10 key reasons why the Obama presidency continues to melt down - Polidicks

This is one of the most biased blog posts I've seen, and some of his sources are also ridiculous blog posts.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31619102]it's called addiction[/QUOTE] If you're addicted to drugs and you ask for help, you will get help. But there's a problem if you want to use American tax money to fund a drug habit.

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619079]Then they should stop using drugs, and take the welfare...[/QUOTE] 1 - Poor person has a drug addiction 2 - Suggests "stop taking drugs" Uhh... [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=McMissile;31619129]If you're addicted to drugs and you ask for help, you will get help. But there's a problem if you want to use American tax money to fund a drug habit.[/QUOTE] Then what would you suggest they do if they tested them for drugs and got a positive result?

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619129]If you're addicted to drugs and you ask for help, you will get help. [/QUOTE] uh no you don't, if you are a lower-class american you get a jail sentence.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31619145]uh no you don't, if you are a lower-class american you get a jail sentence.[/QUOTE] At least then they get healthcare.

[QUOTE=Contag;31619107][quote]In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37% — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action[/quote][/QUOTE] Exactly, it is fully paid for itself until 2036. It does not run a debt, the yearly income for social security was surplus until last year, which was the first year that the output overtook the income. But the income it brought in will still continue to fully fund social security until 2036. We have 25 years to figure out a solution to it, it is not something that needs to be cut immediately, by any means.

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619129]If you're addicted to drugs and you ask for help, you will get help. But there's a problem if you want to use American tax money to fund a drug habit.[/QUOTE] No you're going get jail time and most of the time these people are too poor to afford rehab.

[QUOTE=Contag;31619125]Drug testing would either be utterly ineffective, or so expensive that it's cheaper to just subsidize their habit.[/QUOTE] About 50 dollars per person, not anywhere near the amount someone would be given for welfare benefits. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31619130]1 - Poor person has a drug addiction 2 - Suggests "stop taking drugs" Uhh... [editline]8th August 2011[/editline] Then what would you suggest they do if they tested them for drugs and got a positive result?[/QUOTE] Deny them welfare benefits until they test positive. I'm not going to pretend like drug testing everyone is the perfect solution. But there are huge problems with allowing people to abuse the welfare system. Income security is a huge part of our budget.. If we can cut down on some of that then we're one step closer to solving this debt issue.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31619159']Exactly, it is fully paid for itself until 2036. It does not run a debt, the yearly income for social security was surplus until last year, which was the first year that the output overtook the income. But the income it brought in will still continue to fully fund social security until 2036. We have 25 years to figure out a solution to it, it is not something that needs to be cut immediately, by any means.[/QUOTE] If it's fully funded for the next 2 and a half decades, then why did Obama say the checks would stop going out if a debt bill wasn't passed?

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619239]About 50 dollars per person, not anywhere near the amount someone would be given for welfare benefits.[/QUOTE] 50 dollars per person? Where did you get that figure? Is that per week, or? I did a cost breakdown for it, and it's prohibitively expensive.

[QUOTE=Chilean;31618977]you're a libertarian in the same way glenn beck is[/QUOTE] But without the crying or shilling gold...

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619239]About 50 dollars per person, not anywhere near the amount someone would be given for welfare benefits. Deny them welfare benefits until they test positive. I'm not going to pretend like drug testing everyone is the perfect solution. But there are huge problems with allowing people to abuse the welfare system. Income security is a huge part of our budget.. If we can cut down on some of that then we're one step closer to solving this debt issue.[/QUOTE] But drug testing is not how we do that. I agree with you, we do need to cut down on abusers, but I don't think you're targeting the right people and supporting the right methods.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31619274']But drug testing is not how we do that. I agree with you, we do need to cut down on abusers, but I don't think you're targeting the right people and supporting the right methods.[/QUOTE] What do you reccomend?

[QUOTE=Ridge;31619258]If it's fully funded for the next 2 and a half decades, then why did Obama say the checks would stop going out if a debt bill wasn't passed?[/QUOTE] Because if we didn't get something going, the existing funds for SS would be converted over to pay the debt immediately or to keep necessary government functions going. The same thing with immediate military funds, and all welfare programs. It wasn't just SS, all spending would be heavily reduced and existing funds of all programs would be used.

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619239]I'm not going to pretend like drug testing everyone is the perfect solution. But there are huge problems with allowing people to abuse the welfare system. Income security is a huge part of our budget.. If we can cut down on some of that then we're one step closer to solving this debt issue.[/QUOTE] You speak as though social service abuse is widespread when that simply isn't the case. Unemployment insurance for example has an fraud rate of less than 2%, and you're going to bust the balls of drug addicts who need money for food because they're addicted to drugs?

why are we going so though on welfare abuse when the country looses massive amounts of money from white-collar abuse? i mean how many companies in america pay zero corporate tax using barely legal methods?

[QUOTE=thisispain;31619314]why are we going so though on welfare abuse when the country looses massive amounts of money from white-collar abuse? i mean how many companies in america pay zero corporate tax using barely legal methods?[/QUOTE] Closing corporate tax loopholes is the way to go.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31619328]Closing corporate tax loopholes is the way to go.[/QUOTE] That, and a flat tax for those making above a certain amount (say, $30,000)

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619290]What do you reccomend?[/QUOTE] Increased case-by-case involvement through social workers or other professionals to detect corruption or abuse, and investigating medical businesses authorized to recommend for welfare. Not nearly as cheap, but it doesn't fuck over those who need it and isn't as general as "All drug users are abusive leeches, so we'll fuck them all." There's so many more complications through that, specifically with payments to families, conflicts of interest between states and government over methadone and medical marijuana, and prevention of treatment aid for addicts.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31619343]That, and a flat tax for those making above a certain amount (say, $30,000)[/QUOTE] Are you out of your mind?

[QUOTE=McMissile;31619239]About 50 dollars per person, not anywhere near the amount someone would be given for welfare benefits. Deny them welfare benefits until they test positive. I'm not going to pretend like drug testing everyone is the perfect solution. But there are huge problems with allowing people to abuse the welfare system. Income security is a huge part of our budget.. If we can cut down on some of that then we're one step closer to solving this debt issue.[/QUOTE] if this is your idea of solving the debt issue then you need to take economics 101. 50 dollars per person would be a HUGE amount of money, do you have any idea how many people are on welfare?

[QUOTE=Ridge;31619343]That, and a flat tax for those making above a certain amount (say, $30,000)[/QUOTE] no that's a stupid idea that's already been proven to be stupid several times

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31619345']Increased case-by-case involvement through social workers or other professionals to detect corruption or abuse, and investigating medical businesses authorized to recommend for welfare. Not nearly as cheap, but it doesn't fuck over those who need it and isn't as general as "All drug users are abusive leeches, so we'll fuck them all." There's so many more complications through that, specifically with payments to families, conflicts of interest between states and government over methadone and medical marijuana, and prevention of treatment aid for addicts.[/QUOTE] Again, abuse in these systems is not nearly as prevalent as you say.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31619343]That, and a flat tax for those making above a certain amount (say, $30,000)[/QUOTE] I'm in favor of high taxes for the higher ups, but instituting more taxes on the middle class, which, while likely necessary, I can't support.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31619364]no that's a stupid idea that's already been proven to be stupid several times[/QUOTE] Additionally, I'd like to know what percent he'd tax them at, flatly.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31619366]Again, abuse in these systems is not nearly as prevalent as you say.[/QUOTE] From my first hand experience, I know that it exists is all I'm saying. He asked for an alternative, I offered.

This is from a few months ago when florida tried to do it: For it to be effective they would have to do a hair analysis every 90 days, which would cost $400-$2000 a year, not including administration or oversight costs (basically, assuming everyone collects their own hair and mails it to the lab, paying their own postage). With the ~115,000 people receiving welfare at the moment in florida, that's $46M - $230M. Now, that's how much it would cost for the tests alone if this wasn't just a political stunt. Which it is. [quote]Officials estimate the initial screenings would cost about $10 per person[/quote] So they're probably using the cheapest possible test, which detects metabolites of drugs on a subweek timescale. Even then, as they tested only every six months with a cheap-as-dirt onsite testing appartus, the safest option to simply not ingest drugs for two months of every year. Hell, just stop using drugs a few days before your test and you'll be fine. [quote]In 1999, Michigan began drug-testing all welfare recipients, prompting the ACLU to sue. In 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that universal testing was unconstitutional, and the ACLU and the state reached an agreement that allowed drug tests of welfare recipients only if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was using drugs.[/quote] So it's doubtful that the bill will survive a few months.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31619368']I'm in favor of high taxes for the higher ups, but instituting more taxes on the middle class, which, while likely necessary, I can't support.[/QUOTE] We have entire income brackets that don't see even a slight increase in income tax percentage. It cuts off at about ~$350k.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31619305]You speak as though social service abuse is widespread when that simply isn't the case. Unemployment insurance for example has an fraud rate of less than 2%, and you're going to bust the balls of drug addicts who need money for food because they're addicted to drugs?[/QUOTE] That is a good point, and after thinking about it, drug testing [I]every[/I] American would be wayyy to expensive. So drug testing evidently is not a viable option. But we need to take care of our debt, and there are equally large flaws with the way our welfare system is being run... We can't just continue to ignore these problems because they're not going to fix themselves.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31619379']From my first hand experience, I know that it exists is all I'm saying. He asked for an alternative, I offered.[/QUOTE] It certainly exists, but it's negligible to be honest.