23
   

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

 
 
NotreDame05
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 07:41 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

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?


I am usually this "snotty" when people, like yourself come into the thread with an attitude, address other people with this attitude, as you did with me, and then call me "snotty." Hello pot, meet kettle.

I am also this "snotty" when the reasoning used is as illogical and irrational as your own. Somehow, you think the use of two words "real money" in a paragraph, indeed a post including more than one paragraph, controls, dictates, and determines the point being made, as if those two words were more important than all the other words used around them, and all the words taken together, and all the other words used in the post. This is non-sense.

Using your logic, and your modus operandi, I will now focus upon the two words "So far" in your prose above, and by obsessing on these two words, and ignoring all the others used, I conceive your point is to reference a particular junction in this dialogue. Of course, this isn't the point you are making and by focusing upon and obsessing over these two words, I have in fact missed the point you made. This is exactly what you did to me and it makes no sense.

To anyone who does not have the same proclivity as you, which was to pluck two words from a prose, ignore the other words used, and from those two words impose a contrived meaning on the prose, as you did, are going to grasp the point made. The point made was a government scheme or plan permitting people to keep more of the money they earned, i.e. more of their own money, is different than a government scheme taking money from X and giving the money taken from X directly to Y.

Now, I suspect and anticipate you will focus on the words "X directly to Y" in your next post and erroneously deduce I was making the point of referring to a graph and X and Y are mentioning the X and Y axis.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 07:44 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
said it was "different".


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


Balloney...a government scheme permitting people to keep more of their own money, money they earned, i.e. THEIR OWN MONEY, is different than a scheme of taking money from someone else and giving it to another person.

Property owner Z owns ten rental properties, 1-10. All ten units are occupied by A-J. The rent on each property is $100. Property owner Z decides to charge A $50 dollars in rent. The necessary consequence of this is A gets to keep $50 more of his own money.

To compensate for A, Z increases the rent for B-J. Even with the increased rent on B-J, A is still allowed to keep $50 of his own money. A is not receiving any money from B-J but is being allowed to keep $50 more of his own money. The money collected from B-J in the form of rent is not being redistributed to his wallet, he is not seeing a penny of the money collected in rent.

Now, we have Z who takes a portion of this rental money from B-J and gives some of it to A. So, let's suppose Z charged $110 dollars from B-J, for a total of $990 dollars collected in rent from B-J. Z decides to give $70 dollars of the money he collected in rent from B-J to A. In this instance, A is now receiving a portion of money which previously belonged to B-J, the money they previously had is now given to him, and is in his possession, for him to spend in a manner he finds pleasing to him.

These two situations are not the same.

This latter situation is the type of welfare I am discussing and the subject of pre-requisite drug testing in Florida, which is different from the preceding example.

Furthermore, welfare was conceived to be temporary and transitional assistance. Welfare is to provide temporary financial assistance to those people and individuals in the unfortunate situation of their income not adequately meeting the basic necessities of life. This creates an obligation on the welfare recipient to be frugal with their income and to spend it on necessities or in a very wise and prudent manner. Welfare is supplemental income to assist them in paying for those necessities. Hence, drug testing is one way to reasonably ensure the welfare recipient is not using welfare money to subsidize their drug habit.

This is indeed the rationale given by Florida authorities to justify their drug testing of welfare recipients. They want to make sure they are not spending other peoples' money on an illegal activity such as purchasing illegal drugs. Receiving other peoples' money in the mail is different than retaining more of your own money, and the government in Florida wants to ensure those people receiving other peoples' money does not use other peoples money to buy drugs.

Your sports example and government scheme is not the same as the government scheme of welfare, i.e. taking money from A and giving A's money directly to B.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 07:52 am
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
keep more of their own money, money they earned, i.e. T


Once more the reason they can keep more of the money they earn is because the public is paying their damn private bills to operated their private business for them.

There is not difference as you are giving them money from the public treasury in the same manner as writing a damn check to them for the same amount directly.

They surely did not earn the public money you are paying their damn bills with!!!!!

And once more there is no showing that the owner of a sport team is any less likely to be using the money under his control to buy drugs when someone getting a direct payment from the state to help out his family.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 07:58 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
keep more of their own money, money they earned, i.e. T


Once more the reason they can keep more of the money they earn is because the public is paying their damn private bills to operated their private business for them.

There is not difference as you are giving them money from the public treasury in the same manner as writing a damn check to them for the same amount directly.

They surely did not earn the public money you are paying their damn bills with!!!!!



Yes, once more, keeping more of your own money is different than being given a portion of your neighbor's money. The two are not the same. Why this is important is because your neighbor's money is an addition to your own money, on top of your own money, in addition to your own money, and the government has a vested interest, indeed a very important interest, in controlling what you do with other peoples' money you have received. It is different than money you earned on your own and are being allowed to keep.

Quote:
There is not difference as you are giving them money from the public treasury in the same manner as writing a damn check to them for the same amount directly.


No, they are not directly receiving any money from the public treasury by being allowed to keep more of their own money. It is non-sense and irrational to think keeping more of your own money is money received from the public treasury. This is logically impossible. Since the money you earned has never been in the public treasury, never owned by the public, then it cannot be the case keeping more of it constitutes as money given to you by the public treasury.

This reminds me of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning Arizona's unique little tax law, where the advocates for the govenrment made a parallel argument you did. Justice Kennedy scoffed at the idea by commenting, and I am paraphrasing, it makes no sense to him to characterize people keeping their money as money belonging to the state of Arizona.

Your logic is similar and it makes no sense.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 08:13 am
@NotreDame05,
Lord come on the money that the state is providing you for your benefit by paying your bills as a sport team owner is no different dollar for dollar then a naval veteran getting a check to help out his children and mother.

The state had no greater or no lesser interest in blocking either public funding directly or indirectly from going toward illegal channels such as drugs.

The fact that in one case you are freeing up funds from normal cash flow for the sport team owner to control by paying his normal bills does not change this in any way or in any manner.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 08:21 am
@NotreDame05,
NotreDame05 wrote:
No, they are not directly receiving any money from the public treasury by being allowed to keep more of their own money.


you may believe that you are good at debating, but you are clearly not good with basic principles of mathematics (forget about economics, you're not ready for that)

giving money to sports teams/people is not the same as allowing sports teams/people to keep money they already have.




you have $1

the government says it is going to give you $2 more

now you have $3




you have $1

the government says it is not going to tax you. you can keep your $1

now you have $1



~~~


there is a philosophy group that might be entertained by you. there is a link to the groups at the top of the page.

NotreDame05
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 09:54 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

NotreDame05 wrote:
No, they are not directly receiving any money from the public treasury by being allowed to keep more of their own money.


you may believe that you are good at debating, but you are clearly not good with basic principles of mathematics (forget about economics, you're not ready for that)

giving money to sports teams/people is not the same as allowing sports teams/people to keep money they already have.




you have $1

the government says it is going to give you $2 more

now you have $3




you have $1

the government says it is not going to tax you. you can keep your $1

now you have $1



~~~


there is a philosophy group that might be entertained by you. there is a link to the groups at the top of the page.




Thank you for contributing to the dialogue with an absolutely fantastic vacuous post.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 10:07 am
@NotreDame05,
I always wonder if guys like you are such ******* pricks in real life, or is it just something you let out online, where anonymity guarantees your safety?

Your debating skills aren't half what you think they are; you are constantly relying on assertion instead of actually proving anything.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 10:13 am
@NotreDame05,
was I supposed to be devastated by your response?

0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 10:45 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Lord come on the money that the state is providing you for your benefit by paying your bills as a sport team owner is no different dollar for dollar then a naval veteran getting a check to help out his children and mother.

The state had no greater or no lesser interest in blocking either public funding directly or indirectly from going toward illegal channels such as drugs.

The fact that in one case you are freeing up funds from normal cash flow for the sport team owner to control by paying his normal bills does not change this in any way or in any manner.


There actually is a difference. The difference is in one instance the person keeps more of their own money, and the other instance the person directly receives someone else's money. The Florida government is seeking to regulate the use of someone else's money, specifically to make sure the recipients of other peoples' money do not use other peoples' money on drugs. The Florida government is regulating the use of other peoples' money and it is the fact it is other peoples' money which is the difference and an important one.

As a result of this difference, your sports team reference is not parallel to the targeted welfare program in Florida.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 10:49 am
@NotreDame05,
Quote:

There actually is a difference. The difference is in one instance the person keeps more of their own money, and the other instance the person directly receives someone else's money.


In an environment where the government is running a deficit - which the state of FL and the country of USA definitely is - there is no substantive difference to any third party. It cuts me the exact same, whether your are given a tax break or someone is given welfare. So, you're incorrect with this assertion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 10:59 am
@NotreDame05,
ONCE MORE HOW IS PAYING SOMEONE BILLS SO HE HAD MORE MONEY FREE AS HE DOES NOT NEED TO PAY THOSE BILLS NOT THE SAME AS HANDING HIM THE SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the same transfer of wealth dollar for dollar from the public treasury to an individual either way there is zero difference of any kind.l

It is bookkeeping not a real difference of any kind.
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:09 am
@NotreDame05,
So basically, we should ignore what you've written then. K, done.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:19 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

So basically, we should ignore what you've written then. K, done.


Since it seems rather impossible for you to understand the simple point being made, then yes the prudent thing for you to do would be to ignore what I write until such time as you can actually comprehend what is being stated. If you require a foreign language to understand what is being stated, let me know, I might be able to accommodate you.
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:22 am
@NotreDame05,
Yup, another ambulance chaser... ignorant and abusive.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:29 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

ONCE MORE HOW IS PAYING SOMEONE BILLS SO HE HAD MORE MONEY FREE AS HE DOES NOT NEED TO PAY THOSE BILLS NOT THE SAME AS HANDING HIM THE SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the same transfer of wealth dollar for dollar from the public treasury to an individual either way there is zero difference of any kind.l

It is bookkeeping not a real difference of any kind.



How is it not the same? Because A.) He is keeping more of his own money and consequently, B.) He is spending more of his money.

Whereas with the welfare program in dispute in Florida, we are talking about 1.) Person A receiving Person B's money and therefore, 2.) Person A will be spending some of Person B's money.

There is a difference between keeping more of your own money and spending your own money and being given someone else's money for you to spend. The two are not the same and they never have been the same.

Example: Rent is 1 dollar. A is allowed to pay 90 cents. A therefore is allowed to keep 10 cents more of his own money, i.e. landlord is not taking the 10 cents out of Persons A's pocket, and Person A has 10 cents more of his own money. The fact the landlord is charging other renters for the discount given to A, in which case the rent is $1.01 distributed over all the renters, does not alter or change the fact Person A is still left with 10 cents of his own money and it is his own money and no one else's.

However, assuming the landlord takes a portion of his rent collected from the other tenants and gives some of it to Person A, let's say 10 dollars, now we are talking about a situation involving other peoples' money, specifically the 10 dollars which previously belonged to other people and has now been given to Person A, i.e. person A is now in possession of and has been given 10 dollars worth of other peoples' money. This latter scenario is the welfare situation in Florida. This latter scenario is different from the example in the preceding paragraph. The difference is source of the money, in one instance the source of the money is the person's own money, his own income, and in the other example the source of the money he is given is it was other peoples' money.
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:32 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

Yup, another ambulance chaser... ignorant and abusive.



Oh yeah, because you are the beacon of being hospitable. Hello pot, meet kettle.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:32 am
@NotreDame05,
NotreDame05 wrote:

How is it not the same?


because you don't understand the math.

I think everyone understands your political position on this. The problem is that your math/economic skills aren't up to the discussion.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:33 am
@NotreDame05,
NotreDame05 wrote:
Oh yeah, because you are the beacon of being hospitable.


did Ceili invite you to her home?
NotreDame05
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 11:34 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

NotreDame05 wrote:

How is it not the same?


because you don't understand the math.

I think everyone understands your political position on this. The problem is that your math/economic skills aren't up to the discussion.


It has nothing to do with matematics. Nothing. The problem is your reasoning skills are not up to the discussion as you have deluded yourself into thinking this has anything to do with mathematics. The issue is whether the source of the money makes any difference and this is not a mathetmatical issue.
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 11:57:08