The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

In the grand big picture, I would much rather see ways of having people have certain responsibilities for receiving government aid. For example, getting a pell grant? You need to put in a set amount of community service. We have plenty of projects that need to be done around this country, and we are giving this money away anyway, why not require people who are able bodied/minded, and free of time commitments to "pay back" some of that money. To your eta, yes, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring a drug test to get a mortgage, let alone the deduction. I'm guessing the rate of foreclosure is higher among drug users anyway, so that ends up being a wasted payment (and directly taxpayers money) in those cases.

 

You'd really be willing to submit to annual drug testing for your mortgage tax deduction?

 

lol "small government" conservatism

[StrangeSox]

How many government services, programs, credits or assistance should require mandatory drug testing? Student loans? Public schools? DMV or library? All sorts of tax credits? What about executives at big banks that received TARP? Mandatory drug testing for them?

[southsider2k5]

You'd really be willing to submit to annual drug testing for your mortgage tax deduction?

 

Why not?

[southsider2k5]

How many government services, programs, credits or assistance should require mandatory drug testing? Student loans? Public schools? DMV or library? All sorts of tax credits? What about executives at big banks that received TARP? Mandatory drug testing for them?

 

Stop and think about this for a minute. The whole point behind having a ginormous government to give out trillions of dollars a year is supposed to be to improve people's lives. Here is one way we actually have a shot at doing that, by trying to break the cycle of addiction, or even preventing people from trying that crap in the first place. As always prevention is cheaper than treatment.

 

It isn't on the top of my "to-do" list, but like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it for sure. I'd rather see service programs instituted to accompany many of these programs.

[StrangeSox]

Why not?

 

Aside from the invasion of privacy, unreasonable search & seizure and the massive costs?

 

lol "small government" conservatism

[southsider2k5]

Aside from the invasion of privacy, unreasonable search & seizure and the massive costs?

 

lol "small government" conservatism

 

It sounds like you are talking about the coming health care program, but I am sure you have a major problem with that, right?

[StrangeSox]

Stop and think about this for a minute. The whole point behind having a ginormous government to give out trillions of dollars a year is supposed to be to improve people's lives. Here is one way we actually have a shot at doing that, by trying to break the cycle of addiction, or even preventing people from trying that crap in the first place. As always prevention is cheaper than treatment.

 

It isn't on the top of my "to-do" list, but like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it for sure. I'd rather see service programs instituted to accompany many of these programs.

 

Cutting people off from public aid, people who can't otherwise afford to eat or have a place to sleep, isn't going to improve their lives. And, given our current "war on drugs" state, they're more likely to end up in prison than to get any sort of treatment.

 

[southsider2k5]

Aside from the invasion of privacy, unreasonable search & seizure and the massive costs?

 

lol "small government" conservatism

 

And besides, I'll go out and say the program was one of the main drivers of this whole last financial mess with Fannie and Freddie putting the foundations down for the housing crisis. So even getting rid of all intervention in the housing industry wouldn't bother me at all.

[StrangeSox]

It sounds like you are talking about the coming health care program, but I am sure you have a major problem with that, right?

 

I don't claim to be an advocate for "small government" so idk what point you're trying to make.

 

"Mandatory drug testing for all Americans who receive some sort of benefit, service or good from the government" and "small government" don't really seem to work well together.

[southsider2k5]

Cutting people off from public aid, people who can't otherwise afford to eat or have a place to sleep, isn't going to improve their lives. And, given our current "war on drugs" state, they're more likely to end up in prison than to get any sort of treatment.

 

Again, it sounds like the whole "we are paying for it anyway" argument of universal health care.

[StrangeSox]

And besides, I'll go out and say the program was one of the main drivers of this whole last financial mess with Fannie and Freddie putting the foundations down for the housing crisis. So even getting rid of all intervention in the housing industry wouldn't bother me at all.

 

What program? Please say CRA, that would be almost as good as citing the McKinsey study!

[StrangeSox]

Again, it sounds like the whole "we are paying for it anyway" argument of universal health care.

 

Paying for what? The costs of drug testing a population that's stereotyped as drug users because they're poor and largely minorities?

[southsider2k5]

I don't claim to be an advocate for "small government" so idk what point you're trying to make.

 

"Mandatory drug testing for all Americans who receive some sort of benefit, service or good from the government" and "small government" don't really seem to work well together.

 

Like I said prior, I would rather see the credit go away, and Fannie and Freddie get phased out, while the government divulges as many of its properties and land ownings as possible. If you are going to keep the government in the housing business, I'd rather see them do it right.

[southsider2k5]

Paying for what? The costs of drug testing a population that's stereotyped as drug users because they're poor and largely minorities?

 

Everything really.

[StrangeSox]

Like I said prior, I would rather see the credit go away, and Fannie and Freddie get phased out, while the government divulges as many of its properties and land ownings as possible. If you are going to keep the government in the housing business, I'd rather see them do it right.

 

Ok but that has nothing to do with mandatory drug testing. You can be against mortgage tax credits and FHA loans and also against erosion of 4th amendment rights to chase down the evil drug boogeyman.

[StrangeSox]

Everything really.

 

I have no idea what you're even trying to get at here.

 

btw my tactic of getting you to advocate for testing poor minorities but not middle and upper-class people backfired because you actually agreed to testing everyone for everything. Kudos for that, at least.

Edited June 22, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Ok but that has nothing to do with mandatory drug testing. You can be against mortgage tax credits and FHA loans and also against erosion of 4th amendment rights to chase down the evil drug boogeyman.

 

Funny, no one has a problem with those things in the Health Care debate. This is just receiving a government service even. We aren't even talking about a mandatory requirement of life.

[StrangeSox]

Funny, no one has a problem with those things in the Health Care debate. This is just receiving a government service even. We aren't even talking about a mandatory requirement of life.

 

There was mandatory drug testing based on stereotypes in the health care debate? Or is this a really weak link to the insurance mandate, which isn't anything at all like having to take a piss test regularly or otherwise getting cut off from government programs/aid?

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, s&s is not a bulls*** argument and it's not equivalent to taking a public sector job.

 

But it really addresses a non-issue. Drug use for people on public aid isn't statistically significantly higher than the population at large, so off the bat it stigmatizes them as "likely drug users." Second, it's really expensive to do this. It's going to cost a lot more money than it saves. Third, what's the end result? "You're addicted to heroin, sorry, out in the streets with ya"

 

I struggle to see it as anything more than further punitive "war on drugs" crap.

 

eta: I guess you'd be cool with mandatory drug testing for your mortgage deduction, right? Since it's basically the same thing, the government paying for part of your housing costs?

 

It is a bulls*** argument because it's not consistent. Think of other public officials like cops. There's ZERO suspicion of them doing drugs, yet they have to submit to random drug tests. Why isn't that an unreasonable search and seizure?

 

And I find it hard to believe that the poorest of the poor out there aren't doing drugs at an increased rate than the general population. At the very least I find it highly suspect that "drug activity" rates aren't significantly higher (using/dealing/selling) in public housing. Do you have a link for that?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I have no idea what you're even trying to get at here.

 

btw my tactic of getting you to advocate for testing poor minorities but not middle and upper-class people backfired because you actually agreed to testing everyone for everything. Kudos for that, at least.

 

The idea that somehow we are saving money without testing is just silly. If they are addicts, or turn into them eventually, who do you think is paying for treatment and prison anyway? The quicker you stop a problem, or even prevent it, the better. If you stop even one percent of people from starting to use because they are afraid of losing their incomes, much like employees who won't use, or quit using, because they fear the drug test, you have won in the long run. It doesn't matter what class of people we are talking about. I don't care how rich or poor you are, if you are abusing, you really shouldn't be qualified to get a handout.

[StrangeSox]

It is a bulls*** argument because it's not consistent. Think of other public officials like cops. There's ZERO suspicion of them doing drugs, yet they have to submit to random drug tests. Why isn't that an unreasonable search and seizure?

 

There's actually a pretty clear standard for those drug tests. They need to be "safety-sensitive" positions, which cops, firefighters etc. fall under.

 

And I find it hard to believe that the poorest of the poor out there aren't doing drugs at an increased rate than the general population. At the very least I find it highly suspect that "drug activity" rates aren't significantly higher (using/dealing/selling) in public housing. Do you have a link for that?

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct96/niaaa-23.htm

"Proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare, report National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism researchers in the November American Journal of Public Health."

 

BTW you forgot to answer my question re: your mortgage tax deductions. When can you be expected at the clinic for the testing?

Edited June 22, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The idea that somehow we are saving money without testing is just silly. If they are addicts, or turn into them eventually, who do you think is paying for treatment and prison anyway? The quicker you stop a problem, or even prevent it, the better. If you stop even one percent of people from starting to use because they are afraid of losing their incomes, much like employees who won't use, or quit using, because they fear the drug test, you have won in the long run.

 

I don't think there's really any expected preventative effect here. Maybe if you're talking about testing just about every single American, but lol goodbye 4th amendment.

 

The testing isn't cheap, and you're going to test a whole lot of people who are clean to catch the small percentage that aren't.

 

It doesn't matter what class of people we are talking about. I don't care how rich or poor you are, if you are abusing, you really shouldn't be qualified to get a handout.

Isn't it interesting that these drug-tests-for-aid proposals always focus on programs for the poor?

[StrangeSox]

In other news, the PPACA accidentally includes a few extra million early retiree seniors in Medicaid by excluding SSI disbursements from income.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think there's really any expected preventative effect here. Maybe if you're talking about testing just about every single American, but lol goodbye 4th amendment.

 

The testing isn't cheap, and you're going to test a whole lot of people who are clean to catch the small percentage that aren't.

 

 

Isn't it interesting that these drug-tests-for-aid proposals always focus on programs for the poor?

 

Quit projecting your stereotypes. I sure don't know many poor people who are buying homes.

[southsider2k5]

In other news, the PPACA accidentally includes a few extra million early retiree seniors in Medicaid by excluding SSI disbursements from income.

 

This must be why Nancy had to have it passed to see what was in it...