01-29-2014 01:57 PM
140 ... 3456
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    Just so some of you know, these are some of the people that some of you defend so vehemently ....

    Rich Venture Capitalist Compares Taxes On The Wealthy To The Holocaust

    Venture capitalist Thomas Perkins wrote a letter to the editors at the Wall Street Journal, comparing the plight of the rich to the Holocaust, called "Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?"... and the WSJ published it.

    "I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich,'" Perkins writes. Thomas Perkins, one of the founders of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, was comparing taxes on the super rich to the slaughter of millions in the Holocaust.

    "From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent," Perkins continues. "There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these 'techno geeks' can pay."

    Perkins ends his rant with: "This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?"

    Obviously, there has been backlash to the letter. "It certainly proves you can get rich without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent," Slate's Matt Yglesias writes. More people took to Twitter to express their outrage:
    01-26-2014 10:55 AM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet: Drug testing for welfare recipients.

    I was originally for it and sounds good in theory. Kick the drug users off welfare, save the states some money. Then I heard a report that Florida (I think) was doing that and found that the number of people kicked out of the system didn't offset the cost of the tests. Now I'm not sure if it's a good idea and would want to see more results on states that do try it.

    It's kind of a two part question. Do you think welfare recipients should undergo random drug tests like employees do for their money? I agree with the principle. If it ends up costing more for the testing than what is saved in welfare payouts, should the testing continue and see higher taxes/cuts to other programs as a result? That's where I'm unsure and I guess would depend on how much is lost on the testing.
    Considering this is money that's put in by tax dollars, I find it a bit irritating that the government wants to put roadblocks in place. And, if we're going to put drug tests in place for welfare benefits (which don't really pay that much to begin with), shouldn't we put them in place for our politicians as wellh? I mean they are deciding on legislation that will affect a lot of people.... Rep. Trey Radel busted in cocaine sting The irony is this bonehead pushed for drug testing in his state....
    01-26-2014 06:55 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Considering this is money that's put in by tax dollars, I find it a bit irritating that the government wants to put roadblocks in place.
    Considering it's MY tax dollars helping pay welfare, I would like to know the person getting it isn't a junkie. Wouldn't you like the same, or do you not care? How would this be a roadblock for the recipients?

    And, if we're going to put drug tests in place for welfare benefits (which don't really pay that much to begin with), shouldn't we put them in place for our politicians as wellh?
    A quick Google search brought up a lot of results of pushes to do just that.
    01-26-2014 07:28 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    Considering it's MY tax dollars helping pay welfare, I would like to know the person getting it isn't a junkie. Wouldn't you like the same, or do you not care? How would this be a roadblock for the recipients?



    A quick Google search brought up a lot of results of pushes to do just that.
    Then with "YOUR" taxes, feel free to have someone that would benefit from "YOUR" tax dollars take one. Although something tells me that the amount of money from "YOUR" taxes that goes towards someone's welfare benefits probably wouldn't even cover the cost of the drug test itself.

    That's actually another problem that the right wing fails to see, programs like social security and medicare, those aren't entitlement programs, those are programs where the government TAKES money from peoples' checks. They said if congress had kept their greedy paws off of the social security fund, we wouldn't have these discussions about how social security is unsustainable.
    01-26-2014 07:55 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Then with "YOUR" taxes, feel free to have someone that would benefit from "YOUR" tax dollars take one. Although something tells me that the amount of money from "YOUR" taxes that goes towards someone's welfare benefits probably wouldn't even cover the cost of the drug test itself.
    As we both know, I don't have that option. But by your stance, am I to take it you don't care that someone is mooching off the government while abusing drugs? Using money that would be better spent finding a job. I'm talking in principle, mind you. I've already conceded the point that the financial aspect needs more looking into. I'm sure that results will differ, depending on localized drug use rates.

    That's actually another problem that the right wing fails to see, programs like social security and medicare, those aren't entitlement programs, those are programs where the government TAKES money from peoples' checks.
    That's not what's up for debate. This is about entitlements like food stamps, housing assistance, WIC, etc. that aren't deducted from your check under the guise that you'll get it back later. Don't try to interject those two programs into this debate.
    01-26-2014 08:49 PM
  6. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Considering it's MY tax dollars helping pay welfare, I would like to know the person getting it isn't a junkie. Wouldn't you like the same, or do you not care? How would this be a roadblock for the recipients?



    A quick Google search brought up a lot of results of pushes to do just that.

    It is one a massive extra step for them to get the aid on top of being a massive waste of tax payer money.

    Running those drug test in the states that pass them. Guess what cost the state a lot more money than it saved. It is shear GOP stupidity waste of money as it did not save any money. It was pure easy money for the drug testing locations.
    01-26-2014 10:21 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It is one a massive extra step for them to get the aid on top of being a massive waste of tax payer money.
    How is it a massive extra step for someone getting what equates to free money to go to a testing location and give a urine sample?

    Running those drug test in the states that pass them. Guess what cost the state a lot more money than it saved. It is shear GOP stupidity waste of money as it did not save any money. It was pure easy money for the drug testing locations.
    Fair point, but using that logic and playing Devil's Advocate, companies shouldn't require them either because of the cost. Safety sensitive positions excluded, of course.
    01-26-2014 10:43 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    How is it a massive extra step for someone getting what equates to free money to go to a testing location and give a urine sample?
    It generally a pain in the rear to do it. First you have to go to a place. Then deal with the embarrassment of doing that. Plus knowing the normal way of acting it would be the one you have to be watch doing it.
    It really a road block and more importantly WASTE OF MONEY.
    Fair point, but using that logic and playing Devil's Advocate, companies shouldn't require them either because of the cost. Safety sensitive positions excluded, of course.
    No argument from me. I believe a lot of companies waste money on doing the drug test. My last job required it but then again safety issue.
    But 2 key differences
    1. it is not done under the "pretend" argument of saving money.
    2, Private company. It is their call. I have had 1 company require it and my current employer did not require it (current one did require having the right to require one at any time)

    The argument made for the welfare part has been to save money. Evidence shows other wise. It is not a break even. No instead it is a MASSIVE and I mean a MASSIVE waste of money so that argument is completely bunk and their is proof showing that.
    01-26-2014 11:06 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It generally a pain in the rear to do it. First you have to go to a place. Then deal with the embarrassment of doing that. Plus knowing the normal way of acting it would be the one you have to be watch doing it.
    Oooh, you have to go somewhere. That's hardly an undue stress. Heck, they could collect a sample right at the welfare office and have the testing lab pick it up (a common practice in the work place). Embarrassment shouldn't be a concern, either. If it's collected at the welfare/social services/whatever it's called office, then there's not a real issue because everyone is kinda in the same boat. If you go to a clinic, they aren't gonna care. They keep things professional and non-judgemental. I would also suspect they will allow non-watched collections. Typically, the only time watched collections are done are if there's reason to believe the person is going to try to tamper with it, or if there have been prior positive tests. So all in all, those really aren't roadblocks to the person on welfare.

    The argument made for the welfare part has been to save money. Evidence shows other wise. It is not a break even. No instead it is a MASSIVE and I mean a MASSIVE waste of money so that argument is completely bunk and their is proof showing that.
    How about this: Not require random drug testing, but kicking you off if convicted of drug possession, or a positive test for other reasons (like being tested as part of an accident investigation)? I'm not familiar enough with the programs, so some states may already have similar legislation for all I know.
    Johnly likes this.
    01-27-2014 12:05 AM
  10. Johnly's Avatar
    You fund it by deducting it from the welfare check. They don't like it, don't get welfare. Easy. Call it part of the cost of entertainment.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-27-2014 12:37 AM
  11. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You fund it by deducting it from the welfare check. They don't like it, don't get welfare. Easy. Call it part of the cost of entertainment.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    So again you are advocating for wasting money.
    Sorry not the way it should be done.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-27-2014 12:48 AM
  12. Johnly's Avatar
    So again you are advocating for wasting money.
    Sorry not the way it should be done.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    So you agree welfare is a needed program and should remain. I agree too. How can we get more money to those on welfare? Do ya think we should increase what we give in taxes? Should we trim the military and bolster more section 8 for those on wait lists?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-27-2014 12:51 AM
  13. Johnly's Avatar
    If a social worker has a strong suspicion that a welfare recipient is abusing the system, they should be able to initiate a drug test. That is money spent well. One recipient of say 1,600 dollars a month in welfare by subsidiary and foodstamps and they use that to help fuel a meth addiction. Say they receive benifiets for 5 years. That is almost 100,000 dollars. Just imagine exposing their fraud! Say the program nails 1000 people in a year in the USA. That is 96 million dollars. That is enough money to warrant an intelligent execution to expose fraud. Divide that number by the 50 bucks it would cost to test and you have funded 2 million drug test. The only waste of money is the deadbeats we keep on supporting because it cost to much to nail them. Well I say bring on the cost.
    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-27-2014 01:18 AM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    I thought the whole Florida drug testing issue was declared unconstitutional by the courts? Warrentless search or something like that.
    01-27-2014 09:09 AM
  15. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I thought the whole Florida drug testing issue was declared unconstitutional by the courts? Warrentless search or something like that.
    I believe it was. But even outside of that it was a perfect case study at showing how massive and I mean MASSIVE waste of money drug testing it was. The argument made by conservatives is drug testing would save money. Instead it proved it cost a over 10x what it saved.
    palandri likes this.
    01-27-2014 09:54 AM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    I believe it was. But even outside of that it was a perfect case study at showing how massive and I mean MASSIVE waste of money drug testing it was. The argument made by conservatives is drug testing would save money. Instead it proved it cost a over 10x what it saved.
    Unless the recipients are mandated to pay for their own drug tests, or else no benefits.

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-27-2014 10:02 AM
  17. Timelessblur's Avatar
    If a social worker has a strong suspicion that a welfare recipient is abusing the system, they should be able to initiate a drug test. That is money spent well. One recipient of say 1,600 dollars a month in welfare by subsidiary and foodstamps and they use that to help fuel a meth addiction. Say they receive benifiets for 5 years. That is almost 100,000 dollars. Just imagine exposing their fraud! Say the program nails 1000 people in a year in the USA. That is 96 million dollars. That is enough money to warrant an intelligent execution to expose fraud. Divide that number by the 50 bucks it would cost to test and you have funded 2 million drug test. The only waste of money is the deadbeats we keep on supporting because it cost to much to nail them. Well I say bring on the cost.
    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    Your numbers do not match up to facts. First you are over inflating how long someone is on welfare and how much they are receiving.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...ests.html?_r=0
    Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

    As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
    Btw the failure rate was below that of the general population, oh and it was not for hard drugs like meth. The druggies for the most part do not even go on welfare as they are to high to take care of it.
    01-27-2014 10:17 AM
  18. palandri's Avatar
    Unless the recipients are mandated to pay for their own drug tests, or else no benefits.

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    LOL! How can they pay for it themselves if they are on welfare?
    01-27-2014 10:56 AM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    LOL! How can they pay for it themselves if they are on welfare?
    LOL! The same way some welfare recipients obtain Chrysler 300's, Mercedes, BMW's, etc etc etc.

    Surely those same people can afford a little drug test, no?

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-27-2014 12:17 PM
  20. nolittdroid's Avatar
    LOL! The same way some welfare recipients obtain Chrysler 300's, Mercedes, BMW's, etc etc etc.

    Surely those same people can afford a little drug test, no?

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    A drug panel can exceed up to $1500 without insurance. That far exceeds any bmw/Benz/Chrysler payment. It seems kind of backwards to require people to fund an expensive, unnecessary test when they're applying for assistance, when the program has already failed before, under the assumption that all welfare applicants are drug addicts hiding piles of cash.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    palandri likes this.
    01-27-2014 02:48 PM
  21. Tom Westrick's Avatar
    Where are these magical lands where welfare recipients drive BMW's (unless that is sarcasm).

    I'll type a much longer post in this thread tonight when I get home from work.
    01-27-2014 02:54 PM
  22. llamabreath's Avatar
    Where are these magical lands where welfare recipients drive BMW's (unless that is sarcasm)
    Go out into the real world and then see if you would still ask this question.

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-27-2014 03:00 PM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    ... under the assumption that all welfare applicants are drug addicts hiding piles of cash.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    That's strange.
    I specifically said SOME.
    Are YOU the one that's doing the assuming?



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-27-2014 03:02 PM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    Go out into the real world and then see if you would still ask this question.

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Johnly likes this.
    01-27-2014 04:16 PM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    01-27-2014 04:22 PM
140 ... 3456

Similar Threads

  1. Education Reform
    By Darth Spock in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-13-2013, 04:29 PM
  2. Confessions of a reformed OS tweaker
    By LeoRex in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2013, 03:32 PM
  3. Reformed Apple User - Love Android!
    By pwake in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 12:40 PM
  4. reformateing the internal 2G/B memory?
    By Lehocki in forum Verizon Droid Charge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 06:15 PM
  5. Greetings from a reformed geek
    By expatCanuck in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 01:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD