Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[Sparky speaks]

More on vote fraud...

 

CBS4 Investigates: Does Your Vote Count?

 

“We still have not secured the process to ensure that that machine has read that ballot correctly and it is 100 percent accurate. Because it is wrong to assume that the machines are always right. They’re not, ” Sancho tells CBS4 Chief Investigator Michele Gillen.

 

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/10/02/cbs4-investigates-does-your-vote-count/#.UHHTmPuvzIU.email

[KevinG]

I gave some examples of why I think it makes good sense. It's not that hard to understand. Do YOU get tested for drugs by your employer? Why would anyone giving money to someone NOT want to make sure that person is doing everything they can to produce and/or be constructive....to make good decisions? Hell man, if a person is on welfare AND doing drugs isn't there a chance that person wouldn't try and find a damn job?! Especially if that job requires a drug test!? (I tried to present my point of "good sense" in other words)

A moral stance? No. If you are receiving housing, food or unemployment welfare I feel like it should be your responsibility to not be on drugs and I'm starting to think its the right of the government to make sure you're not doing dope while receiving their funding.

 

So you are willing for cash strapped states to be on the hook for millions of dollars for these drug tests? Because why, you want to make sure people on welfare are productive (and assumingly not wasting your money)? Why not put cameras in all federal housing so we can check on them 24/7? Or how about put a timer on the unemployed TVs so that they only can watch an hour a day.

 

Doing drugs is illegal, if someone is arrested for a drug offense while receiving federal aid, that aid should be suspended. In most states you can't get aid with a drug conviction. So now you then want to test everyone else (without any history of drug use) to make sure they are not on drugs as well?

 

These drug tests perpetuate the stereotype that the unemployed/welfare recipients are lazy moochers. They are expensive and unnecessary.

 

This reminds me of the voter ID discussion we had awhile back. It is a solution that is looking for a problem. Sure it sounds good on the surface, but really is it necessary? Would it be effective? Is it what we want to do?

[uncool2pillow]

So you are willing for cash strapped states to be on the hook for millions of dollars for these drug tests? Because why, you want to make sure people on welfare are productive (and assumingly not wasting your money)? Why not put cameras in all federal housing so we can check on them 24/7? Or how about put a timer on the unemployed TVs so that they only can watch an hour a day.

 

Doing drugs is illegal, if someone is arrested for a drug offense while receiving federal aid, that aid should be suspended. In most states you can't get aid with a drug conviction. So now you then want to test everyone else (without any history of drug use) to make sure they are not on drugs as well?

 

These drug tests perpetuate the stereotype that the unemployed/welfare recipients are lazy moochers. They are expensive and unnecessary.

 

This reminds me of the voter ID discussion we had awhile back. It is a solution that is looking for a problem. Sure it sounds good on the surface, but really is it necessary? Would it be effective? Is it what we want to do?

 

1. Drug tests are as expensive as you want to make them. If drug testing were random, you could test a small sampling. Even a small sample could have a deterrent effect.

2. If the vast majority of drug tests come back negative, it would go a long way to correct rather than perpetuate the stereotype.

[Sparky speaks]

Woman Has 30 Free ObamaPhones

 

http://youtu.be/aTYiKjFnMos

[Tweedling]

 

Because why, you want to make sure people on welfare are productive (and assumingly not wasting money)?

fixed it AND yes

Why not put cameras in all federal housing so we can check on them 24/7? Or how about put a timer on the unemployed TVs so that they only can watch an hour a day.

I guess you're attempting to be cute.

 

Doing drugs is illegal, if someone is arrested for a drug offense while receiving federal aid, that aid should be suspended. In most states you can't get aid with a drug conviction.

good

So now you then want to test everyone else (without any history of drug use) to make sure they are not on drugs as well?

not necessarily.

 

These drug tests perpetuate the stereotype that the unemployed/welfare recipients are lazy moochers. They are expensive and unnecessary.

says who? The blogger you cited earlier? The people afraid of being tested?

 

This reminds me of the voter ID discussion we had awhile back.

no not really the same thing......at all.

Sure it sounds good on the surface, but really is it necessary?

maybe

Would it be effective?

my intuition says yes.

Is it what we want to do?

we? Hahaha

 

 

[lost highway]

Implant chips for welfare mothers, your freedom depends on it.

 

More curiously: What the hell is going to happen when Biden debates Ryan?

 

For my money that is a candidate who comes off like a dumbass, who is actually really smart, debating someone who is known to be smart, and might actually be a dumbass.

 

I'm excited to watch it play out.

[uncool2pillow]

Implant chips for welfare mothers, your freedom depends on it.

 

More curiously: What the hell is going to happen when Biden debates Ryan?

 

For my money that is a candidate who comes off like a dumbass, who is actually really smart, debating someone who is known to be smart, and might actually be a dumbass.

 

I'm excited to watch it play out.

I know you're joking, but other than cost, I haven't heard a convincing argument against this. The Biden/Paul debate will be good. Paul will stay on message, Biden will shoot from the hip. With Biden, it's big risk, big reward or fail. Still wished we had Biden / Christie.

[lost highway]

I contributed five bucks to a couple of entertainment pundits so I could watch the Bill O'Reilly/ Jon Stewart debate. It was pretty good. Kind of encapsulated several reocurring arguments in this thread about the responsibility of the government vs. individual, social programs vs private ones etc.

 

Ol' Bill actually admitted that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq.

[Magnetized]

Yeah, I couldn't watch the debate last night but I watched it today for free--it's up on YouTube. It wasnt quite as good as I'd hoped it would be but then again it wasn't as bad as it might have been. Both men had some good moments, and I thought they struck a nice balance between entertaining and informative.

 

On the entertaining side of things, they got some mileage out of the height difference between the two. Papa Bear is 6'4" and Jon is 5'7", and Jon had a riser coming up from the floor that he could control to raise or lower himself depending on the point he was making. It was a funny bit.

[KevinG]

I know you're joking, but other than cost, I haven't heard a convincing argument against this.

 

Shouldn't the cost thing be enough? When the states don't have enough money for other basic services adding millions of dollars would be a waste.

 

 

I guess you're attempting to be cute.

 

It is called sarcasm and hyperbole. But you are so concerned with welfare recipients and the unemployed being unproductive shouldn't we watch over their daily lives to make sure they not wasting our tax payer money?

 

says who? The blogger you cited earlier? The people afraid of being tested?

 

She wasn't a random blogger, she was the Executive Director of the National Law Project. But you know who has been perpetuating the stereotype, you. Obviously you think that the unemployed and welfare recipients use drugs and are unproductive otherwise why would you even bring this up? Your not asking anyone else that receives government assistance (ie tax breaks, corporate welfare). We spend billions in farm subsidies, yet no one is asking for Farmers to take drug tests.

 

In Arizona they begin testing welfare recipients with reasonable cause and tested 87,000 people. Guess how many they caught? One. Or .001%. And in Florida where they tested all recipients, only 2.7% tested positive, at a great cost to the tax payer. http://usatoday30.us...ants/53620604/1

 

Now I am not going to change your mind, I don't intend too. I feel the drug tests are unnecessary, they don't save any money. I feel as though I have shown this by using facts. Intuition is great and all, but just cause you think something or feel something doesn't make it true.

 

I am done with the argument, last I checked no presidential candidate has proposed this or is even considering it. So this is the last I am going to say on the matter. I feel good about my position on the matter.

[LouieB]

Woman Has 30 Free ObamaPhones

 

http://youtu.be/aTYiKjFnMos

Wow, a story about someone defrauding the government? Shocking!! What next someone defrauding individuals? Never happens. How about corporations defrauding the government or individuals? That apparently never happens either. The other night Rand Paul was on the Daily Show (I think) talking about his book about too much government regulation and Stewart made the point that clearly the government does dumb stuff, but it could be just as easy to write a book about how government actually helps people. Any way you want to cut an issue, you can find shit to either bolster or degrade that issue. Government employees help people every day of the year, lots of them do, lots of government regulations help people every day of the year and protect people. That doesn't make a very good book though.

 

Meanwhile the thing about the "debate" between Stewart and O'Reilly (i didn't watch it) is that these guys have writers, lots and lots of writers to make them sound witty and smart. Not to say they aren't both of those things on their own, but clearly their own shows are bolstered by dozens of writers and other staff making these guys look either funny or compeling. I am keeping my $5.

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

Meanwhile the thing about the "debate" between Stewart and O'Reilly (i didn't watch it) is that these guys have writers, lots and lots of writers to make them sound witty and smart. Not to say they aren't both of those things on their own, but clearly their own shows are bolstered by dozens of writers and other staff making these guys look either funny or compeling. I am keeping my $5.

 

You can watch it for free now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A051B-uPopM

 

FWIW, it didn't seem scripted to me at all. Some good moments, some honest conversation... and some silliness. If you have the 90 mins to spare there are worse things to do with your time.

[Sparky speaks]

Everything the government touches increases the cost for everyone. Wouldn't it be too bad that incidents like this cause Heartbreaks brother to lose his phone.

 

http://youtu.be/szWNUWeB9oI

 

 

Of course, he's surrounded by neocons...

 

Mitt Romney: arm the Syrian rebels

 

Republican presidential candidate is to call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria in a major foreign policy address

 

http://www.guardian....m-syrian-rebels

[Sparky speaks]

[Magnetized]

 

 

FWIW, it didn't seem scripted to me at all. Some good moments, some honest conversation... and some silliness. If you have the 90 mins to spare there are worse things to do with your time.

 

I think it's definitely worth listening to. I was mostly just listening to it, although I watched some parts. And I agree it did not seem scripted, except for a few bits.

[Lammycat]

Wait a sec, people think the debate was scripted, as in each having prepared lines to read? If so, they're pretty good actors.

[Magnetized]

Wait a sec, people think the debate was scripted, as in each having prepared lines to read? If so, they're pretty good actors.

No, I didn't mean to imply that anyone thought it was completely scripted. Obviously, they had some prepared taglines, like Jon Stewart's "bullshit mountain" analogies, but for the most part I think they were winging it. They're both pretty smart guys.

[Sparky speaks]

We need more government jobs programs...

 

It's Easier to Get Welfare Than to Work

 

My intern learned a lot from this experience. Here are her conclusions:

• It's easier to get welfare than to work.
  
• The government would rather sign me up for welfare than help me find work.
  
• America has taxpayer-funded bureaucracies that encourage people to be dependent. They incentivize people to take "free stuff," not to take initiative.
  
• It was easier to find job openings on my own. The private market for jobs works better than government "job centers."
  

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/its-easier-to-get-welfare-than-to-work

[IRememberDBoon]

BULLSHIT welfare is impossible to get now. Its one tenth of what it was ten years ago. It really doesnt even exist.

 

 

I mean all things being even I guess it would be "easier"...........I mean it aint "easy" to get a job.

 

 

That intern is straight up lying.

 

whoops. finished reading it. shes calling unemployment insurance and food stamps "welfare"....................again. welfare basically is dead.

[uncool2pillow]

Shouldn't the cost thing be enough? When the states don't have enough money for other basic services adding millions of dollars would be a waste.

I addressed cost in an earlier post.

[lost highway]

A couple of fallacies about government assistance need to be cleared up here to have a reasonable argument.

 

For starters, a large number of people receiving government assistance are either employed, or retired.

[Vacant Horizon]

A couple of fallacies about government assistance need to be cleared up here to have a reasonable argument.

 

For starters, a large number of people receiving government assistance are either employed, or retired.

 

not to mention corporate welfare, disabled folks. the fact is the folks who work the most hours (several jobs) Don't make the money and don't have benefits etc. i mean, as human beings, do we give a shit about anyone else? I for one think it would be a lot easier making it through the day if everyone made good wages, had health care etc...even if they were lazy...which most people aren't.

[uncool2pillow]

I for one think it would be a lot easier making it through the day if everyone made good wages, had health care etc...even if they were lazy...which most people aren't.

I think you probably just nailed the key difference between those who support a wider social safety net (welfare state), and those who do not. A conservative like me is more likely to believe the more people know they can always depend upon the generosity of the state, the less reason there is to be productive.

[ih8music]

So out of fear that some lazy people will take advantage of the system, we're making life shitty and risky for everyone else, especially those not fortunate enough to have been raised in a great, nurturing environment. That's a lovely world view.

[uncool2pillow]

Yes, because we all live in a world where it's either Marx or Ayn Rand. Good lord.