The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

We define "freedom" very differently, of course. Assigning your definition to me does not make me a hypocrite. My definition could be wrong, of course, but my position is not hypocritical. Yours, on the other hand, is. You cannot be for extremely small government and simultaneously for one of the most intrusive government systems that could be put into place without there being a contradiction in there.

In my view, it is only intrusive if it is required. No program so-far promoted that I have seen is a requirement to exist and be a citizen. The ones I see are for sports (all the way down to high school), private companies at their will, and government if granting free-and-clear assistance like welfare.

 

Now, the difficult part here comes in when you consider whether or not Welfare is "mandatory". By constitutional definition, it seems not to be, but the US government has decided (and most of its citizens agree) that some sort of safety net program is a good thing. So we have it. But for people who draw from it, should the government (and more importantly, the taxpayers) expect some modicum of effort to get off of it? Again, most would agree the answer is yes. So let's shed all the extreme arguments here, and boil it down to this: is the expectation of being clean of illegal drugs a reasonable expectation for those receiving taxpayer dollars as a subsidy for their existence?

 

[StrangeSox]

I'd rather none of these programs in existence if given the choice between an extreme in your moving goalposts world. When you move the goalposts again, I'd rather see the programs run directly and correctly, without wasting money. Come back to me when you are down running around in circles.

 

Where, exactly, am I moving goalposts? You've advocated in the past drug testing for any government benefits, including tax credits and breaks. That does not square up with a small government, personal freedom ideology.

[NorthSideSox72]

who do you suggest pay for infrastructure in this country? highways?

 

do you think public libraries should be shut down?

 

who pays police and firefighters?

 

please explain these things to me

This is huge hyperbole. I am 99% sure that SS2K5 is perfectly fine with taxpayer dollars, to at least some extent, should indeed go to those things. He isn't arguing otherwise, so I have no idea where you are getting this.

 

His problem is with the tax CODE, not the very idea of taxes.

 

[StrangeSox]

In my view, it is only intrusive if it is required. No program so-far promoted that I have seen is a requirement to exist and be a citizen.

 

When the idea of drug testing for welfare has come up before (because all those poor blaaa---people on welfare are druggies, despite numerous surveys indicating no higher drug usage rates!), I've asked if all government benefits should come with that stipulation. ss2k5 held a consistent position on this and said that, yes, things like the mortgage tax deduction should require drug testing.

 

While his position on drug-testing-for-benefits is consistent, his claim that he favors a small, non-intrusive government on economic and social affairs (drug testing for benefits=economic and social policy!) doesn't square.

[Reddy]

This is huge hyperbole. I am 99% sure that SS2K5 is perfectly fine with taxpayer dollars, to at least some extent, should indeed go to those things. He isn't arguing otherwise, so I have no idea where you are getting this.

 

His problem is with the tax CODE, not the very idea of taxes.

haha i love how you act like i'm the only person here prone to hyperbole. I know you don't like me, but that's bulls***.

[NorthSideSox72]

When the idea of drug testing for welfare has come up before (because all those poor blaaa---people on welfare are druggies, despite numerous surveys indicating no higher drug usage rates!), I've asked if all government benefits should come with that stipulation. ss2k5 held a consistent position on this and said that, yes, things like the mortgage tax deduction should require drug testing.

 

While his position on drug-testing-for-benefits is consistent, his claim that he favors a small, non-intrusive government on economic and social affairs (drug testing for benefits=economic and social policy!) doesn't square.

Well, I personally would say we have way too many various tax credits, deductions, shelters, thresholds, etc. anyway, and I am sure so would he.

 

But within the current system, I personally think welfare (and other entitlements and direct payments) is far different from tax credits and deductions.

 

Of course, another aspect to this which has to come into play is, the cost of implementing the testing. Which, as you have noted, would be enormous.

 

[southsider2k5]

When the idea of drug testing for welfare has come up before (because all those poor blaaa---people on welfare are druggies, despite numerous surveys indicating no higher drug usage rates!), I've asked if all government benefits should come with that stipulation. ss2k5 held a consistent position on this and said that, yes, things like the mortgage tax deduction should require drug testing.

 

While his position on drug-testing-for-benefits is consistent, his claim that he favors a small, non-intrusive government on economic and social affairs (drug testing for benefits=economic and social policy!) doesn't square.

 

The difference of course being the option of opting out of programs instead of the mandatory nature you are looking for. [insert condescending phrase about applying my POV to others argument.]

[StrangeSox]

In my view, it is only intrusive if it is required. No program so-far promoted that I have seen is a requirement to exist and be a citizen. The ones I see are for sports (all the way down to high school), private companies at their will, and government if granting free-and-clear assistance like welfare.

 

Now, the difficult part here comes in when you consider whether or not Welfare is "mandatory". By constitutional definition, it seems not to be, but the US government has decided (and most of its citizens agree) that some sort of safety net program is a good thing. So we have it. But for people who draw from it, should the government (and more importantly, the taxpayers) expect some modicum of effort to get off of it? Again, most would agree the answer is yes. So let's shed all the extreme arguments here, and boil it down to this: is the expectation of being clean of illegal drugs a reasonable expectation for those receiving taxpayer dollars as a subsidy for their existence?

It's been ruled by at least one state supreme court (Michigan) to be a violation of 4th amendment rights to privacy.

 

Should we drug test CEO's whose companies subsist on government contracts or generous tax deductions? What about middle and upper-class citizens who utilize various tax deductions? Or seniors collecting social security and utilizing medicare? Or is drug testing reserved for the programs that benefit the poor alone?

[NorthSideSox72]

haha i love how you act like i'm the only person here prone to hyperbole. I know you don't like me, but that's bulls***.

lol wut?

 

When did I say it was only you? Your post was so obviously missing the point that ANYONE in this discussion was making, that it was just ridiculous. I do the same thing with other posters as well.

 

[southsider2k5]

haha i love how you act like i'm the only person here prone to hyperbole. I know you don't like me, but that's bulls***.

 

He used the phrase "HUGE" hyperbole to clarify it.

[southsider2k5]

It's been ruled by at least one state supreme court (Michigan) to be a violation of 4th amendment rights to privacy.

 

Should we drug test CEO's whose companies subsist on government contracts or generous tax deductions? What about middle and upper-class citizens who utilize various tax deductions? Or seniors collecting social security and utilizing medicare? Or is drug testing reserved for the programs that benefit the poor alone?

 

Absolutely. Next class warfare assumption.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's been ruled by at least one state supreme court (Michigan) to be a violation of 4th amendment rights to privacy.

 

Should we drug test CEO's whose companies subsist on government contracts or generous tax deductions? What about middle and upper-class citizens who utilize various tax deductions? Or seniors collecting social security and utilizing medicare? Or is drug testing reserved for the programs that benefit the poor alone?

This is the slippery slope argument, and it does have merit. Where do you draw the line?

 

My personal view is, the drug testing for welfare may make sense on the surface, but the cost would be massive. I'd rather see tougher guidelines (and just plain better ones) on how working and striving towards working come into play, and let the private businesses who hire people sort out whether or not they care about drug testing. But that is just my view.

 

[StrangeSox]

The difference of course being the option of opting out of programs instead of the mandatory nature you are looking for. [insert condescending phrase about applying my POV to others argument.]

 

Stipulating government programs that, taken as a whole, almost every American partakes in with invasive testing procedures, even if said programs are voluntary, is still not a small-government position.

 

What about the war on drugs in general? Good idea? Gigantic waste of resources?

[Reddy]

He used the phrase "HUGE" hyperbole to clarify it.

touche.

[StrangeSox]

Absolutely. Next class warfare assumption.

 

I've already given you tons of credit for holding a consistent position here. That was in response to NSS.

 

But I'd really like you to expound on how drug testing every SS and medicare recipient squares with small government.

[Reddy]

can we change SS2k5's under-avy-title to "class warfare"?

 

it seems like his new motto

[Balta1701]

This is the slippery slope argument, and it does have merit. Where do you draw the line?

 

My personal view is, the drug testing for welfare may make sense on the surface, but the cost would be massive. I'd rather see tougher guidelines (and just plain better ones) on how working and striving towards working come into play, and let the private businesses who hire people sort out whether or not they care about drug testing. But that is just my view.

Just out of curiosity...How do you think the current rules for job-hunting while on unemployment are inadequate?

[NorthSideSox72]

Just out of curiosity...How do you think the current rules for job-hunting while on unemployment are inadequate?

The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model.

 

Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search.

 

[southsider2k5]

I've already given you tons of credit for holding a consistent position here. That was in response to NSS.

 

But I'd really like you to expound on how drug testing every SS and medicare recipient squares with small government.

 

It squares with not wasting. Opting out squares with personal economic freedom. Having standards for distribution of funds is not different than anything else we do as a government.

[southsider2k5]

The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model.

 

Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search.

 

I'd much rather see that, again, with the ability to opt out if you don't want to work.

[southsider2k5]

Stipulating government programs that, taken as a whole, almost every American partakes in with invasive testing procedures, even if said programs are voluntary, is still not a small-government position.

 

What about the war on drugs in general? Good idea? Gigantic waste of resources?

 

If you are going to deem them illegal, you have to enforce the law.

[Balta1701]

The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model.

 

Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search.

Well, on point 1, yeah it's a problem, but as you admit, there's really no good solution there other than raising the minimum wage to the point where a person could live on it.

 

Point 2, I'd think that's a great idea, but then again I want the government to build stuff anyway.

[StrangeSox]

It squares with not wasting. Opting out squares with personal economic freedom. Having standards for distribution of funds is not different than anything else we do as a government.

 

You've still got the core paternalistic assumption that drug use is a bad thing that government should control. This runs counter to just about any libertarian I've seen. I should be free to spend my SS check on pot or coke if I want--I sure as hell can spend it on booze.

 

Second, you need to consider how expensive national drug testing of tens of millions of people would be and whether that would actually result in any form of cost savings.

[southsider2k5]

You've still got the core paternalistic assumption that drug use is a bad thing that government should control. This runs counter to just about any libertarian I've seen. I should be free to spend my SS check on pot or coke if I want--I sure as hell can spend it on booze.

 

Second, you need to consider how expensive national drug testing of tens of millions of people would be and whether that would actually result in any form of cost savings.

 

If drugs aren't bad, then why do we have clinics for treatment and recover at taxpayer expense?

[StrangeSox]

The thing that really bothers me is that if someone goes on Welfare or UE, and they get a very low paying job, it works out worse for them than if they stay at home. I honestly don't know what the best solution to that is, but it is not a good model.

 

Also, I agree with others that if a person is on UE, after some period, they should be required to do work FOR the government in some capacity. Part time would be best, so that they can continue their job search.

 

You don't want someone on UE taking whatever job they can immediately find because they otherwise face destitution, though. Part of the point is to provide a cushion so that you don't end up with massive underemployment.