Florida first to stop financing drug addiction with tax dollars

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Sigh... gotta love distorted math, eh? :rolleyes:
First off, the figures they calculated are based on people raging from ages twelve to 64. It never differentiates these people from those who just live someplace (like a teenager for obvious reasons) from someone who is actually the head of household. In fact, you can't even find the terms "head of household", "parent" or even "adult" in this article. There's an obvious difference between someone who is living with another that may have a drug problem versus someone who runs an entire household and/or family regardless if they are receiving some form of government assistance.

The article also goes by a very vague (if not explained whatsoever) definition of "assisted family". The US Department of Labor defines it to be a family is classified as an assisted family if it reported receiving at least one of the following six types of public assistance: supplementary security income (SSI), welfare, medicaid, food stamps, government housing subsidies, or public housing.

SSI is a program where the beneficiary eligible must be aged 65 or older, blind or disabled, or has a person living with them who is also disabled. Welfare is government aid intended to help those with little to no income, including the working poor, and primarily aims at people who are disabled and/or have children to take care of. To qualify for food stamps, all people over the age of 18 must register to work and be willing to participate on a work/study training program.

As for Medicaid, you simply can't be eligible for it based on income. In fact there are many people who are poor, with incomes below the poverty level, who do not meet Medicaid requirements because they do not fit within the designated eligibility groups. These include but are not limited to:

  • Pregnant women and children under 6 with income at or significantly below the federal poverty level.
  • Children ages 6 to 19 qualify with a family income at or below the federal poverty level.
  • Adults who take care of children under age 18.
  • Individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income
  • Teenagers up to age 21 who are living on their own
  • People who are over 65, blind or disabled

On top of this, since the stipulations for Medicaid differ from state to state it becomes much more difficult to pinpoint exactly who qualifies. The person who may be able to qualify in Massachusetts may not be able to do so in Florida. Requirements for public housing are even more complicated, which include the usual screening & lease signing procedures.

In short, many of these programs require people to either be in a state where they can't work, or are already working (or actively looking for it) in order to qualify. This notion that all of the people sourced in the NHSDA article are just laying around at home watching "Jerry Springer", and are using all the funds to get some weed or cocaine is absolute bullshit. I've already made the suggestion that perhaps we should adjust the law so that it only looks at those who are on government assistance and have a past criminal record that is drug related. The OP obviously ignored this since finding a real solution is not his goal... he just needs to tell the whole world of LPSG just how much better he is.

Furthermore, this is now the second original thread as well as the 38th post starinvestor has made in the last 1-2 weeks where he is either attacking a board member or launching veiled character assassinations at those who are or even try to remotely speak up for the poor or working class in this nation. How many times do we have to be subjected to a fury of "holier than thou" nonsense from a money grubbing, corporate shrill who trashes the board, let is totally dependent on its existence to vent out his frustrations with his own financial & societal failures, and constantly take jabs at those with more left leaning mentalities? My GOD, when does the bullshit stop?
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Also, there isn't that much bloat for this program. The guy pisses in a cup and you send it off to the lab. Big deal.

starinvestor, you might have missed it earlier, but I listed out a few considerations (not roadblocks, but complications) for defining this program. I think there is a potential for administrative bloat with the legal requirement for a medical review officer...

{snip}
The problem with a drug test is it can only measure the presence or absence of certain chemicals. If someone tests positive for a 'prohibited substance', the only way to make sure that result is an unexpected presence of an illicit chemical is to employ medical review officers who review each drug screen and then validate potentially valid medical claims and prescription statuses with patients, and then ultimately, with their medical providers. To say that this is expensive and paper-intensive is an understatement. Let me give you a real-life situation: for a hospital population of just under 2,000 geographically co-located employees, one of my clients employs a full-time M.D., two full-time RNs, two medical associates and a medical secretary to screen the hospital population on a random basis and to screen ALL new job applicants (from the dishwasher to the Chief of Cardiology) for drugs. That's their primary function. The MRO job cannot be done by a layman or a faceless bureaucrat; MROs are licensed doctors with an active DEA registration and specific training in the medical and legal aspects of drug screening. I'm not even going to mention the cost of the drug testing itself (done by an outside lab), nor the need for facilities close to the testing population (to eliminate fraudulent collection of urine samples), nor the fact that my client, the hospital, has a corporate lawyer who theoretically reviews the notes regarding positive tests because peoples' Fourth Amendment guarantees are a tricky thing.
{snip}

It's not just a matter of 'peeing in a cup'. There are testing firms for the test itself, but most of them don't provide MRO services because the MRO interprets results, verifies validity of the tests, and applies standards determined by the requester of the test (the hospital in the example I provided, the State of Florida presumably in the discussion in this Thread). I think the generally accepted rationale here is you don't want the 'cop' who detects the possibility of a drug abuser also serving as the judge and jury.

I know what it takes for the privately-held hospital group I work with to do drug screening and they're a microcosm of what I think a state-wide initiative would look like. (They may even cut a few 'due process' corners because they don't have to be seen to play fair -- they're a privately held health care corporation not subject to public scrutiny.)
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Here ya go...

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance

those recieving cash assistance use drugs at a 40% higher rate than those not receiving any assistance.

At the time of the above study, 27 million people were recieving gov't assistance, and 10% of those were drug users.

That is - 2.7 million drug users on gov't assistance.

That 27 million figure INCLUDES those receiving Food Stamps. It includes those receiving Medicaid. It includes those receiving Social Security Income. In fact your source states those receiving cash assistance ( IE WELFARE, which is the ONLY thing this law in Florida deals with) were only 26% of your 27 million figure. 26% of 27 million is 7.02 million (as of 2006, according to your source) people of welfare. 10% (the actual number is 9.6%, which is only marginally different from the figure I found, of 8.2%) of 7.02 million is 702,000 drug users NATIONWIDE on welfare (in 2006, according to your source). My source (TANF, the actual program we know of as welfare, and the program the Florida law targets) states there were [SIZE=-1]4,221,328[/SIZE], welfare recipients NATION WIDE in 2006 (I don't know where your report is getting its nearly 3 million discrepancy). 10% of that figure is less than HALF of ONE million! As of September 2010 (the most recent stats I can find) there were 4.4 million Americans on welfare. Multiply those figures by your 10% and you still get less than a million - NATIONWIDE.

Since this Florida law only takes into account those who are receiving welfare (which, btw, is a need-based, non-entitlement program) cash assistance, specifically TANF, I think it only fair that we only consider those people in our figures. Don't you? Otherwise things get distorted, and that doesn't lead to an honest discussion.

Let's also consider that the law only applies to new applicants for TANF funding. In June of 2010 (again, the most recent stat I can find) florida had 40,228 applicants. Only 6,936 applications, or scarcely over 17%, were approved. Welfare allows a maximum of $300/month for a single person household. The cap is $225/person for multiple person households. So, let's assume, for simplicity's sake, that each applicant is a single person. Of those people applying, we can expect 10% to be drug users. 694 people will loose out on benefits. That's $208,200 saved by the taxpayer. HOWEVER, the remaining 6,242 people are going to be reimbursed for their $48 drug tests. That's $299,616 in COST to the tax payer. And the 694 people who failed the drug test? They get to reapply next month. How many of them do you think will stay clean for a month so they can pass the test? Probably most of them! In the meantime, 40,228 people who are desperate enough to apply for assistance are paying $48 each just to apply. Only 6,242 qualify anyway, and of that amount only 694 are your "millions of druggers." This law punishes 40,228 people who can't make ends meet, for the actions of 694 people. That doesn't seem right.

Again, and ostensibly, I assert that this bill is not going to save taxpayers ANY money! And again, and ostensibly, I point out that my figures do not include legal fees for those who get denied access based on the drug test results. (You know these poor folk are sue happy, right? After sleeping all day and telling jokes, their third favorite pass-time is frivolous lawsuits. Apparently, drug use is something like 10th on the list, as only 1 in 10 of them do it.)

Might I also point out that the current laws governing TANF allow for states to deny access to the program to those with prior drug convictions, and also allows states to remove people from the program if they commit drug related crimes while on assistance. Now THAT makes perfect sense to me! And, it doesn't cost the tax payer anything more than is already being spent on prosecuting the drug offender in the first place.

Again, this is another layer of government regulation on a program that is already highly regulated. It is going to cost the tax payers more than it is going to save them, and there will still be drug users on welfare. This doesn't fit with your espoused conservative dogma of "less government is always better."
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
That 27 million figure INCLUDES those receiving Food Stamps. It includes those receiving Medicaid.

. . .


Might I also point out that the current laws governing TANF allow for states to deny access to the program to those with prior drug convictions, and also allows states to remove people from the program if they commit drug related crimes while on assistance. Now THAT makes perfect sense to me! And, it doesn't cost the tax payer anything more than is already being spent on prosecuting the drug offender in the first place.

Again, this is another layer of government regulation on a program that is already highly regulated. It is going to cost the tax payers more than it is going to save them, and there will still be drug users on welfare. This doesn't fit with your espoused conservative dogma of "less government is always better."

I only truncated your post for space, but I have to say... I followed every one of your links and I concur with your analysis, joyboytoy79. I was surprised Colorado had so few (relatively speaking) applications and approvals, but it's not something I had ever examined before. I'm not sure if anybody else got anything out of those charts, but I was enlightened, so thanks for making the effort to include them.

I implied from his earlier points that starinvestor believed the Florida proposal for TANF is just the tip of the iceberg of places and programs where this drug testing can remove 'druggies' from the public entitlement queue. However, while you've clearly demonstrated the relatively small number of individuals affected in Florida's TANF and shown that existing laws prevent drug offenders who have broken the law from receiving aid, I'm still waiting for someone / anyone to quantify the number of aid recipients who are, in fact, using their entitlement checks to buy illicit drugs. I'm sure it happens, but how often? Is there any proof anywhere of the magnitude of this problem?

The proposal is, I'm sure, appealing to a wide swath of the population on the surface until you actually think about it and discover the devil sitting amongst the details. I get that's it's all about 'law and order' and similar virtues, but surely our financial situation should preclude us from leaping into new opportunities to spend limited funds to fix problems that may not even exist.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I only truncated your post for space, but I have to say... I followed every one of your links and I concur with your analysis, joyboytoy79. I was surprised Colorado had so few (relatively speaking) applications and approvals, but it's not something I had ever examined before. I'm not sure if anybody else got anything out of those charts, but I was enlightened, so thanks for making the effort to include them.

You're welcome. Whenever possible, I do try to include links to direct sources, so as not to muddle them with unnecessary external commentary. It's nice when someone's commentary matches my opinion, but when the raw numbers match, it's golden, in my eyes.

I implied from his earlier points that starinvestor believed the Florida proposal for TANF is just the tip of the iceberg of places and programs where this drug testing can remove 'druggies' from the public entitlement queue. However, while you've clearly demonstrated the relatively small number of individuals affected in Florida's TANF and shown that existing laws prevent drug offenders who have broken the law from receiving aid, I'm still waiting for someone / anyone to quantify the number of aid recipients who are, in fact, using their entitlement checks to buy illicit drugs. I'm sure it happens, but how often? Is there any proof anywhere of the magnitude of this problem?

So far as I can tell, no study (scientifically valid or otherwise) has addressed your specific question. I can see, however, how the logistics of such a study would be challenging. Since welfare payments are intended to offset a lack of income, and not replace income outright, welfare seldom if ever generates enough income for the recipient to make ends meet. If a welfare recipient is purchasing drugs (which is quite a different animal from USING drugs) he/she is getting additional money from a different source. How does one decide that the money for the drugs came directly from the welfare check, and not the additional source of income? I don't know the answer to that question, but I see how it could be tricky. My guess, unsubstantiated as it is, is that welfare recipients who use drugs are receiving those drugs "pro-bono."

The proposal is, I'm sure, appealing to a wide swath of the population on the surface until you actually think about it and discover the devil sitting amongst the details. I get that's it's all about 'law and order' and similar virtues, but surely our financial situation should preclude us from leaping into new opportunities to spend limited funds to fix problems that may not even exist.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thank you.

I don't like the idea of public assistance money being used to buy illicit drugs any more than the next person. However, I feel as though the current selection/monitoring process for public assistance is already satisfactory for removing those who are KNOWN to abuse drugs. Without further evidence to suggest that a problem exists to warrant additional expenditures by the state, I can't help but feel like this law is intended not to solve an existing problem, but rather to satisfy commonly held, but baseless fears.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I understand your point; however I also believe that when entitlement programs were established, they were not created to enable drug use and dependency; and some drastic changes need to be made to save our economy. Entitlement spending is 60% of the national budget. We've got to start cutting somewhere, and this is a good start.

I'm sorry. I missed this, and I can't believe nobody else addressed it. Entitlement spending (that is Social Security and Medicare) accounted for 43% of the national budget in 2010 (a total of $1,494 billion). A man of numbers, such as yourself, should try to avoid excess exaggeration, don't you think?

At the same time, the social security tax accounted for 40% of the federal government's income (a total of $865 billion). That means we spent $629 billion more on entitlement than we put into it in the first place. Yes, I agree that's bad. Since the vast majority of people who receive ENTITLEMENT payments (IE, Social Security - money they are entitled to because they paid into the system) have paid into the system for years, I don't think it's fair to try to make them pay for economic shortfalls. I think Medicare spending could be reduced with better regulation of the health industry. I think defense spending could be reduced by discontinuing cold-war programs. I don't think forcing 40,000 people in Florida to piss in a cup is going to fix ANYTHING in the federal budget - Especially since for 2009 (the latest year I have records for) TANF spending was 21.8 billion, while total federal spending was 3,100 billion (3.1 trillion). Percentage-wise, that's a paltry .7% (not 7 even... point 7... less than one percent). Less than one penny from every dollar spent by the government in 2009 went toward TANF.

How's that for your big budget savings?
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm sorry. I missed this, and I can't believe nobody else addressed it. Entitlement spending (that is Social Security and Medicare) accounted for 43% of the national budget in 2010 (a total of $1,494 billion). A man of numbers, such as yourself, should try to avoid excess exaggeration, don't you think?

60%.

Look again. $2.03 trillion on total spending of $3.6 trillion.
I wish it were an exaggeration, but it ain't.:wink:

Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010 | The Heritage Foundation
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Furthermore, this is now the second original thread as well as the 38th post starinvestor has made in the last 1-2 weeks where he is either attacking a board member or launching veiled character assassinations at those who are or even try to remotely speak up for the poor or working class in this nation. How many times do we have to be subjected to a fury of "holier than thou" nonsense from a money grubbing, corporate shrill who trashes the board, let is totally dependent on its existence to vent out his frustrations with his own financial & societal failures, and constantly take jabs at those with more left leaning mentalities? My GOD, when does the bullshit stop?

that is simply not true. If i don't share the same opinion as some of the extreme left wingers on this board, that is a difference of opinion not an attack or assassination.

The only one with hatred in his posts is you, Vinyl Boy. You have defended drug use repeatedly for as far back as I can remember. I simply disagree with you, and I don't see the need for heavy drug use in our society; and I certainly wouldn't wave around the constitution to validate drug use with public funds. I believe you a nd a few other posters are making a mockery of the constitution with this argument.

You also take exception to the notion of capitalism and a free market economy, but at the same time you've gone out and started your own karaoke business using the same entrepeneurial spirit that you seem to resent.

Frankly, I don't see where you can be objective in light of your disgust for conservatives; and you and i will never agree on drug use so let's just drop that argument.
 

B_cosmognosis

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Posts
268
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Since no one has mentioned it yet, I will. For those who think this is Rick Scott trying to help out you poor people whose tax money is going to support these 'druggies', let me clue you in on the truth. Turns out Mr. Scott has a vested interest in the outcome of this legislation because he wants to line his own fucking pockets.

The governor started a company in 2001 called Solantic. One of the things that this health management company specializes in is...wait for it...DRUG TESTING. To avoid 'conflict of interest' (read: to make fools of all but the stupidest of us) he has divested his personal interest in the company and now his wife (how's that for distancing yourself) owns Solantic.

...[H]e signed an executive order requiring random drug testing of many state employees and applicants for state jobs. He's also urged state legislators to pass a similar bill that would require drug testing of poor Floridians applying for welfare.

Among the services that Solantic offers: drug testing.


...the health care business Scott handed over to his wife when he took office could reap a major profit if the legislation becomes law.
Details here.

These goddamned Republicans are making those of you who continue to support their graft, greed and egregious corruption look like absolute FOOLS.


Thoughts? Questions? Comments?
 
Last edited:

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Since no one has mentioned it yet, I will. For those who think this is Rick Scott trying to help out you poor people whose tax money is going to support these 'druggies', let me clue you in on the truth. Turns out Mr. Scott has a vested interest in the outcome of this legislation because he wants to line his own fucking pockets.

The governor started a company in 2001 called Solantic. One of the things that this health management company specializes in is...wait for it...DRUG TESTING. To avoid 'conflict of interest' (read: to make fools of all but the stupidest of us) he has divested his personal interest in the company and now his wife (how's that for distancing yourself) owns Solantic.

Details here.

These goddamned Republicans are making those of you who continue to support their graft, greed and egregious corruption look like absolute FOOLS.


Thoughts? Questions? Comments?

Interesting find.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
that is simply not true. If i don't share the same opinion as some of the extreme left wingers on this board, that is a difference of opinion not an attack or assassination.

There's also a difference between having a different opinion as well as forming one as an insult to the ones that disagree with you as well. Don't even try to play the victim here, as if every time you resort to insulting the poor, the working class, to "liberals" that you were doing it out of sincerity. Nobody here is "extreme" as you falsely claim.

The only one with hatred in his posts is you, Vinyl Boy. You have defended drug use repeatedly for as far back as I can remember.

First off, going by your actions and your continued need to come onto the Politics section and take a rhetorical & character degrading dump on people who make less money than you it's proof that the only insecure, paranoid and angry person is you. Secondly, I don't "defend" drug users. Just because I speak from an angle that understands that the war on drugs is a useless battle that costs us billions of dollars and unfairly jails people for years just for possession doesn't mean that I endorse all drug use. Talk about going to extremes... how is it that you even come to these ridiculous conclusions?

I simply disagree with you, and I don't see the need for heavy drug use in our society; and I certainly wouldn't wave around the constitution to validate drug use with public funds.

I never said or implied that. Stop making up facetious arguments in a sad attempt to take the moral high ground.

I believe you a nd a few other posters are making a mockery of the constitution with this argument.

LOL... and this is the one who was trying to take the very same document and twist it to deny rights to people who you "think" are heavy drug users or terrorists. Please, Mary... :rolleyes:

You also take exception to the notion of capitalism and a free market economy, but at the same time you've gone out and started your own karaoke business using the same entrepeneurial spirit that you seem to resent.

You don't have the foggiest clue what I do musically so spare me the so-called "attack" on my business. Secondly, I understand that our financial system is not 100% Capitalistic despite your continued disingenuous posturing... which allows me to take advantage of the system without abusing it all the while knowing that it's not perfect and have the willingness to point out what I think are flaws within it. Thirdly, I'd expect someone who is your field would know how to actually SPELL entrepreneurial. Not to play spelling nazi here, however, since this post is nothing about the thread topic and yet another character attack I see no problem kicking you while you're already down.

Frankly, I don't see where you can be objective in light of your disgust for conservatives; and you and i will never agree on drug use so let's just drop that argument.

I can't have a disgust for "conservatives" especially since I've voted for one in the past. However, I can have a disgust for you personally since every time you turn around you're trying to position yourself as the moral center and the symbol everyone should ascend to... and truth be told, Mary, you will NEVER be able to reach where I place on that ladder even with all the money you claim to have. Money doesn't buy respect or a validation of one's ideologies. So stick to the issues and make it less about the attitudes or character of the people you don't like. Perhaps then I may have a shred of respect for you.

Now do you have anything to address on that post you quoted that is actually about the thread? I mean, I provided all of that information about those dreaded "entitlement programs" that you think are such a drain to your personal tax dollars, and you didn't address a single thing about it. Typical. :rolleyes:
 

two-fister

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Posts
443
Media
0
Likes
338
Points
283
Location
Baker Island (U.S. Minor Outlying Islands)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You forgot a bullet point:

  • cost tax payers an additional $5,424,000
You see, though the bill will require welfare recipients to pay for their test out of pocket, it then calls for them to be reimbursed when they pass. The average drug test costs $48. There are 113,000 welfare recipients in Florida. Multiply those figures and you get $5,424,000. That's a lot of money. Of course, this doesn't include the salaries of the new public employees (EG Bloated Government Bureaucrats) who will be verifying these drug tests, nor the court costs associated with the inevitable appeals of those who do test positive (which will likely amount to about 8% of the population tested).

I just don't buy the whole "this saves the average tax payer money" BS. It doesn't. It costs them money by adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already inflated system. I really thought a staunch conservative stalwart such as yourself would understand this. The solution should be less government, right?

that's the bottom line.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Just another battle in the war against the poor. Why not drug testing before Wall Street bailouts? Or before tax breaks for industry?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Just another battle in the war against the poor. Why not drug testing before Wall Street bailouts? Or before tax breaks for industry?

Well, that's obvious given the motives of the OP.
Since they are "successful", "make money" and "pay taxes", they're allowed to do what they want. As soon as they become dependent of the government in any shape or form they're no longer granted specific rights, even if they're in the Bill of Rights, until they can get off their "lazy asses" and become model citizens again.

Because that's what our founding fathers meant when they created all of these documents, you know. They never envisioned a day when people would actually rely on their government to do ANYTHING. I mean, even though things such as using public roads, public transportation, the post office as well as utilizing protection from local fire & police departments are other forms of government dependency, these don't count since it's only about the money and what someone makes. It's really a combination of a misconstrued beliefs about a Democracy and a "free market system", with just a dash of plutocratic nonsense that goes right under the radar since it sounds more like a country under the rule of a cute Disney character than one where only people with the most money have their voices count and their needs attended to.

C.R.E.A.M. bitches!! Betta go diversify those bonds, n***a. :cool: :rolleyes:
And I swear, the next person who sits here and thinks this is some "attack" on the rich is an outright idiot.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, that's obvious given the motives of the OP.
Since they are "successful", "make money" and "pay taxes", they're allowed to do what they want. As soon as they become dependent of the government in any shape or form they're no longer granted specific rights, even if they're in the Bill of Rights, until they can get off their "lazy asses" and become model citizens again.

Because that's what our founding fathers meant when they created all of these documents, you know. They never envisioned a day when people would actually rely on their government to do ANYTHING. I mean, even though things such as using public roads, public transportation, the post office as well as utilizing protection from local fire & police departments are other forms of government dependency, these don't count since it's only about the money and what someone makes. It's really a combination of a misconstrued beliefs about a Democracy and a "free market system", with just a dash of plutocratic nonsense that goes right under the radar since it sounds more like a country under the rule of a cute Disney character than one where only people with the most money have their voices count and their needs attended to.

C.R.E.A.M. bitches!! Betta go diversify those bonds, n***a. :cool: :rolleyes:
And I swear, the next person who sits here and thinks this is some "attack" on the rich is an outright idiot.

Wow.

You can spin it any way you want, no framers of the constitution wanted entitlement programs to enable drug addiction.

Doesn't really matter how much somebody makes, as long as they 'make' something. We need more 'make' and less 'take' and for proof please see federal budget spending.