23
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 05:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
1) I 'm too lazy for that.
2) I don 't care enuf.


Then why did you ask?
NotreDame05
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:45 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Given that this population had a lower proven drug use rate then the general public other then aiding the drug testing companies what the point?

But I would go along with it if all those lawmakers who are cashing in state checks would also needed to be tested.


I think the goal of the program is to ensure free taxpayers' dollars are not subsidizing any individual welfare recipient's drug use.

I might also add comparing a lawmaker to a welfare recipient is comparing apples to oranges. In the case of welfare recipients they are essentially receiving, practically for free, money from the government at or near the beginning of each month. This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:01 am
@NotreDame05,
NotreDame05 wrote:
This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:23 am
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
might also add comparing a lawmaker to a welfare recipient is comparing apples to oranges. In the case of welfare recipients they are essentially receiving, practically for free, money from the government at or near the beginning of each month. This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.


Right and the billionaire sport team owner being handed 5oo millions dollars?

Beside that the Florida governor also wished to had lower level state employees tested.
NotreDame05
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:34 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
might also add comparing a lawmaker to a welfare recipient is comparing apples to oranges. In the case of welfare recipients they are essentially receiving, practically for free, money from the government at or near the beginning of each month. This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.


Right and the billionaire sport team owner being handed 5oo millions dollars?

Beside that the Florida governor also wished to had lower level state employees tested.


Was the money given directly to the owners to be used solely and exclusively at their discretion, like welfare recipients?
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:48 am
@NotreDame05,
The money was not lock down to any large degree and other sport teams owners in the area had promised to provide other benefits if given the funding and had a history of not carrying out those promises.

He surely could had used millions for drugs if he had wish to do so.

This is only being anti-poor as there is no indication including past large scale samplings that the poor are any more likely to be drug users then anyone else in society.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:11 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
1) I 'm too lazy for that.
2) I don 't care enuf.
BillRM wrote:
Then why did you ask?
1) My question was:
"Which sport team owner
was given $5OO,OOO,OOO of taxpayers' funds??"
U have ALREADY answered that
and u directed me to look up "the details"; I don 't wanna,
because my torpor is exceeded only by my languor and my lack of interest therein.

2) I 'm NOT too lazy to converse with u and others on A2K. I enjoy that.
We r only making conversation; I don 't wanna make a research project out of it, Professor Bill. My school days r behind me.
U shoud stop assigning homework.





David
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Maybe thay r concerned that the recipients
will apply the taxpayer's funds to recreational drugs, instead of necessities.


David

I have ambiguous feelings towards this drug test. Mostly, I don't see anything wrong with it (if the test doesn't impinge on the person's time: ex. taking the person away from his or her job in order to take the drug test AKA lost wages and also upsetting the employer with the lost work hours; and if the person being tested doesn't have to pay for any money for said drug test and that includes transportation towards the clinic where the drug test is done).

That said, I'm pretty certain no one (sizable and noticeable amount of persons) could really expect the recipients could get illicit drugs with the social services funds (tax payers money).
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:29 am
@tsarstepan,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Maybe thay r concerned that the recipients
will apply the taxpayer's funds to recreational drugs, instead of necessities.


David
tsarstepan wrote:
I'm pretty certain no one (sizable and noticeable amount of persons) could really expect
the recipients could get illicit drugs with the social services funds (tax payers money).
Y can 't thay ???????
I thawt that drug dealers were willing to sell to anyone (except police).





David
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:40 am
@tsarstepan,
Did you read the thread before posting?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 08:46 am

In my opinion, the dispositive consideration
is that no one is MORALLY entitled to the $$,
and taking the drug test is a requisite condition for getting it.

It is somewhat similar to an offer of a contract,
i.e., "u do thus n so, and we will consider your application for the cash."
If u don 't do thus n so, then we will not consider it.

I don 't see a problem with that
because morally, thay r not entitled to it.





David
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 09:19 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Did you read the thread before posting?

Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 09:47 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The money was not lock down to any large degree and other sport teams owners in the area had promised to provide other benefits if given the funding and had a history of not carrying out those promises.

He surely could had used millions for drugs if he had wish to do so.

This is only being anti-poor as there is no indication including past large scale samplings that the poor are any more likely to be drug users then anyone else in society.


From the reports I have read, the money was to be used exclusively for the construction of the stadium, so they had no discretion. However, this is irrelevant because I do not think the owners personally saw a nickel. Rather, a significant amount of the stadium was paid for by the issuance of county bonds and the county made payments directly to the entity constructing the stadium, as opposed to the money going directly to the owners of the Florida Marlins to then redirect the money to the entity constructing the stadium or at their discretion to do so.

So, I do not think this is a good example of taxpayes' dollars being used in a manner comparable to welfare. Consequently, it is not a good example to make your point of drug testing, and testing negative, as a prerequisite to receive welfare payments is "anti-poor." Rather, it seems to me, at least ostensibly, the impetus of the program was not "anti-poor" sentiment but a desire to ensure taxpayers' dollars do not subsidize illegal drug use.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 09:54 am
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
From the reports I have read, the money was to be used exclusively for the construction of the stadium, so they had no discretion. However, this is irrelevant because I do not think the owners personally saw a nickel.


Don't be ridiculous. Money is fungible, it matters not that the funds were spent directly on the stadium; it's the exact same as putting that money in the owner's pockets. If the state didn't raise and spend that money, the owners would have had to do so themselves. Who do you think is going to make all the profits off of the events held at the new stadium? Those profits are directly subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Therefore, under your argument, these executives should be all taking drug tests.

Quote:
Rather, it seems to me, at least ostensibly, the impetus of the program was not "anti-poor" sentiment but a desire to ensure taxpayers' dollars do not subsidize illegal drug use.


Do you qualify for ANY deductions or rebates on your taxes? Home mortgage interest deduction, student loan interest deduction? Have any dependents? If so, I'm sure you'd agree with me that you are making a compelling case that you personally should be drug tested before we allow you to take those deductions.

Not that any of this matters, other than academically, as the statute is unconstitutional and won't stand a challenge in court.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 10:00 am
@NotreDame05,
It was a gift to the owner of the team and we would not wish to give a 500 millions dollar gift to a drug user now would we? If those funds was not given for his sport team benefit directly or indirectly he would either needed to move or pay for his own damn stadium.

Oh there is no problem with that as long as the drug user is someone like Rush Limbaugh or a sport team owner instead of a poor mother or father with a family to feed.

We all know this is far more costly to filter out the very small percent of drug users then any tax funds save, however it is a many millions taxpayers funded windfall to the drug testing firms.

A windfall that in fact benefit the Governor as a shareholder in those testing labs at least until he was force to sell his shares and his wife shares.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:02 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
It was a gift to the owner of the team and we would not wish to give a 500 millions dollar gift to a drug user now would we?
Personally, I have nothing against users of drugs.
I have no emotions toward drug dealers.
I have known some drug users.
I had a girlfriend who was therapeutically addicted to Valium,
but the point of this thread (so far as I understand it)
concerns money going for food not for dope; i.e., the point 'd be defeated n frustrated if it did not go for necessities.

Again: I don 't care about this, merely discussing it.





David
0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
From the reports I have read, the money was to be used exclusively for the construction of the stadium, so they had no discretion. However, this is irrelevant because I do not think the owners personally saw a nickel.


Don't be ridiculous. Money is fungible, it matters not that the funds were spent directly on the stadium; it's the exact same as putting that money in the owner's pockets. If the state didn't raise and spend that money, the owners would have had to do so themselves. Who do you think is going to make all the profits off of the events held at the new stadium? Those profits are directly subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Therefore, under your argument, these executives should be all taking drug tests.

Quote:
Rather, it seems to me, at least ostensibly, the impetus of the program was not "anti-poor" sentiment but a desire to ensure taxpayers' dollars do not subsidize illegal drug use.


Do you qualify for ANY deductions or rebates on your taxes? Home mortgage interest deduction, student loan interest deduction? Have any dependents? If so, I'm sure you'd agree with me that you are making a compelling case that you personally should be drug tested before we allow you to take those deductions.

Not that any of this matters, other than academically, as the statute is unconstitutional and won't stand a challenge in court.

Cycloptichorn



I will do my best not to upset your delicate disposition as to hopefully avoid being "ridiculous" to you but I suspect this is a futile endeavor as it is apparent to me anyone taking a contrary to position to your own will be "ridiculous". So, here are my ridiculous observations.

The city/county paying, out of their funds, for the construction of the stadium, in which the money goes directly to the stadium constructors and not the owners of the team, is not the same as taxpayers' dollars going directly to the individual to be spent solely and exclusively at their discretion, which is what we are talking about regarding welfare.

The stadium will be owned by Miam Dade County, which is to say Miami-Dade County paid for and received a stadium. As a result, they did not pay for a stadium belonging to the owners of the Marlins organization, so this is not, as you suggest, any monetary windfall to the Marlins. So, this is not anything close to welfare. Welfare is still as non-parallel to this sports example as before, and your comments do not change this fact.

Now, you make a allege they are parallel by several chains of causation and inferences, but it is the lack of any chain of causation and inference in regards to welfare which renders the sports example different from welfare (in this instance I am referencing your use of profits).

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.

Your attempt to make a comparison, and your attempted comparisons on the basis of profits and tax deductions, and rebates, is tenuous. They aren't parallel.
NotreDame05
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:33 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

It was a gift to the owner of the team and we would not wish to give a 500 millions dollar gift to a drug user now would we? If those funds was not given for his sport team benefit directly or indirectly he would either needed to move or pay for his own damn stadium.

Oh there is no problem with that as long as the drug user is someone like Rush Limbaugh or a sport team owner instead of a poor mother or father with a family to feed.

We all know this is far more costly to filter out the very small percent of drug users then any tax funds save, however it is a many millions taxpayers funded windfall to the drug testing firms.

A windfall that in fact benefit the Governor as a shareholder in those testing labs at least until he was force to sell his shares and his wife shares.


A gift to the owner of the team? The city/county owns the stadium! What was the gift? The Marlins do not even own the stadium but the city/county. Furthermore, the owners did not receive any money from the city/county, like welfare recipients. The city/county paying for a stadium for the Marlins to play in, in which the city/county is the owner of the stadium and not the Marlins, is not the same as a welfare recipient receiving taxpayers' dollars in mail and for free. In fact, the Marlins paid $155 million dollars for a stadium they do not own, and the welfare recipient is not making any payment to receive welfare money. Your sports example is not parallel to welfare, as the Marlins did not receive a dime of this money and in fact paid money.

Your sports example was and remains non-parallel.

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:38 am
@NotreDame05,
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
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:41 am
@NotreDame05,

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Commissioner-Wants-Marlins-to-Play-Ball-on-New-Stadium-101499494.html

Realizing taxpayers may have been hosed in a stadium deal for the Florida Marlins, one county commissioner thinks its time to bring team owner Jeff Loria back to the negotiating table.

Commissioner Rebeca Sosa has requested the county ask the Marlins for a "greater financial contribution" after reports released this week that Loria cashed in big time on the baseball team, despite crying poor to get the new stadium deal.

The county is carrying the heaviest load on a new $600 million stadium that is scheduled to open in 2012. The Marlins are paying about $150 million, with taxpayers handling the rest.

But a report on Deadspin.com released financial documents that revealed the notoriously cheap Loria made nearly $50 million off the Marlins the past two years, despite the team having the lowest payroll in Major League baseball.

The report didn't sit will with elected officials, who were told by Marlins execs that the team was in dire straits and needed public help to stay in town.

Ballpark On Schedule More Multimedia Now it looks like Sosa wants to bring the wood to Loria and the marlins, but that could be hard considering the contracts have been signed and the county is on the hook for a mint.

The commission could take up the issue in ten days.

0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 11:34:17