I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
"but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history"
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
These are things that strike people as reasonable...
even if there isn't a ton of evidence of voter fraud and even a drug-addled welfare recipient (especially a drug-addled welfare recipient) needs help, albeit of a different kind.
"but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history"
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
Hillary the politician has never been particularly consistent. Her healthcare proposals under Bill were pretty leftish for the times, but her track record as a senator was pretty moderate, perhaps consciously so. You're voting for the candidate, assuming that her policies would be better (from your perspective) from those of her Republican opponent, or at least tolerable.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
people on welfare? Is it ok for them to spend money on liquor?
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
I thought the goal here was not to spend more money on Welfare?
The cost of doing regular drug tests would be absurd
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
The cost of doing regular drug tests would be absurd
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
Ok, suspicion based makes much more sense instead of a regular once a month schedule.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
it's all readily available.
OK, I didn't see where you were going with that. Saying something is off the charts in this case could be perceived two different ways.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
in the body for several days (a week?) after imbibing it.
constant testing on a routine basis, unless warranted, is probably cost prohibitive. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ability to test or do it on entry into the system, just to keep people on their toes.
Bill Clinton benefited immensely from gridlock. Early on, he had no problem spending. when there was a conservative backlash, he embraced it. Unfortunately, I think Hillary has learned that lesson: embrace whatever is popular. Her whole career post BC presidency has been about making tepid moves that won't rock the boat and reduce her electability. do what looks good.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
Wherever did I say he was inconsequential? Have I stated anything not supported by the record, or by political culture? Like any President, he did some things well, and other things not so well. I'm certain we disagree on legacy, however.
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
you really would consider making people receiving Welfare subjected to random tests to see if they imbibed alcohol as a condition to receive their payment? Maybe we should make them clean our houses and mow our lawns? Maybe we should make them fight each other bare knuckle? Let's see how may of their rights we can take away from them and how much we can humiliate them. Let them earn the check
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
Base-broadening, which is exactly a tax raise for a very wide swath, after cutting the corporate rate so drastically. Poor businesses!
people on welfare? Is it ok for them to spend money on liquor?
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
There's plenty of valid reasons, the least of which is a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Drug testing isn't free.
What's the benefit supposed to even be? That those lazy druggies aren't going to get my tax money?
Considering new college graduates can't find jobs, it's so incredibly silly to assume that even a large minority of folks on welfare are on it because of laziness/drug use. Extremely silly.
So because of this problem we're going to spend all that money to drug test everyone, even the vast majority that are living in welfare or have it as a supplement strictly because there aren't jobs that can get at them enough to feed themselves or their children.
Such an incredible waste of money just so the less disadvantaged can feel like they aren't being taken advantage of by poor people- because of course it's a choice and they choose to be poor.
Ugh.
I used to be very much in support of drug testing for welfare
but last I looked the numbers didn't add up enough to make it worth it.
Now I'm thinking there are probably many more productive and cost-effective ways we could curb drug use for the small percentage of welfare recipients that have serious abuse issues.
looking it up (too lazy to do it now) and when welfare recipients were drug tested, the results were that a tiny fraction of them turned out to be using drugs.
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And what exactly do you do for folks that are positive?
If you're not going to put them in rehab, all you're doing is increasing crime, no?
And is anyone really comfortable spending money to put a welfare recipient in rehab for what's more often than not going to be weed? I'm not.
So it'll be, "Sorry ma'am, you don't get food stamps this month because you've smoked weed. I imagine you might be able to find a pimp that won't beat you too often so you can feed your kids. Or hell, since you already know where to get it, maybe you should start dealing? Ever seen that show, Weeds?"
looking it up (too lazy to do it now) and when welfare recipients were drug tested, the results were that a tiny fraction of them turned out to be using drugs.
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And it assumes that someone put together enough to apply for welfare despite having an addiction couldn't figure out how to beat a drug test.
it's a hot button topic, because if you suggest testing, the standard response is 'unconstitutional'/violation of rights/ treating them like they're all a bunch of loser dopers. People get their hackles up for no real reason. And other people, like me, who are on the opposite side, also start digging in.
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
RE: who said welfare class are all a bunch of loser dopers?
it's a hot button topic, because if you suggest testing, the standard response is 'unconstitutional'/violation of rights/ treating them like they're all a bunch of loser dopers. People get their hackles up for no real reason. And other people, like me, who are on the opposite side, also start digging in.
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
I don't think its a rights issue at all.
I think I laid out my stance and it had not a thing to do with a violation of rights or privacy.
In fact I'm pretty sure you're the only one to bring that up.
So the issue for you is that "I have to do it, they should too!"?
almost every single state has proposed some type of legislation requiring welfare recipients agree to not use drugs (and many (most?) have also proposed legislation to test/enforce this). I doubt it's cost effective, but I also don't see this as unreasonable.
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
So the idea is that denying welfare will ultimately deter drug use?
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
almost every single state has proposed some type of legislation requiring welfare recipients agree to not use drugs (and many (most?) have also proposed legislation to test/enforce this). I doubt it's cost effective, but I also don't see this as unreasonable.
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
Again- the end goal being?
Denying welfare will make the drug abusers get jobs?
What exactly will this accomplish? You'll feel better? I just don't get it. As i typed before, unless you're willing to force them into and pay for rehab, denying benefits will do nothing but increase crime.
If it was as simple as denying benefits = making them get a job, we could just do away with welfare altogether.
So again, aside from making you feel better about where your taxes go, what is the benefit?
RE: RE: So the idea is that denying welfare will ultimately deter drug use?
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
I would say the burden is on you to prove how it's effective in any way that is beneficial. It's expensive to test folks. And if you're not gonna test, it's an empty threat? And let's say you find that the person is using drugs and you cut them off. What's the outcome you hope to achieve from that? Saved money? Wake up call for them? How are they gonna pay for food/housing and even drugs?
This plan sounds like it's fair and might be effective but if you think it through, it's almost certainly more trouble than it's worth.
my personal feelings have nothing to do with it, but it frees up money for other more worthy families who might actually use the tax payer funds to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their children..
It's not like there's an unlimited supply of welfare funds just there waiting for the next family in need to come along.
Have you seen the rate of increase in people receiving various forms of aid? It's out of control. And I suspect a small percentage of it is fraudulent or not going to appropriate people - such as drug users not using the funds to feed and clothe their children, but to buy drugs.
If we do nothing about it, we condone it, and prevent a legitimately needy family who would appropriately use those funds from getting them.
Not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Welfare was not intended as a job, it was meant to be something temporary for the most needy, it's morphing into government sustenance and it has to change.
Or not. If everyone else is happy with it I guess I'm in the minority expecting welfare is not provided in perpetuity with ZERO conditions or strings attached.
The status quo is not sustainable, and I have ZERO issue with welfare nor am I derelict in my responsibility that as a society we have an obligation to help the poor, I feel like without conditions or goals we're not helping people long-term. We're enabling them.
In the wake of the financial crisis and great recession, the U.S. unemployment rate has tumbled precipitously from 10.0% to 6.7% in just four years.
"Only three other times in the past six decades has the unemployment rate fallen this far this fast: in the early 1950s, when growth averaged 6.7% per annum; in the late 1970s when GDP growth averaged 4.8%, and in the mid-1980s when growth averaged 5.2%," said Gluskin Sheff's David Rosenberg to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.
"Today we accomplished this feat with only 2.4% growth which is disturbing because it means that it is not taking much in the way of incremental economic activity to drain valuable resources out of the labor market."
Much of the decline in the unemployment rate has been due to the drop in the labor force participation rate (LFPR). And the drop in the LFPR has been due to a combination of aging demographics and an expanding group of discouraged workers walking away from the job market.
"One theory that deserves examination is that we may have an abundance of separate benefits programs that provide for the disenfranchised in a very piecemeal and inefficient manner that are also perhaps abused or overly relied upon by some, which may lead to a distortion of work incentives," noted Rosenberg.
He's talking about disability, food stamps, welfare, etc.
While these programs are largely being used by those in need, we can't ignore the fact that many are taking advantage fraudulently.
Whether these programs are being used legitimately or fraudulently, it's nevertheless stunning to see how much these programs have ballooned.
and women in the work force have drastically expanded the work force. It probably does not explain the full jump in pj's chart. Could some of that increase be abuse? Sure. Although there is a much more rigorous screen for disability than need-based aid I believe. I have some guess as to another partial explanation for the jump -- the reduced stigmatization of mental illness probably has some disabled people applying for benefits whereas 50 years ago they'd be drunks or a family's dirty secret.
As for food stamps and welfare recipients? Well the economy went to shit. The jobs recovery has not been terribly robust. Some of the drop in unemployment is people "leaving" the workforce due to chronic unemployment. And a lot of the jobs added back have been part time or worse than the ones eliminated. Hopefully the middle chart trend continues -- that need-based aid will fall in times of economic plenty. However, the Bush-era growth in food stamps needs an explanation -- there was a steady rise even during a decent economy.
Dont really see what drug testing has to do with it though. Were there no drugs in the 70s and 80s?
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Actually, without Walmart there probably wouldn't be any jobs for them. :)
if big box retailers weren't around, I wouldn't buy shirts, underwear and computers at some other place that doesn't nickel and dime its employees? Interesting economic theory.
No anger at all - some lack of patience when people on here
misrepresent or use extreme examples, but IMO it's just recognition of an untenable situation. Something has to give, at some point the people receiving aid will outnumber the people working and paying taxes into the system and then what happens.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
misrepresent or use extreme examples, but IMO it's just recognition of an untenable situation. Something has to give, at some point the people receiving aid will outnumber the people working and paying taxes into the system and then what happens.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
The yin for the yang at a time that was good for the country.
"Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read"
We'll see. She is all over the place and is not talking.
A smart politician in that regard.
Hillary the politician has never been particularly consistent. Her healthcare proposals under Bill were pretty leftish for the times, but her track record as a senator was pretty moderate, perhaps consciously so. You're voting for the candidate, assuming that her policies would be better (from your perspective) from those of her Republican opponent, or at least tolerable.
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
it's all readily available.
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
I don't know. Probably can't.
Quote:
The cost of doing regular drug tests would be absurd
Is that true, it's been done in many states, how were the results?
Seriously don't know. 13 states already have laws, 16 more have proposed similar legislation in 2015 (including MA and NY). A lot of it is suspicion based, and from what I've read that might make the most sense.
Ok, suspicion based makes much more sense instead of a regular once a month schedule.
Quote:
In comment 12348562 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
umm well aware of that. What did I say differently. he was off the charts with his tax cuts - and it resulted in a whole lot worse than just having to raise taxes (also like I said - we're still paying for it).
it's all readily available.
OK, I didn't see where you were going with that. Saying something is off the charts in this case could be perceived two different ways.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Quote:
I see your point.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
constant testing on a routine basis, unless warranted, is probably cost prohibitive. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ability to test or do it on entry into the system, just to keep people on their toes.
Bill Clinton benefited immensely from gridlock. Early on, he had no problem spending. when there was a conservative backlash, he embraced it. Unfortunately, I think Hillary has learned that lesson: embrace whatever is popular. Her whole career post BC presidency has been about making tepid moves that won't rock the boat and reduce her electability. do what looks good.
Quote:
In comment 12348661 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I see your point.
Reagan cut the highest tax bracket from something like 70% to 28%, it's never gotten back that level. In the end though he raised taxes quite a bit to make up for his massive cuts. I was young then so don't remember any of it firsthand, but I've read a little bit about it.
Yeah, no expert here, but I do know that he left the country with the highest deficits in history (up until then), and he didn't have a global economic collapse to deal with.
If he were running today, he'd have to toe the Tea Party line even to sniff the nomination, then he'd very likely lose the election. Poor St. Reagan; he would be regarded as a RHINO in today's fetid political atmosphere.
Meh. Reagan was an exceedingly consequential president. Like him or not he made an outsized imprint on American public life, he played a significant role in the decline and fall of the Soviet Union. Even the debt was by no means insuperable, not in a growing economy. I think the Rubicon was in fact crossed when Papa Bush raised taxes in response to budget deficits and was run out of town on a rail. Yes Bush had encouraged voters to "read his lips" but it hasn't been lost on politicians, particularly Republican politicians, that significant tax increases are political suicide.
Wherever did I say he was inconsequential? Have I stated anything not supported by the record, or by political culture? Like any President, he did some things well, and other things not so well. I'm certain we disagree on legacy, however.
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
the second part was supposed to refer to drug testing, but I did only say testing, so it does look like I was referring to alcohol.
I don't have a problem at all testing for illegal drugs at any time. I don't have a problem testing for alcohol IF a problem is documented.
logistics are the bugaboo, but I don't believe that freedom from testing is a right if you want to receive benefits.
I don't disagree. After Carter, anyone with a pulse would look good.
Quote:
In comment 12348562 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I know what I'm thinking. Bill Clinton was more fiscal conservative than Bush (by and large) and I'm no expert in economics so I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Clinton Presidency with the Gingrich led Republican congress might represent the best example we have seen of fiscal conservatism at the macro level in recent history maybe since Reagan - and Reagan was off the charts with his tax cuts and Reaganomics and I've read some people say we're still paying for it.
But Hillary is not close to Bill in this regard, from what I've read.
and I know some fiscal and social policies are hard to separate in terms of liberal or conservative, so when I use it I don't mean I want free trade or deregulation necessarily, but I do want lower taxes, I want drug testing for welfare, I want voter ID's, etc. the reasonable stuff.
Um, Reagan cut taxes, then had to raise them significantly because of the deficits the cuts engendered. The info is readily available. Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.
That's the standard talking point, which contains some truth but ignores some nasty little details. So lets flesh this out:
* Neither the 1982 nor the 1984 legislation raised tax rates. What both pieces of legislation did was eliminate some very sweet loopholes for businesses. Essentially, the taxable base was expanded and rates were left alone.
* Unless an individual owned rental real estate or a business owned as a sole proprietor he/she was essentially unaffected by those bills.
Base-broadening, which is exactly a tax raise for a very wide swath, after cutting the corporate rate so drastically. Poor businesses!
Quote:
people on welfare? Is it ok for them to spend money on liquor?
In most states welfare recipients need to sign papers saying they will not use illegal drugs.
The only valid argument I see for not drug testing welfare recipients is it could deprive children of much needed funds. but how much of the welfare money is even getting to them if the parents are using drugs.
I just think it's probably a fair trade-off if you're going to collect funds from the government you stay sober and drug free.
I don't mind including alcohol abuse.
There's plenty of valid reasons, the least of which is a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Drug testing isn't free.
What's the benefit supposed to even be? That those lazy druggies aren't going to get my tax money?
Considering new college graduates can't find jobs, it's so incredibly silly to assume that even a large minority of folks on welfare are on it because of laziness/drug use. Extremely silly.
So because of this problem we're going to spend all that money to drug test everyone, even the vast majority that are living in welfare or have it as a supplement strictly because there aren't jobs that can get at them enough to feed themselves or their children.
Such an incredible waste of money just so the less disadvantaged can feel like they aren't being taken advantage of by poor people- because of course it's a choice and they choose to be poor.
Ugh.
Now I'm thinking there are probably many more productive and cost-effective ways we could curb drug use for the small percentage of welfare recipients that have serious abuse issues.
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And is anyone really comfortable spending money to put a welfare recipient in rehab for what's more often than not going to be weed? I'm not.
So it'll be, "Sorry ma'am, you don't get food stamps this month because you've smoked weed. I imagine you might be able to find a pimp that won't beat you too often so you can feed your kids. Or hell, since you already know where to get it, maybe you should start dealing? Ever seen that show, Weeds?"
It's such a dopey talking point and unfortunately another way for certain folks to demonize the whole group of welfare recipients.
And personally I think that the welfare system should be vetted and improved in a variety of ways. But my point is not that they all are lazy drug users.
And it assumes that someone put together enough to apply for welfare despite having an addiction couldn't figure out how to beat a drug test.
I bow to your superior knowledge in this area.
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
In a nutshell, IF my employer can hold the threat of drug testing over me, there is absolutely no reason the same can't be extended to those on welfare. that doesn't mean that all workers are drug addled, nor does it mean that welfare recipients are drug addled. It just means, ya know, we can test at any time. why should my right for employment be any less than your right for welfare?
I don't think its a rights issue at all.
I think I laid out my stance and it had not a thing to do with a violation of rights or privacy.
In fact I'm pretty sure you're the only one to bring that up.
So the issue for you is that "I have to do it, they should too!"?
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
13 states have testing laws in effect, 15 more proposed it in 2015.
There are even federal conditions (related to drug use) for many forms of aid.
in most cases it's about persons of suspicion (if you've been convicted of a felony drug crime you are ineligible for federal TANF funds - however states have the right to modify this)
I guess I don't see how it demonizes an entire group by requiring them agree to remain drug free while they are receiving tax payer funds to live, and for some who have shown a drug or other suspicious past to be tested.
Not sure why that isn't fair, the goal is not to embarrass or demonize anyone, it's to make sure tax payer dollars are being used for their intended purpose. Something that seems kind of lost in the era.
And I'm using welfare generically to include food stamps, emergency funds, housing, etc.
,
Again- the end goal being?
Denying welfare will make the drug abusers get jobs?
What exactly will this accomplish? You'll feel better? I just don't get it. As i typed before, unless you're willing to force them into and pay for rehab, denying benefits will do nothing but increase crime.
If it was as simple as denying benefits = making them get a job, we could just do away with welfare altogether.
So again, aside from making you feel better about where your taxes go, what is the benefit?
Quote:
because, lol.
Do you have a better suggestion or just more concerned about disenfranchising some poor soul who is receiving government aid for his children, but might be using it for drugs. LOLOL
I would say the burden is on you to prove how it's effective in any way that is beneficial. It's expensive to test folks. And if you're not gonna test, it's an empty threat? And let's say you find that the person is using drugs and you cut them off. What's the outcome you hope to achieve from that? Saved money? Wake up call for them? How are they gonna pay for food/housing and even drugs?
This plan sounds like it's fair and might be effective but if you think it through, it's almost certainly more trouble than it's worth.
Other than the standard sites with pre-determined biases.
It's not like there's an unlimited supply of welfare funds just there waiting for the next family in need to come along.
Have you seen the rate of increase in people receiving various forms of aid? It's out of control. And I suspect a small percentage of it is fraudulent or not going to appropriate people - such as drug users not using the funds to feed and clothe their children, but to buy drugs.
If we do nothing about it, we condone it, and prevent a legitimately needy family who would appropriately use those funds from getting them.
Not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Welfare was not intended as a job, it was meant to be something temporary for the most needy, it's morphing into government sustenance and it has to change.
Or not. If everyone else is happy with it I guess I'm in the minority expecting welfare is not provided in perpetuity with ZERO conditions or strings attached.
The status quo is not sustainable, and I have ZERO issue with welfare nor am I derelict in my responsibility that as a society we have an obligation to help the poor, I feel like without conditions or goals we're not helping people long-term. We're enabling them.
"Only three other times in the past six decades has the unemployment rate fallen this far this fast: in the early 1950s, when growth averaged 6.7% per annum; in the late 1970s when GDP growth averaged 4.8%, and in the mid-1980s when growth averaged 5.2%," said Gluskin Sheff's David Rosenberg to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.
"Today we accomplished this feat with only 2.4% growth which is disturbing because it means that it is not taking much in the way of incremental economic activity to drain valuable resources out of the labor market."
Much of the decline in the unemployment rate has been due to the drop in the labor force participation rate (LFPR). And the drop in the LFPR has been due to a combination of aging demographics and an expanding group of discouraged workers walking away from the job market.
"One theory that deserves examination is that we may have an abundance of separate benefits programs that provide for the disenfranchised in a very piecemeal and inefficient manner that are also perhaps abused or overly relied upon by some, which may lead to a distortion of work incentives," noted Rosenberg.
He's talking about disability, food stamps, welfare, etc.
While these programs are largely being used by those in need, we can't ignore the fact that many are taking advantage fraudulently.
Whether these programs are being used legitimately or fraudulently, it's nevertheless stunning to see how much these programs have ballooned.
Disability Food stamps and welfare are ballooning - ( New Window )
As for food stamps and welfare recipients? Well the economy went to shit. The jobs recovery has not been terribly robust. Some of the drop in unemployment is people "leaving" the workforce due to chronic unemployment. And a lot of the jobs added back have been part time or worse than the ones eliminated. Hopefully the middle chart trend continues -- that need-based aid will fall in times of economic plenty. However, the Bush-era growth in food stamps needs an explanation -- there was a steady rise even during a decent economy.
Dont really see what drug testing has to do with it though. Were there no drugs in the 70s and 80s?
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Quote:
60% of people on food stamps have jobs
walmart cost taypayers 6 .2 billion dollars a year because they pay their workers so little that their workers are in various public assistance programs like food stamps and medicaid
so I think your anger it geared toward the wrong group of people
And a good many of those people would be working in similarly shitty jobs if they weren't working at Walmart. That tends to be the lot in life of people with few marketable job skills.
Actually, without Walmart there probably wouldn't be any jobs for them. :)
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
is there no tipping point? Or is that tipping point simply unreachable and the status quo is fine, and let's just keep on keeping on.
So the solution is to drug test the Poors?