermore, tax deductions are not the same for reasons already noted. The fundamentally important differences between welfare and your examples is what distinguishes those examples from welfare and renders a comparison rather illogical.

Finally, you have no idea how I see "myself" in relation to welfare recipients and your speculation on this point is as convicing and persuasive as your use of non-parallel examples, or the defense of previously used non-parallel examples.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:00 pm
@NotreDame05,
"Receving taxpayer money in the mail, for free"...

that says a lot about how you see yourself, Charlie.

why are you so afraid of poor people?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:02 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
No, they are not the same.


Yes, they are. Isn't arguing by assertion great?

You have confused yourself regarding my post - your tax deductions and welfare are one and the same. They are both a government policy designed to influence the behavior and lives of the citizens of this country. You only see them as different, as it supports your world-view, which says that you shouldn't be subjected to such things, but poor folks should.

Quote:

Finally, you have no idea how I see "myself" in relation to welfare recipients


Oh, I think I absolutely do. You are more transparent than you apparently believe.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:03 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
"Receving taxpayer money in the mail, for free"...

that says a lot about how you see yourself, Charlie.

why are you so afraid of poor people?
That is a non-sequitur, Rocky.
The post shows no emotion, including no fear.





David
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Dave, you show us daily that you have no understanding of inner fear.

how far away is your gun?
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:05 pm
@NotreDame05,
It would take a drug using army the size of the Mexican army to ripped off the taxpayers to the degree that the Miami/Dade taxpayers had been ripped off by the Marlins.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-05-05/news/six-lies-about-the-marlins-stadium/4/

The Absolute Worst

Ask an economist whether the Marlins stadium deal is the worst in baseball history for taxpayers, and he or she will pussyfoot around and then tell you it's hard to say. Comparing complex stadium deals is like trying to stack Mark McGwire's juiced home run stats against the skills of the Babe.

Baloney. We'll go right ahead. It's the worst flipping deal ever.

First off, most cities have extracted far more funds from their teams to build a new park than Miami, where owner Jeffrey Loria will front just short of 30 percent of the $515 million cost. Take baseball-mad St. Louis, where the Cardinals and private investors eventually covered 88 percent of financing for the new Busch Stadium. Or San Diego (43 percent privately financed). Or Detroit (37 percent private).

Yes, there are ballparks that have cost their teams less. Just last year, Washington, D.C., footed the entire bill for the $611 million Nationals Park. But in return, the district gets millions in rent from the team and will share revenue generated by the stadium. In its first year, that added up to almost $17 million for D.C.

That's where Miami loses. The city and county will get almost none of the revenue from the new ballpark. Even worse, Loria and his cronies will keep virtually all the cash from the naming rights. If the deal is similar to those closed recently for the New Jersey Devils and the New York Mets, Loria will cover his entire share of the stadium with that single deal.
Stadiums and ArenasSpectator Sports SectorConsumer Products and ServicesConsumer CyclicalsFlorida MarlinsThen there's this: Miami-Dade County leaders were so incompetent in negotiating the project that they stuck taxpayers with interest rates that would have made a mid-housing-bubble speculator gasp. By the time the bonds are paid off in 40 years, we will have sunk $2.4 billion into the boondoggle. And did we mention the team pays no taxes on the land?Worst. Deal. Ever.


OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
No, they are not the same.


Yes, they are. Isn't arguing by assertion great?

You have confused yourself regarding my post - your tax deductions and welfare are one and the same. They are both a government policy designed to influence the behavior and lives of the citizens of this country. You only see them as different, as it supports your world-view, which says that you shouldn't be subjected to such things, but poor folks should.

Quote:

Finally, you have no idea how I see "myself" in relation to welfare recipients
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, I think I absolutely do. You are more transparent than you apparently believe.

Cycloptichorn
DISPLAY your mindreading talents for us Cy.
Lets see this. R u wearing a turban ?





David
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:07 pm
@BillRM,
It is quite obvious to anyone who actually studies the issue that this was a subsidy for the owners of the Marlins.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Hmm, I'll give it a shot.

I look into your mind, and I see.... a paralyzing fear of the outside world, which is only soothed by cold, blue steel. A vast paranoia and distrust of your fellow man. And not much else.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Hmm, I'll give it a shot.
Thank u.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
I look into your mind, and I see....
a paralyzing fear of the outside world,
That 's a failure; no fear.
(Remember: my quest is for EVERYONE ELSE to defensively bear arms; I 've been taken care of for centuries.)


Cycloptichorn wrote:
which is only soothed by cold, blue steel.
No, not only. My defensive piece of choice is actually in stainless steel mirror:
http://www.proguns.com/images/used-guns/usedguns247-904/278taurus445.jpg



Cycloptichorn wrote:
A vast paranoia
No. I 'm keenly aware that no one is interested in me.


Cycloptichorn wrote:
and distrust of your fellow man.
O, yes! That 's a hit; that 's been true since (or before) age 11.
No one shoud be trusted by anyone.
I advise against it.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
And not much else.

Cycloptichorn
No. There r other things,
some of which r in my profile.

OK, so out of 5 points,
u got 1 right, = 2O% right, 8O% rong.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:40 pm
@NotreDame05,
WELCOME to the forum, counsellor!





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:41 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
Dave, you show us daily that you have no understanding of inner fear.

how far away is your gun?
WHICH one ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:43 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
Dave, you show us daily that you have no understanding of inner fear.

how far away is your gun?
I didn't know that there was INNER fear and OUTER fear. Thank u for that information.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  6  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 12:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Maybe thay r concerned that the recipients
will apply the taxpayer's funds to recreational drugs, instead of necessities.

By this rationale, the Feds should get urine samples from the board of each bank they're bailing out. If any executive has cocaine in their pee, no money for his bank! A fascinating thought. . . .
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 01:09 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
By this rationale, the Feds should get urine samples from the board of each bank they're bailing out. If any executive has cocaine in their pee, no money for his bank! A fascinating thought. . . .


I am all for it as the results are likely to prove to be highly amusing.

But the poor seems the only class at the moment it is acceptable to kick around.

Given that the poor is no more likely to be drug users than anyone else it is amazing that some feel that they should still need to prove that they are not drug users.

This is the man that the state demanded that he prove he is not a drug user before he could get aid for his children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit, Lebron v. Wilkins, names a Central Florida man, Luis Lebron, as the lead plaintiff. Lebron, a Navy veteran, single father, and University of Central Florida student who is looking for work, was denied TANF benefits after refusing to submit to a drug test. Lebron, who also cares for his disabled mother, did accounting and payroll work in the Navy and in the private sector before returning to college. He is expected to graduate with an accounting degree in December.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is quite obvious to anyone who actually studies the issue that this was a subsidy for the owners of the Marlins.

Cycloptichorn


This is not correct. A county/city government building a stadium for the county/city, owned and operated by the county/city, to be used by a major league baseball team does not constitute as a subsidy to the baseball team. Allowing the baseball team to keep more of its own money, money it earned, is not a subsidy. The notion of allowing someone to keep more of their own money constitutes as a subsidy is just absurdity, although I am not entirely convinced of this point.

Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, this is a subsidy, it is not the same kind of subsidy as welfare, a rather salient point you have yet to grasp. Yes, believe it or not, there are various kinds and forms of subsidies, they are not all the same. So, in the end, you are still looking at a different kind of subsidy and comparing it to another kind of subsidy in welfare.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
No, they are not the same.


Yes, they are. Isn't arguing by assertion great?

You have confused yourself regarding my post - your tax deductions and welfare are one and the same. They are both a government policy designed to influence the behavior and lives of the citizens of this country. You only see them as different, as it supports your world-view, which says that you shouldn't be subjected to such things, but poor folks should.

Quote:

Finally, you have no idea how I see "myself" in relation to welfare recipients


Oh, I think I absolutely do. You are more transparent than you apparently believe.

Cycloptichorn


I have not merely argued by assertion given reasons and explanations as to why they are not parallel.

Quote:
They are both a government policy designed to influence the behavior and lives of the citizens of this country. You only see them as different, as it supports your world-view, which says that you shouldn't be subjected to such things, but poor folks should.


My tax deductions and welfare are not the same. Tax deductions permit me to keep more of the money I have earned, whereas welfare is free money given to those based on financial need, and it is this difference which is fundamentally important and defies your comparison of the two. Welfare is free taxpayer money given to a person in addition to the income they have earned, in other words it is someone else's money they receive on top of and in addition to money they have earned on their own, and this is vastly different than tax deductions. I see them as different because of this factual difference and not because your your psycho-bable speculation of my view of things.

Furthermore, welfare was conceived as a program to help those in need, to assist them financially, and as a temporary transitional program, which is contrary to your stated purpose for the program.

Personally, given our brief exchange, and your inclination to speculate as to what I believe and think, you are better off ignored at the moment.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:32 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:

This is not correct. A county/city government building a stadium for the county/city, owned and operated by the county/city


The stadium is not operated by the county/city; it is operated by the private owners of the Miami Marlins. It is they who will make the profits off of this gigantic public investment. That's a subsidy any way you slice it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:34 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
My tax deductions and welfare are not the same. Tax deductions permit me to keep more of the money I have earned, whereas welfare is free money given to those based on financial need, and it is this difference which is fundamentally important and defies your comparison of the two


In a deficit environment, there is no difference between the two. Allowing you to pay less on your taxes increases the amount that every other taxpayer owes on the debt - exactly the same as welfare does. There is no functional difference in the 'free money.' Other than in your head.

It's always funny when another right-wing law student shows up here on A2K...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 03:20 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
Allowing the baseball team to keep more of its own money, money it earned, is not a subsidy. The notion of allowing someone to keep more of their own money constitutes as a subsidy is just absurdity, although I am not entirely convinced of this point.


LOL So if Miami Dade pay my mortgage so I can live in my home without charge and therefore free up that amount of my income that were going to service my mortgage that is not the same as if they just wrote me a check for the amount of the mortgage ever month?

Strange thinking indeed as in both ways I would be ahead of the game by the cost of the mortgage payments.
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 05:21:52