23
   

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

 
 
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 05:58 pm
@NotreDame05,
So if a county/city gave me a building rent free to run my business, that wouldn't be a subsidy?
I'm not paying to use the building or land, I don't pay for the upkeep, maintenance, day to day running costs or the taxes and I get to keep the profit I made because I didn't pay these fees...
The land was bought and paid for, the land was developed and I've paid for nothing but move in costs.
Somebody has to pay for these things, the lights don't come on for nothing... Who pays the bills?
Not me, the generous tax payers do. Now if that isn't corporate welfare, I'm not sure you understand the concept at all.



NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:07 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

So if a county/city gave me a building rent free to run my business, that wouldn't be a subsidy?
I'm not paying to use the building or land, I don't pay for the upkeep, maintenance, day to day running costs or the taxes and I get to keep the profit I made because I didn't pay these fees...
Somebody has to pay for these things, the lights don't come on for nothing... Who pays the bills?
Not me, the generous tax payers do. Now if that isn't corporate welfare, I'm not sure you understand the concept at all.


First of all, we are not merely discussing whether some example is or is not corporate welfare but whether corporate welfare is parallel to welfare, the latter being money, real money, taxpayers' money, freely given directly to an individual for the individual to spend this money in any manner they render as prudent. If you thought the dialogue was about whether X is or is not corporate welfare, then I am not sure you understand what was being discussed.

As I stated previously, assuming arguendo, your example is a subsidy, this is not the same type of subsidy as welfare, and by welfare I am specifically referring to an individual receiving, in the mail, money, real money, taxapayers money, for free, in addition to and on top of their income, spend within their sole discretion.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:08 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?


No it doesn't and our suggestion it does is speculative non-sense.
0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

WELCOME to the forum, counsellor!





David


Why thank you, good Sir!!!
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:11 pm
@NotreDame05,
You think my example wasn't about real money? For every dollar your baseball teams saves, that is one less dollar put toward transit, infrastructure, policing... Why do you think a tax shuffle is any less real than a welfare check?
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:13 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

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.


As I stated previously, assuming arguendo this is a subsidy, it is not the same kind or type of subsidy as welfare. You are not receiving taxpayers dollars to be spent at your discretion, whereas with welfare the individual does receive taxpayers dollars in the mail, in addition to their own income, to be spent as they deem prudent. You being allowed to keep more of your own money is vastly different than being given someone else's money in the mail and spending someone else's money as you render proper, and it is the latter which is welfare, and it is this difference which defies the attempt to render the two as parallel or the same.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:16 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

You think my example wasn't about real money? For every dollar your baseball teams saves, that is one less dollar put toward transit, infrastructure, policing... Why do you think a tax shuffle is any less real than a welfare check?


My goodness...nothing I said can rationally be concluded as making the point your comment was not about "real money." Go back and re-read what I said because it is apparent to me you failed to properly understand what I actually said.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:49 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
You are not receiving taxpayers dollars to be spent at your discretion, whereas with welfare the individual does receive taxpayers dollars in the mail,


Oh?

So the money/cash flow that the sport team owner does not need to employ for paying for his own damn stadium thank to the tax payers is not under his complete control and that if the government would mail him a check for the same amount every month instead just like a welfare check it would make any difference to his finances or bottom line?


Strange thinkings indeed did you take any business courses or economic courses?

Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:54 pm
@NotreDame05,
NotreDame05 wrote:

First of all, we are not merely discussing whether some example is or is not corporate welfare but whether corporate welfare is parallel to welfare, the latter being money, real money, taxpayers' money, freely given directly to an individual for the individual to spend this money in any manner they render as prudent.


You might want to reread it yourself...
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:03 pm
@Ceili,
The man seem to view the universe in a somewhat odd way.

He seem to think for some reason that hundreds of millions of dollars if given to a person as business subsidies indirectly is somehow less real then a check written for the same amount directly to him.

And the businessman is somehow morally superior dues to the means of getting the transfer of wealth to him from the taxpayers is a step or two longer then the welfare recipient transfer of wealth.

Strange strange thinking.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:41 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
You are not receiving taxpayers dollars to be spent at your discretion, whereas with welfare the individual does receive taxpayers dollars in the mail,


Oh?

So the money/cash flow that the sport team owner does not need to employ for paying for his own damn stadium thank to the tax payers is not under his complete control and that if the government would mail him a check for the same amount every month instead just like a welfare check it would make any difference to his finances or bottom line?

Strange thinkings indeed did you take any business courses or economic courses?


Did you take a logical reasoning course? Because what you are failing to grasp is the difference between retaining more of YOUR OWN MONEY and receiving SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. The latter is the form and kind of welfare which is people were required to submit to a drug test before receiving someone else's money. The situation you describe above, of the owner keeping more of his own money is different from the kind of welfare in Florida requiring drug testing, which was people receiving someone else's money.

The strange thinking here is you laboring under the belief of a government scheme permitting people to keep more of their own money is parallel to a government scheme taking money from one person and giving it directly to another. The two are not the same, the latter is the scheme being discussed, the former is not, and the former is not parallel.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:42 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

NotreDame05 wrote:

First of all, we are not merely discussing whether some example is or is not corporate welfare but whether corporate welfare is parallel to welfare, the latter being money, real money, taxpayers' money, freely given directly to an individual for the individual to spend this money in any manner they render as prudent.


You might want to reread it yourself...


No, I know the point I made. You apparently have no clue as to the point I made, since you seemed to think I made the point you were not discussing real money. This was never my point, in fact I never made this point, and how you confused yourself into thinking this ever was my point is mystifying.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:47 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The man seem to view the universe in a somewhat odd way.

He seem to think for some reason that hundreds of millions of dollars if given to a person as business subsidies indirectly is somehow less real then a check written for the same amount directly to him.

And the businessman is somehow morally superior dues to the means of getting the transfer of wealth to him from the taxpayers is a step or two longer then the welfare recipient transfer of wealth.

Strange strange thinking.



Nice strawman argument...I can understand why you think it is "strange" and it is because, well, you are confused as to my position. Perhaps if you remedied your own misunderstanding of my position, and actually understood what I am asserting, then the "strangeness" of my position would evaporate.

Yes, strawman arguments is strange, strange thinking, and I thank you for so politely characterizing your own strawman argument as strange. When and if you ever come to the point you have accurately and correctly understood my position, then we can proceed with a productive dialogue and exchange. Until, you will labor under the delusion my argument is anything close to your interpretation of it above and erroneously think you have actually said anything germane to my actual argument with your strawman argument, which is strange, strange thinking.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:54 pm
@NotreDame05,
So far I think the only one confused by your point is you. The mumbo jumbo in this sentence is not clear and I'm not a mind reader. Your point seems to have been lost not just to me, but to yourself since I clearly pointed out that the point you were making was not the point you thought you had made. Perhaps you could give us a clue as to the point you were making and clear up the mystery.
Are you always this snotty?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 09:28 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
Because what you are failing to grasp is the difference between retaining more of YOUR OWN MONEY and receiving SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY


You are retaining more of YOUR OWN MONEY because the damn poor taxpayers are paying your bills that you should pay your own damn self out of your income/cash flow!!!!!!!!

How nice that you do not need to pay a large percent of the normal cost of dong business because the government is paying those expenses for you.

It is insane that you think this is any way more moral then taking a check directly from the government.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:19 pm
@NotreDame05,

OmSigDAVID wrote:
WELCOME to the forum, counsellor!





David
NotreDame05 wrote:
Why thank you, good Sir!!!
From your posts, I suspect that many a good conversation
here will benefit from the contribution of your accurate logic.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
His accurate logic David?

A logic that seems to not to be able to see that there is zero difference between having the government paying your normal cost of doing busines expenses and just handling you check for the same amount?

That if you get to keep more of your own money/income due to the government paying your bills related to normal business expenses/overhead that is somehow morally superior to just being handed a check for the same amout from the government.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:16 am
@OmSigDAVID,
do you think he's a gun nut, dave...?

I hope so for your sake, just cuz you really need a buddy.

or a teddy bear.

or maybe an invisible playmate...
0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 07:21 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

His accurate logic David?

A logic that seems to not to be able to see that there is zero difference between having the government paying your normal cost of doing busines expenses and just handling you check for the same amount?

That if you get to keep more of your own money/income due to the government paying your bills related to normal business expenses/overhead that is somehow morally superior to just being handed a check for the same amout from the government.



Another strawman argument as I have never said it was "morally superior" but rather said it was "different". We cannot have a dialogue when you create mythical arguments I have never made, think I have in fact made them, and then attack those strawman arguments.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 07:26 am
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
said it was "different".


In no way is it different in the outcome of transferring wealth from the pubic treasury to private hands.

The machinery of transferring wealthy is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand IE should all persons who get such a transfer need to be drug tested?

Especially in light of there being no showing that people such as the private owners of sport teams are any less likely to be drug users then people who need short term support to provide for their families.
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 08:46:32