The Dream Team - DPChallenge Forums

08/15/2012 07:26:14 PM · #126

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Again last time the debate came up I spent a lot of time and energy researching the topic and posting articles that clearly stated just why it was a LITERAL waste of time and money. So I won't bother because people don't want to read the level-headed arguments I make. They want to cherry-pick the few little things they can get offended about. In all honesty my very best points and arguments fall on completely deaf ears. Why do I keep trying?

This mindset again, is guilty until proven innocent. Wrong is wrong. It's like the patriot act. People don't want to disagree with it because "hey, I've got nothing to worry about". Our rights are there for a reason. We can't just go throwing them out because we think they don't affect us.

This isn't complaining. It doesn't affect ME one way or another. I've never been on welfare. I just think it's wrong.

But you see, it DOES affect me... In multiple ways. I pay a significant sum in taxes each year, and I am subject to drug testing... Why should I be prevented from enjoying a weekend smoke when those who are on welfare are not? How is that fair?

(and yes, I do know that I've now asked this three or four times in a row... Still waiting for an answer)

08/15/2012 07:30:08 PM · #127

Originally posted by Cory:

You went OT.

They are tested, why shouldn't we test those asking for a handout?

I don't care if you see the military as being equal to recipients of welfare or not... I took the job because it was a job with excellent benefits, not for the "appreciation" of civilians. The issue for me is entirely about why those who work should be subject to the tests, but not those who take public assistance. It just baffles me how you think that position is defensible.

...

On my own OT point - I'm kinda impressed with your anecdote there, I think my perception of you is incorrect, but I'm just not quite sure what to make of you really yet.

As I said, I disagree with drug testing, for most circumstances. So no, I DON'T agree with drug testing for those who work either. I had to get drug tested 3 times and it was difficult and mortifying and if there was any way around it, I would have taken it. Not because I was on drugs, but because it's so personal and invasive. The assumption that if you don't want to give someone your pee you must be one of the "badies" is so ludicrous. There are lots of reasons not to want to give someone your pee. Mine are personal and based on the 4th amendment.

As far as not knowing what to make of me, join the club. I believe the Doc once said I was "like jello" and that he "couldn't nail me down." In general I think the issue is I take extreme stances that are often misunderstood or lumped in with some other stance that I don't take. In other words the problem is assumptions (and sometimes my failure to properly express myself).

08/15/2012 07:31:41 PM · #128

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Again last time the debate came up I spent a lot of time and energy researching the topic and posting articles that clearly stated just why it was a LITERAL waste of time and money. So I won't bother because people don't want to read the level-headed arguments I make. They want to cherry-pick the few little things they can get offended about. In all honesty my very best points and arguments fall on completely deaf ears. Why do I keep trying?

This mindset again, is guilty until proven innocent. Wrong is wrong. It's like the patriot act. People don't want to disagree with it because "hey, I've got nothing to worry about". Our rights are there for a reason. We can't just go throwing them out because we think they don't affect us.

This isn't complaining. It doesn't affect ME one way or another. I've never been on welfare. I just think it's wrong.

But you see, it DOES affect me... In multiple ways. I pay a significant sum in taxes each year, and I am subject to drug testing... Why should I be prevented from enjoying a weekend smoke when those who are on welfare are not? How is that fair?

(and yes, I do know that I've now asked this three or four times in a row... Still waiting for an answer)

AH HAHA this is hilarious. Oh man I love it. Do you see it? This is a case for getting rid of drug tests, not making more people get tested. Whether someone on welfare gets tested or not still doesn't make it so you can smoke pot, so no, it DOESN'T affect you.

Misery loves company?

08/15/2012 07:37:05 PM · #129

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Being on welfare doesn't automatically make one a loser.

It doesn't sound nice, but technically, it does. If only for the time you're collecting it. It certainly doesn't make you a winner. ;-) FWIW, I haven't been on welfare, but my wife was when we met. I have collected unemployment, so I suppose I was a loser for those four months. I can live with that. If the government had made unemployment available for longer, I would have been a loser for that much longer.

Disagree if you must. :)

08/15/2012 07:41:30 PM · #130

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Let's see if I can get a quick word in here...

I was in the military for ten years and subject to constant random drug testing. I am opposed to random drug testing in general (suspected use is fair grounds, I believe), but if I wanted to be in the military, those were the rules. I would be for drug testing for initial and ongoing qualification of receiving welfare if it was effective at saving money. What Monica alludes to regarding that not being the case, I think that data is missing the deterrent factor, but taken at face value, if it doesn't prevent abuse and save money or break even, then there are other ideas that should be considered to stop the abuse.

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Being on welfare doesn't automatically make one a loser.

It doesn't sound nice, but technically, it does. If only for the time you're collecting it. It certainly doesn't make you a winner. ;-) FWIW, I haven't been on welfare, but my wife was when we met. I have collected unemployment, so I suppose I was a loser for those four months. I can live with that. If the government had made unemployment available for longer, I would have been a loser for that much longer.

Disagree if you must. :)

So... you just called your wife a loser...

Oh yohoo... Mrs. Roflmao I've got something to telllll youuuu!!!

08/15/2012 07:42:53 PM · #131

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Let's see if I can get a quick word in here...

I was in the military for ten years and subject to constant random drug testing. I am opposed to random drug testing in general (suspected use is fair grounds, I believe), but if I wanted to be in the military, those were the rules. I would be for drug testing for initial and ongoing qualification of receiving welfare if it was effective at saving money. What Monica alludes to regarding that not being the case, I think that data is missing the deterrent factor, but taken at face value, if it doesn't prevent abuse and save money or break even, then there are other ideas that should be considered to stop the abuse.

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Being on welfare doesn't automatically make one a loser.

It doesn't sound nice, but technically, it does. If only for the time you're collecting it. It certainly doesn't make you a winner. ;-) FWIW, I haven't been on welfare, but my wife was when we met. I have collected unemployment, so I suppose I was a loser for those four months. I can live with that. If the government had made unemployment available for longer, I would have been a loser for that much longer.

Disagree if you must. :)

So... you just called your wife a loser...

Oh yohoo... Mrs. Roflmao I've got something to telllll youuuu!!!

I said she was a loser before she met me. ;-)

08/15/2012 07:44:22 PM · #132

btw, she hates being called that.

...Mrs. Roflmao, I mean. :P

08/15/2012 07:44:55 PM · #133

Just a quick anecdote:

When I was young, my father worked as a house painter.... One day he fell off a ladder and broke both ankles, one really badly.

The next day he was at work, struggling to walk in two casts. The doctors weren't happy, but after about the fifth cast replacement they started to think it was kind of amusing.

If my dad can do that to provide for me, then why should he hand his money to someone who isn't trying nearly so hard? It's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

...

As for my overall thoughts on drug testing? Yeah, not a fan... But if you are really bothered by it, here's your solution. And yes, it really does work just fine.

08/15/2012 07:57:52 PM · #134

Originally posted by Cory:

As for my overall thoughts on drug testing? Yeah, not a fan... But if you are really bothered by it, here's your solution. And yes, it really does work just fine.

Where were these products when I was in the Navy?! ;-)

Another anecdote: I shattered my ankle when I was in the Navy assigned to a Destroyer - they would not let me stay home and recover and they would not let me go back to the ship with a full leg cast on, so they assigned me to fill pill bottles (non-narcotics - doh!) at the pharmacy on the hospital base. I couldn't drive, so my wife had to drive me there every morning. There were many sailors there for various reasons (some mental issues) and they assigned one of them (one of the mental ones) to drive the open-sided van that transported everyone to their various make-work jobs. With a full leg cast on, my leg stuck out a foot or so on the side of the van and the driver drove like a maniac (that's probably why he was there) and he nearly took my leg off hitting a parked truck. After two weeks of this, I decided that if I wanted to live or ever walk again, I would have to get back to my ship. I had my Division Officer call the doctor and demand they send me back. I had to cut off the top portion of my cast a couple weeks early to be able to get around the ship and it caused some permanent damage to my ankle, but at least I am alive today. :)

Yeah, a bit off-topic, but I ramble like that when I'm stoned. (j/k!)

08/15/2012 08:03:08 PM · #135

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Cory:
As for my overall thoughts on drug testing? Yeah, not a fan... But if you are really bothered by it, here's your solution. And yes, it really does work just fine.

Where were these products when I was in the Navy?! ;-)

Another anecdote: I shattered my ankle when I was in the Navy assigned to a Destroyer - they would not let me stay home and recover and they would not let me go back to the ship with a full leg cast on, so they assigned me to fill pill bottles (non-narcotics - doh!) at the pharmacy on the hospital base. I couldn't drive, so my wife had to drive me there every morning. There were many sailors there for various reasons (some mental issues) and they assigned one of them (one of the mental ones) to drive the open-sided van that transported everyone to their various make-work jobs. With a full leg cast on, my leg stuck out a foot or so on the side of the van and the driver drove like a maniac (that's probably why he was there) and he nearly took my leg off hitting a parked truck. After two weeks of this, I decided that if I wanted to live or ever walk again, I would have to get back to my ship. I had my Division Officer call the doctor and demand they send me back. I had to cut off the top portion of my cast a couple weeks early to be able to get around the ship and it caused some permanent damage to my ankle, but at least I am alive today. :)

Yeah, a bit off-topic, but I ramble like that when I'm stoned. (j/k!)

Don't lie, I see you smoking that sharkie. ;)

08/15/2012 08:08:50 PM · #136

Originally posted by Cory:

See... this is my problem. And I will tread lightly here cus dear lord do people get touchy on this topic. But honestly, this story makes me very sad. The fact that it's such a stigma to ask for help in our society, even when you really need it, that you would sacrifice your own health and well being... That to me is symptomatic of a larger issue.

Also, the idea that he's handing his money to some slacker is so off the mark. He's going to have to pay those taxes regardless. Someone, somewhere in the world "not trying so hard" does NOT affect his tax rates. Bloated military budgets and greedy bankers and corporations however...

To me it's like "I overcame crappy things, so should you." I don't subscribe to that. If I overcome crappy things, I want to make it so no one else has to suffer. I'm writing a blog on this right now though I'm a bit reluctant to share it and get slammed with a bunch of negative comments on what is meant to be a very positive blog...

Boiling something as complicated and in depth as poverty down to "not trying very hard" is also just silly. There are plenty of people trying their arses off and are still poor. That's reality.

And as for the cleanse, I know all about that. I had a friend who would be stoned out of his mind every day, stop 24 hours before his test, chug that all night and pass just fine. My point again that these tests are a waste of money. :P

08/15/2012 08:10:27 PM · #137

Originally posted by Cory:

Don't lie, I see you smoking that sharkie. ;)

08/15/2012 08:23:33 PM · #138

Originally posted by escapetooz:

LOL, the cleanse that you drink requires you to stop smoking... This is artificial urine, you could use it while high and pass.

As for your assertion that the taxes would remain the same, no matter how many folks are on welfare just makes me question if you had to do any sort of math to get your degree. It's pretty simple, every useless outlay is important, those that are both useless and actually actively encourage people, who would otherwise be able and willing to work, to not work and pay taxes, those have an even greater impact.

As for the corporate stuff, we're in agreement there, so it's a rather moot point to discuss it, but you do realize that you're saying we should ignore the smaller problem and only pay attention to the larger problem, despite the fact that the smaller problem is probably solved more easily.

And I don't think that earning your way, no matter what the difficulties, is sad or an indicator of a problem... This country was built upon that type of man.

As far as the "I overcame crappy things, you should too"... Yep, darn right - life is a challenge, if you can't recognize that, and the importance of it, then you really need to study up on your natural selection and economics.

To be VERY VERY clear, I'm not talking about poverty, I can't see how you got that idea. I'm talking about the welfare culture, and those who cheat the system. Thought I clearly said I wasn't directing this at those who truly are in need, and are trying. It's directed at those not trying, or not in need. Let me give you an example of each, so you won't misunderstand further.
How to cheat at Welfare

Welfare Culture

Welfare Fraud (Here are some real world examples, so you can see the problem is not academic)

ETA: Another effect this has had on me is the affordable housing stuff... Great idea, bad implementation... In Socorro NM, if you want a decent apartment, if you're indigent, it's $10 a month, if you're employed, it's $800... Mind you, I can rent a house in Socorro for $800... I think someone is screwing someone else. I'm betting the government is paying $800 per month per apartment, while they should be worth about $400-500 in the area. Additionally, you should know that I ended up living in a roach-filled one room building that was over 100 years old and not built to be a residence, since every decent apartment in town was affordable housing, and I would have to pay an inflated rate because I was employed. Now if that's not broken, I don't quite know what is.

(and yes, I got rid of the roaches ASAP, and it was eventually charming after I put just over $1000 or so into making it nice.)

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 20:31:13.

08/15/2012 08:34:44 PM · #139

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Bloated military budgets and greedy bankers and corporations however...
...........
Boiling something as complicated and in depth as poverty down to "not trying very hard" is also just silly.

By the same token, boiling complicated foreign policy, defense, high-finance and economics down to "bloated military budgets and greedy bankers and corporations" is also silly.

Our system was designed to work only when we TRUST those we choose to represent us. The problem with most, if not all of these issues really boils down to a severe lack of that trust. Maybe we should turn control over to telemarketers.

08/15/2012 08:37:34 PM · #140

Just a quote from "How to Cheat at Welfare"

Why pick on Hispanics I asked? (she was Hispanic) She said she wasn't really, it was just what she knew. She said it was sort of an epidemic within the culture, in her opinion. It seems like in her world they all know so many of their friends and relatives that have taken the system for years and nobody ever gets caught, so they feel almost obligated to take the money. "Why suffer when getting the grant money is so easy?" She said.

With cut-backs in welfare fraud investigators Sheila says it is easier than ever to get away with this type of fraud. She said most people don't really consider it stealing because it seems like everybody does it. Unfortunately, and this is just an educated guess...it is costing California tax payers billions every year for benefits for unqualified recipients, white, black, brown, etc., this is a problem.

I do dislike how she linked his Hispanics and the welfare culture, I see them as very separate (maybe because I grew up in an almost all-Hispanic area...)...

Still, the quote is valid when viewed as being about the "welfare culture", race doesn't mean a thing, the culture means everything.

As it is, this is exactly the attitude I'm talking about, and it's epidemic.

****

Here's a nice example from the comments of the mentality:
"If people could afford to live,,then they wouldn't cheat the govn't..and i wouldn't call it "cheat" because the Govn't is cheating us (the People)... for instance...here you are working ur butt off just to get a house and provide shelter for you and ur family..and once you pay the full amount of what the house is worth you have yet to pay Taxes? that's something to think about.....because in other words nothing belongs to you if you live in the US....free Country? ahaha my ass! im paying for the things i already own!! that's paying extra CASH $$$$ to the SYSTEM!! and they don't even need it...they just want us to play the role of a slave!..no matter how hard we work or how much we make, we will never be free and this country will never be a free country!...The System Needs to change not the People, Get Rid of all these politicians and so called Leaders because obviously they are up to no Good! and the fact is ...THEY DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT US (the people). "

You see how he did that? "They screw us, so let's screw them!!!"...

That's a pretty common perception, that the government's money is somehow disconnected from the people, and I find this attitude to be pretty common in those who don't pay taxes.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 20:47:45.

08/15/2012 08:41:10 PM · #141

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Bloated military budgets and greedy bankers and corporations however...
...........
Boiling something as complicated and in depth as poverty down to "not trying very hard" is also just silly.

By the same token, boiling complicated foreign policy, defense, high-finance and economics down to "bloated military budgets and greedy bankers and corporations" is also silly.

Our system was designed to work only when we TRUST those we choose to represent us. The problem with most, if not all of these issues really boils down to a severe lack of that trust. Maybe we should turn control over to telemarketers.

How can we trust those who are not "us" to represent us? The politicians are so far removed from reality that there's no possibility of spanning that gap IMO.

I think we should elect folks like this:

Aptitude test - administered in late high school, and early college
Those with high marks enter a lottery
Folks with the right skill sets are "elected" via lottery to serve the country for a specified period of time.

There is no way that this system wouldn't produce far superior results, and at a much lower cost than our current election system.

08/15/2012 08:47:08 PM · #142

I must retire for the sake of getting work done and then I'll be without internet for 4 days so... I am going to disappear. Probably for the best. My blood pressure can't take my really bad decision to return to rant.

;)

08/15/2012 08:47:45 PM · #143

I believe many politicians are not at all removed from reality when they start out, but years in DC removes them more and more.

Term limits. Period. Because YES, we, the people cannot be trusted to vote them out. Sad, but true.

08/15/2012 08:52:52 PM · #144

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Agreed, but what's reasonable here? 4 years? 8? a decade?

And aside from that point, how much do campaigns cost in terms of lost productivity and actual tax outlay?

Politicians are always elected on lies and half-truths, along with pure fantasy... It's basically a contest to see who can be more manipulative, which is pretty much the worst possible way to choose your leader IMO.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/15/2012 09:01:57 PM · #145

5 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 20 years on the Supreme Court.

Not the only issue though - clearly - blatant conflicts of interest abound - that's gotta end. NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY from her/his service other than reasonable salary and expenses. Currently, they are legally allowed to trade stocks on companies & industries they have a direct impact on. Ridiculous.

gotta run for a bit...

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/15/2012 09:34:38 PM · #146

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

the big knock against term limits is lame duck status, but it has to work better the corrupted system we have now.

no point in debating this because it will never, ever happen.

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/15/2012 09:42:34 PM · #147

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

The problem is the easily malleable simply get appointed to department heads on their way out. In Canada, we put them in the senate where they stay until they until death.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 21:42:50.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/16/2012 11:06:49 AM · #148

Originally posted by Venser:

The problem is the easily malleable simply get appointed to department heads on their way out. In Canada, we put them in the senate where they stay until they until death.

in the US we usually keep voting them in until death (ours).

Message edited by author 2012-08-16 11:07:16.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5