Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 27th, 2017, 10:15 AM   #31

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,166

Tomar made some good points: if an employee can be fired for failing a drug test (and he or she can), then why can't an unemployed person lose his or her benefits for failing a drug test? After all, we're talking illegal drugs, no? Would it be better if everyone who failed the test be sent to prison? At least he or she would have a minimal standard of living.

To start from the person's present condition that is, with the user of illegal drugs) misses the point that this policy probably has the goal of deterring future recipients from using drugs.

IMO, either (a) society keeps drugs illegal and then cracks down so every user of illegal drugs does some jail time, as opposed to the current system in the US where the seller--usually a young Black male--is sent to prison while the children of the middle class who buy it are lectured by the judge and sent home) or

(b) laws against drugs are repealed--beginning with marijuana--which would eliminate a lot of organized crime and funding for organized crime and police and judicial corruption, and probably the situation in the US today where more Black men are in prison than are in college.

Today's drug policy in the US is "feelgood lawmaking"--we feel good about ourselves but it has little or no effect on the drug problem.

A street kid gets arrested, gonna do some time
He got out three years from now just to commit more crime
A businessman is caught with 24 kilos
He's out on bail and out of jail
And that's the way it goes.

Athletes rejected, governors corrected
Gangsters, thugs and smugglers are thoroughly respected
The money gets divided
The women get excited
Now I'm broke and it's no joke
It's hard as hell to fight it, don't buy it!

White Lines--Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

Last edited by David Vagamundo; December 27th, 2017 at 10:20 AM.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 27th, 2017, 03:56 PM   #32
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: SAN
Posts: 114

I cannot speak for any other states or nations other than CA, USA.

Unemployment benefits are in no way, shape, nor form of "welfare".

In CA, unemployment benefits are EARNED by working and paying a % into a state insurance program.

So requiring a drug test for a CA, USA citizen collecting UEI will take some considerations.
DaveTheWriter is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 04:04 PM   #33
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: SAN
Posts: 114

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon View Post

Since then despite many changes, and the facts even at the time not matching the rhetoric it seems an accepted part of the conservative ideology that individuals getting government support are weak willed lazy beggars while corporations getting guaranteed monopolies, subsidies, or direct support are necessary pillars of the economy rather than the inefficient use of resources true bare-knuckled capitalism shows them to be.
+ 1

A good summary of the ideological paradigm.
DaveTheWriter is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 05:02 AM   #34
Suspended until April 6th, 2018
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 1,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
Reagan in the 80s attacked welfare recipients and Clinton seemed to agree with him when reforming welfare in the 90s. Since then despite many changes, and the facts even at the time not matching the rhetoric it seems an accepted part of the conservative ideology that individuals getting government support are weak willed lazy beggars while corporations getting guaranteed monopolies, subsidies, or direct support are necessary pillars of the economy rather than the inefficient use of resources true bareknuckled capitalism shows them to be.

Most business conservatives agree with big government liberals that government funding can be redistributed in beneficial ways- they just disagree who should receive the redistributed funds. The main reason the national debt never goes down even when conservatives are in power is their claims to fiscal conservatism are just lip service to satisfy the libertarians and some of their voters stuck in the rhetoric of the 60s and 70s.

Vast majority of welfare recipients in the U.S. are working adults and their dependents. Entitlement programs constitute much more than welfare where social security is by far the largest costing program though medicare and medicaid are growing rapidly yet few working people view social security as an entitlement since they had paid into it most of their working lives though in reality since most people will claim more than they paid in it is actually an entitlement.

Since the budget is so large and complex people tune out the details and only hear what benefits them individually where both major parties make promises they never intend to keep it seems during the last 2 decades the Republican party has not just fallen short of promises but proactively deceived and lied to their benefit in elections so if anything with that behaviour rewarded by their voters it makes perfect sense why the lying and hypocrisy has escalated.

Anyway with the new Trump weakening of ACA and removal of housing tax deductions a large pool of Trump voters will see their after-tax income vs expenses change drastically for the worst. It remains to be seen how many will blame current policies or believe Trump that Obama or China is somehow to blame.

Getting a larger portion of a given tax paying population to have marketable skills is actually a supply side argument and also should make sense to the xenophobes and anti-immigrants where increasing the supply of skilled labor should mean more new businesses and jobs while also fewer immigrants brought in to fill positions companies claim there is a lack of skilled native-born citizens available.

Really little of modern political stances make intellectual or logical sense unless you accept the short-term interests of individuals involved in politics take precedence over absolutely everything else.
The problem with fiscal liberalism is the same in Australia, it's not really liberalism at all except in the sense of spending less and providing more money to the haves rather than the have nots. In its true brutal sense this is a distortion of capitalism where an under performing business should by rights go broke (but its argued that, that is bad for the economy Like 18 or so trillion dollars of debt is not). Most of this saw its significant impact under the likes of Thatcher and Reagan where true services were lost and people's rights were curtailed. The problem is my generation born in the 1980s and 1990s were born into it and so they don't know any better/different. Some of them through bitter irony end up voting for them without knowing any better.

The vast majority of welfare recipients were working adults at some point. The problem is that there is such a distortion of reality that most conservatives believe that welfare recipients are your local crack dealers showing off their wares in government housing. Of course this has no connection to the reality of people who are just trying to get back on their feet.

Like yourself, if it isn't any more obvious I also believe in supply side economics I don't really need to reiterate what a private university has done with its own funding that just so happens to be my alumni school is doing with its own supply side economics because it realises as a business its actually good for getting more bums on seats (among other things) while also allowing for a happier and healthier community. If the fiscal conservatives would understand this rather than cutting funding to universities then we would all have a more healthy (and prosperous) society.

Most people tune out to the complexities of economics but even in the Trump supporting Republican base you can now find examples of people who are realising what they are losing from the ACA who are doing an about front since voting from Trump (and I'm not talking about swinging voters I'm talking about rusted on rust belt Republicans). One of these days I just hope the world wakes up about fiscally conservative economics and starts actually voting for changes that are actually good for them.

To return to drug testing welfare recipients even this itself is generally bad for the economy in its loosest sense welfare can be seen as form of Keynesian stimulus program. Where you start to curtail down a persons ability to spend money (even if it is your own) this is damaging to the economy as you are stiffing the recirculation of government funds from welfare recipients into businesses which are generally not run by drug affected people. In simple terms, if you cut out the flow of welfare then you remove one of the natural layers of self-stimulus that the economy has a mechanism.

Last edited by orestes; December 28th, 2017 at 05:17 AM.
orestes is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 09:58 AM   #35

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,166

Quote:
Originally Posted by orestes View Post
. . . .To return to drug testing welfare recipients even this itself is generally bad for the economy in its loosest sense welfare can be seen as form of Keynesian stimulus program. Where you start to curtail down a persons ability to spend money (even if it is your own) this is damaging to the economy as you are stiffing the recirculation of government funds from welfare recipients into businesses which are generally not run by drug affected people. In simple terms, if you cut out the flow of welfare then you remove one of the natural layers of self-stimulus that the economy has a mechanism.
In the US today, the economic problem is not lack of jobs but lack of qualified workers. Because the contemporary definition of a qualified worker includes being able to pass a drug test, there are lots of potential workers who, regardless of their skill set, are unqualified because they cannot pass the drug texts.

In your last line, are you saying that welfare is a natural attribute of an economy?
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 10:14 AM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,778

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheWriter View Post
I cannot speak for any other states or nations other than CA, USA.

Unemployment benefits are in no way, shape, nor form of "welfare".

In CA, unemployment benefits are EARNED by working and paying a % into a state insurance program.

So requiring a drug test for a CA, USA citizen collecting UEI will take some considerations.
As a side question what would be the point of that kind of insurance ? If you never get more than you contributed, you'd be better off putting aside that money and not contributing.... in addition it'd be more effective as you cut off the middlemen (whatever institutions are managing the collection and payout of the money - for a cost) plus you'd get some interest or other income on your money....
tomar is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 02:55 PM   #37
Suspended until April 6th, 2018
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 1,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
In the US today, the economic problem is not lack of jobs but lack of qualified workers. Because the contemporary definition of a qualified worker includes being able to pass a drug test, there are lots of potential workers who, regardless of their skill set, are unqualified because they cannot pass the drug texts.

In your last line, are you saying that welfare is a natural attribute of an economy?

There is a lot of people in Australia that can't pass a drug test but a lot of these people are employed and not receiving welfare either. Due to the scourge of methamphetamine addictions this problem is actually widening. However there is a lot of people with meth addictions that are still able to function and hold down a job.

On the point of welfare being a natural
Part of the economy. It certainly is in Australia. A person who qualifies for unemployment benefits here in Australia receives anything up to $550 in actual welfare before taking into account the other things that can be applied. This is paid fortnightly.

Now then, the vast majority of this payment goes back into businesses in Australia. It's not exactly enough money to contribute to your personal saving and not quite enough to live off permanently on your own. The fact that the vast majority of this goes back into the Australian economy allows the government to have a permanent flow of money going out of the government coffers and into the economy. This is a healthy process that supports private sector businesses in Australia, they in turn pay taxes, and the money goes back into the goes back into the government coffers rinse and repeat.

The government loses a few dollars during the process but it keeps people consistently spending money and supporting Australian businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
orestes is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 10:18 PM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 3,307

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Tomar made some good points: if an employee can be fired for failing a drug test (and he or she can), then why can't an unemployed person lose his or her benefits for failing a drug test? After all, we're talking illegal drugs, no? Would it be better if everyone who failed the test be sent to prison? At least he or she would have a minimal standard of living.

To start from the person's present condition that is, with the user of illegal drugs) misses the point that this policy probably has the goal of deterring future recipients from using drugs.

IMO, either (a) society keeps drugs illegal and then cracks down so every user of illegal drugs does some jail time, as opposed to the current system in the US where the seller--usually a young Black male--is sent to prison while the children of the middle class who buy it are lectured by the judge and sent home) or

(b) laws against drugs are repealed--beginning with marijuana--which would eliminate a lot of organized crime and funding for organized crime and police and judicial corruption, and probably the situation in the US today where more Black men are in prison than are in college.

Today's drug policy in the US is "feelgood lawmaking"--we feel good about ourselves but it has little or no effect on the drug problem.

A street kid gets arrested, gonna do some time
He got out three years from now just to commit more crime
A businessman is caught with 24 kilos
He's out on bail and out of jail
And that's the way it goes.

Athletes rejected, governors corrected
Gangsters, thugs and smugglers are thoroughly respected
The money gets divided
The women get excited
Now I'm broke and it's no joke
It's hard as hell to fight it, don't buy it!

White Lines--Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five


Because its STUPID and POINTLESS.

By the exact same logic, Why can't we DRUG test the CEOs who receive government subsidies for their private jets and free access to drill for publicly owned oil on publicly owned lands?



This is a CON. Its an AGENDA that serves the interest of wealth by pandering to the prejudices of the middle class.

Its an attempt to make the poor _ ALREADY the most stigmatized group in the nation_ even MORE stigmatized and to forward the narrative that Poor people are poor because they use drugs.

In fact, RICH people use far more drugs, per capita... Because they can afford them, and they are NEVER subjected to searches.

Stop falling for this persecution of the poor. The poor are already PLENTY persecuted just by the entrenched obstacles of systemic poverty.

Its not longer fashionable to hate Jews, People of color, or gays...

But the ONE group EVERYONE still abuses routinely is the poor.

Like the Poor white trash of the confederacy- happy to go to war to ensure that ONE group of people- slaves- would STILL be Beneath even them...

The rich want you to think they are rich because they DESERVE IT... rather than the truth that they inherited it- scammed it, and rigged the laws in this and other countries to steal it from the working classes...


They own the media and so they are the ones spreading the idea that poor folks are somehow taking advantage of the working class thru assistance...

that they are poor because they are lazy- drug users.


They want the middle class to believe the poor deserve to be poor- so they will be stupid enough to believe the rich deserve to be rich.


But is you want to know WHO is taking advantage of you... you can ALWAYS tell who is robbing everyone blind... because they are the ones who end up with ALL THE MONEY.


The vast majority of the rich live off of something the IRS calls " UNEARNED INCOME" That literally means they DID NO WORK for that money.

And for some stupid reason, middle class voter just ACCPET the notion that money rich folks get for doing NOTHING ought to be taxed at HALF the rate of money that is EARNED thru LABOR....


Think about that... the rich are literally doing nothing for their money.

They just OWN stuff.


I think we need to change our world view and consider that money that was WORKED for should be taxed at half the rate of money that was UNEARNED.

WORK is worth something.


The Idle Rich try to get you upset about poor folks taking drugs- so you won't notice the rich picking your pockets every day.
sculptingman is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 08:03 AM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,391

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
As a side question what would be the point of that kind of insurance ? If you never get more than you contributed, you'd be better off putting aside that money and not contributing.... in addition it'd be more effective as you cut off the middlemen (whatever institutions are managing the collection and payout of the money - for a cost) plus you'd get some interest or other income on your money....
Well, current interest rates are so close to zero they might as well not exist at all. The idea that “you’d be better off putting it aside” is faulty because experience shows that you won’t put it aside. This is exactly the same argument that applies to letting you control your own social security benefits: the fact is, the forced savings means that the social security will actually be there when you need it and not spent long before you need it. It doesn’t say good things about peoples’ habits but that’s the reality of human behavior.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 08:07 AM   #40
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,391

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post
Because its STUPID and POINTLESS.

By the exact same logic, Why can't we DRUG test the CEOs who receive government subsidies for their private jets and free access to drill for publicly owned oil on publicly owned lands?



This is a CON. Its an AGENDA that serves the interest of wealth by pandering to the prejudices of the middle class.

Its an attempt to make the poor _ ALREADY the most stigmatized group in the nation_ even MORE stigmatized and to forward the narrative that Poor people are poor because they use drugs.

In fact, RICH people use far more drugs, per capita... Because they can afford them, and they are NEVER subjected to searches.

Stop falling for this persecution of the poor. The poor are already PLENTY persecuted just by the entrenched obstacles of systemic poverty.

Its not longer fashionable to hate Jews, People of color, or gays...

But the ONE group EVERYONE still abuses routinely is the poor.

Like the Poor white trash of the confederacy- happy to go to war to ensure that ONE group of people- slaves- would STILL be Beneath even them...

The rich want you to think they are rich because they DESERVE IT... rather than the truth that they inherited it- scammed it, and rigged the laws in this and other countries to steal it from the working classes...


They own the media and so they are the ones spreading the idea that poor folks are somehow taking advantage of the working class thru assistance...

that they are poor because they are lazy- drug users.


They want the middle class to believe the poor deserve to be poor- so they will be stupid enough to believe the rich deserve to be rich.


But is you want to know WHO is taking advantage of you... you can ALWAYS tell who is robbing everyone blind... because they are the ones who end up with ALL THE MONEY.


The vast majority of the rich live off of something the IRS calls " UNEARNED INCOME" That literally means they DID NO WORK for that money.

And for some stupid reason, middle class voter just ACCPET the notion that money rich folks get for doing NOTHING ought to be taxed at HALF the rate of money that is EARNED thru LABOR....


Think about that... the rich are literally doing nothing for their money.

They just OWN stuff.


I think we need to change our world view and consider that money that was WORKED for should be taxed at half the rate of money that was UNEARNED.

WORK is worth something.


The Idle Rich try to get you upset about poor folks taking drugs- so you won't notice the rich picking your pockets every day.
There’s a great deal of Truth in this.
royal744 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
drug, recipients, tests, welfare



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
University Religious Tests betgo European History 0 August 27th, 2012 07:22 PM
The relevance of Intelligence tests? Zeno Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 4 August 25th, 2011 06:09 PM
Welfare and the Bourgeoisie philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 December 4th, 2010 09:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.