Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[RedRocket1647545505]

How do you implement a system that weeds out the "lazy" from the people who are actually deserving whole reducing cost and not growing government?

 

It's an honest question, because in other similar instances, like mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, have cost the government more money and require more personnel to implement.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

How about stiff penalties? Those shouldn't cost much. No random drug tests, but if you get arrested for any reason and test positive; kiss your assistance goodbye. No 2nd chances. Gone.

 

Not saying this is the answer. Just brain storming.

[TTQ B4U]

How about stiff penalties? Those shouldn't cost much. No random drug tests, but if you get arrested for any reason and test positive; kiss your assistance goodbye. No 2nd chances. Gone.

 

Not saying this is the answer. Just brain storming.

I also don't buy drug testing cost too much. All they have to do is outsource it to any lab like employers do. Cost is no more than $40 per person.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

Thoughts?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/us/first-female-navy-candidates-seal-trnd/index.html

 

G.I. Jane/s in real life

[SpaceGhost]

I also don't buy drug testing cost too much. All they have to do is outsource it to any lab like employers do. Cost is no more than $40 per person.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

It's not that the test is expensive, it the ROI, you test all these folks and find a really low "positive" hit rate. So you spend all this money to test and only catch a small percentage. If you are applying, you will evade the test, or be clean for a period of time and then once getting the benefit return to drug use.

[BStowers023]

It's not that the test is expensive, it the ROI, you test all these folks and find a really low "positive" hit rate. So you spend all this money to test and only catch a small percentage. If you are applying, you will evade the test, or be clean for a period of time and then once getting the benefit return to drug use.

 

 

Maybe we should stop auditing people for evading taxes too I guess

[o0n8]

Thoughts?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/us/first-female-navy-candidates-seal-trnd/index.html

 

G.I. Jane/s in real life

 

same way I feel about gays in the military. Good for them and good luck.

[BStowers023]

same way I feel about gays in the military. Good for them and good luck.

 

Do you think standards should be different for women?

[greg1647545532]

Maybe we should stop auditing people for evading taxes too I guess

 

How much would you spend in taxpayer dollars to collect $1 million in evaded taxes?

[BStowers023]

How much would you spend in taxpayer dollars to collect $1 million in evaded taxes?

 

#taxationistheft

 

To answer your question, probably close to $1 million

 

How often do auditors catch someone evading taxes?

How often would drug tests catch someone using drugs while on welfare?

[LJ]

Maybe we should stop auditing people for evading taxes too I guess

 

umm

 

On a budget of $11.8 billion, the IRS collected $2.52 trillion in FY 2012.

[BStowers023]

Umm

 

IRS crooks

[greg1647545532]

To answer your question, probably close to $1 million

 

How often do auditors catch someone evading taxes?

 

I don't know, but it seems you would agree that there's some point where ROI matters. That is, you don't seem to want to pay more to catch tax cheats than it'd cost to just let them cheat. That seems reasonable.

 

How often would drug tests catch someone using drugs while on welfare?

 

Would? We don't really have to wonder.

 

[As of 2015], twelve states have passed legislation imposing drug testing or screening for public-assistance applicants or recipients (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah). Legislation is pending in another 14 states. While one can understand the logic behind such measures, they actually appear to accomplish very little. Studies suggest that the use of drugs is no higher among welfare recipients than among the general population. The cost per positive result has run as high as $7,000. And the fact that the testing applies only to the poor and not to recipients of middle-class government benefits suggests a certain animus.

 

Some states, such as Arizona and (I think) Utah, have used targeted testing to better effect than the general/random testing that other states implemented, but as far as I've read, the ROI just isn't there, or it's there but not to the degree that proponents thought or hoped it would be.

 

Lest you think I linked you to a biased, liberal source, I'll point out that the National Review is a conservative publication, and I'll quote the last paragraph of that article to save you the trouble of reading to the end:

 

Welfare must be reformed. The current system is unfair to everyone involved, both taxpayers and recipients. Ideally, the whole system should be dismantled and replaced by private charity. Short of that, it needs to be redesigned to put a premium on work and the route to independence. Unfortunately, many of the measures currently being debated don’t help that process.

[BStowers023]

I like that last bolder part

[LJ]

Umm

 

IRS crooks

 

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bermuda

Brunei Darussalam

Cayman Islands

Kuwait

Qatar

Oman

Saudi Arabia

United Arab Emirates

 

3/10, not bad

[Zx2guy19]

Well, in true presidential fashion, Mr. Trump has just announced his stance on Transgenders serving in the military.

 

Thoughts?

[LJ]

Well, in true presidential fashion, Mr. Trump has just announced his stance on Transgenders serving in the military.

 

Thoughts?

 

It's a stupid pointless move that is doing nothing but placating his toothless base.

[greg1647545532]

I imagine it will make lots of people very happy and lots of people very unhappy, thus satisfying Trump's campaign promise to end the divisiveness of the Obama era and bring America together in unity.

[zeitgeist57]

I haven't met ONE active or ex-military servicemember that's taken a negative stance against trans-in-military aside from the understandable caveat that the person HAS TO BE ABLE TO DO THE JOB (be they woman, trans, gay, etc...)

 

I really don't understand what Trump's taking a stand against this.

[l36tols1]

Well, in true presidential fashion, Mr. Trump has just announced his stance on Transgenders serving in the military.

 

Thoughts?

 

Government backed discrimination. Yay! MAGA :bangbang:

[greg1647545532]

I haven't met ONE active or ex-military servicemember that's taken a negative stance against trans-in-military.

 

I know a lot. My unit had our mandatory transgender policy briefing a few weeks ago and it was a goddamn shitshow. This is a wedge issue if there ever was one, it affects a very small % of people but everyone has a strong opinion about it. The "discussion," which our CC tried to avoid but inevitably happened, was entirely predictable, anxiety/cringe-inducing, and served only to divide our unit along obvious political lines. It sucked. But we ripped the band-aid off and moved on.

 

Point is, regardless of your stance, it should be clear that this is a delicate issue that needs to be dealt with professionally and with a great deal of empathy.

 

I'm sure at this point everyone's already seen this tweet of his dredged up from way back in June 2016, ironically the same month that transgendered individuals were first allowed to serve in the military:

 

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs

[RedRocket1647545505]

What's it going to take to get a decent candidate in this country? Seriously. Nobody can stop from lying. They're all corrupt as far as I'm concerned. He's no better than she would have been and she would have been no better than him either.

 

Term limits for Congress? No more lobbying? Campaign fund limits?

[10phone2]

interesting read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

[Geeto67]

I really don't understand what Trump's taking a stand against this.

 

Fundamental religious cash grab. That's usually what motivates this, appealing to religious based large donors. Strategically it's low risk for him - it's easy to do because it doesn't change the status quo, it offers an opportunity to make strong, declarative, high profile statements that are controversial and get press, and he can cite it later as an example of supporting a particular group when he's looking to pick their pockets for his re-election campaign.

 

If you want to know what pandering looks like - this is it.

[Geeto67]

What's it going to take to get a decent candidate in this country? Seriously. Nobody can stop from lying. They're all corrupt as far as I'm concerned.

Seems sensible

 

He's no better than she would have been and she would have been no better than him either.

 

And here is where you go off the rails. I don't think you can prove this assumption. Do you know her platform? It was fairly mainstream and leaning conservative.

 

But more importantly, she's a professional politician. She wouldn't be a constant media embarrassment. Just knowing how to navigate Washington and not look like a complete ass is a skill that escapes our current administration. I mean, he has the majority of congress in his favor and he still can't pull off anything meaningful - a skilled politician wouldn't have had this problem.

[BStowers023]

A "skilled" politician. Yep, just what we need :lolguy: