Pretty sad that Basement Boy has to try and ride the coattails of a losing liberal commentator.

But who knows what reasons the Koch brothers have for doing what they do. As for the Florida law, I think it sounds pretty awesome. People who get gov't taxpayer money should be drug tested. The leading cause of death in the county where I live is drug overdose. Heroin overdoses are now epidemic. My wife just went to a funeral for a girl, 24 yrs old, who overdosed. My wife's best friend's daughter got addicted to heroin. Church-going people.

But instead of talking about something important, Ms. Bloviator sounds like she's just uncovered the greatest scandal since Teapot Dome. She must be very satisfied with herself. Bravo.

If the poor have it so good, why aren't the rich people throwing away their fortunes?

oh wait..that's because the poor don't have it so good.

If Fox news and their pundits want to fix fraud, that's great..more power to them, but it just seems like they could care less about that...they'd rather just demonize the poor even though a number of those poor probably do vote republican.

so hey, way to expand that big tent GOP.

It always cracks me up at how the right might make a genuine observation like fraud in a system, but instead of coming up with a way to fix that fraud, they either come up with a solution that is completely worse or more expensive than the problem (requiring drug tests for food stamps...drug tests aren't cheap yo) or they just demonize anyone who might use that system regardless.

news flash, demonizing an entire class of people isn't a great way to get them to vote for you. more poor people than rich people dumbasses

Pretty sure this needs a drug test

"You daam son of bitch, no drug test, Lose job!!

Well there were drug-free riders but they got the heave ho from the sport thanks to Lance. After that I have no doubt it wasn't worth competing unless you decided to use PEDs.
Also I think it's instructive to read cyclist Nicole Cooke's retirement speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-retirement-statement

Here's an extract;
"Every scandal on the men's side has caused sponsors to leave on the Women's side. And with such thin budgets, the losses have a greater relative impact on what survives. In areas where there was unique female development and growth, such as in Canada, which hosted a major Tour, a World Cup and the World Championships, all geared to supporting their number one rider — Genevieve Jeanson, there has been calamity. Perhaps Jeanson will not be a name familiar to you. She was the Canadian superstar, a national icon. She never tested positive. She missed a drugs test when she beat me and received a meaningless fine as a consequence. She exceeded the 50% Hematocrit level and the authorities acted in line with their legislation and imposed a "health rest" on her."

Is it true what the male reporter says about DUI? I wasn't aware that there was a way to measure active marijuana in the system and I also thought that was always a big problem with employer drug testing.

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.


Are you arguing that the government should issue you an itemized bill for all the services you used? because that would be a logistical nightmare and would cost even more taxpayer dollars.

Taxes aren't perfect, they never will be, unless you want to strictly regulate who gets paid what and introduce some sort of tracking system for who uses what gov't service. Besides, a lot of these services benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. As a non-business owning citizen, I may not require an interstate system and a well maintained set of roads to ship my products on. But it benefits me all the same. I get to use it for recreation and traveling, and I use it to travel to my job.

Quite frankly, I did answer your question, but now it seems you're changing your question.

Strictly speaking, I would agree that every citizen should be taxed, even the poor who would normally be exempt, Every little bit helps, but I think what happens is that the government looks at the cost of what it takes to enforce that 47 percent to pay their tax vs what they actually give in return because they're so poor and it probably just isn't cost effective. That's my guess anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the poor aren't jumping up and down and saying "nyah nyah, I don't have to pay taxes and you do" They have other problems...like the fact that they're poor.

It's another situation where the solution is worse than the problem. One argument I hear from my conservative friends is that they want drug testing for welfare recipients. Sounds great right? all things being equal It's an argument that I might even support. But the reality is, drug tests aren't cheap. They cost a fuckton of money. Compare that to the money actually lost and in the end, it just costs us even more money just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see! our money isn't going to make people high. Oh wait, why are my taxes higher?

Closing corporate loopholes is one of the few things I've heard both the left and right agree upon. Problem is, it won't happen because behind each and every one of those loopholes is a business who benefits from it and some of those businesses lean left, and some of those businesses lean right and NEITHER want their particular loopholes closed. That's why you'll always see people say they're for it, but are never specific on which ones.

Gov't isn't perfect, but if you've got a problem with it. vote. or else leave, or just STFU

We treat the office of the president as if one person can solve our problems..they can't. The two party system is a failure and only divides our country.

Man some of these are downright evil, like the drug test one.

>> ^VoodooV:

im not saying she didn't screw up, just that we're asking the wrong people.
It's congress that made this stuff illegal in the first place. Instead of picking on the DEA, Congress should get off it's ass and..oh I don't know...be the leaders we elected them to be?

>> ^PalmliX:

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

QFT.

She's the head of the Drug ENFORCEMENT Agency, not the Drug Figure Out Which Drugs Are Worse Than Others Agency.

Ummmm shouldn't we be blaming congress which passed the law making marijuana schedule 1 in the first place? According to US federal law, marijuana IS AS harmful as meth, crack, heroin etc... Her job is to enforce those laws which congress passes, not to critically analyze the latest science behind drug testing, is anyone really surprised then at the way she answered? In other words, don't hate the player hate the game.

I'm pretty sure in Kansas, he'd lose his license. And I'm not really sure I even disagree with it.

Most people are dangerous enough behind the wheel when sober. So, unlike most jobs (where it's legally permissible to demand tests without probable cause), there is actual value in random alcohol/drug testing for drivers. Not to mention that waiting for "probable cause" for alcohol testing is, in many cases, too late. Your probable cause is someone having a wreck.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^Fletch:
>> ^Darkhand:
I support this kind of legislation. Even if it's totally wrong at least it will shut up everyone who says that welfare recipients are drug addled losers.

I bet Florida welfare recipients would disagree that the effect you mention justifies the means. I just think if it wasn't drug testing, it would be some other hoop to jump through. This isn't about drug testing.

You may be right.
But eventually someone SOMEWHERE has to put this theory to test. I'm sorry it has to be anyone but at the very least the citizens of Florida will now be used as a perfect case to NOT implement this sort of legislation anywhere.

Why?! It's just so random a requirement. To accept it as necessary or reasonable, you first have to buy into the bullshit that needy people are on drugs. It's like requiring drug testing for all gay couples who seek a marriage license, or for all gun owners. It's just a barrier.
It shouldn't be a requirement in Florida or anywhere else, and to rationalize or justify it as some sort of case study that other states can point to is just ridiculous. Welfare recipients shouldn't be treated as guinea pigs just to benefit a few idiots looking to score points with their dipshit lemming constituents.


Well that's the problem Fletch, people ARE buying into the fact that welfare people are drug addled losers because that's what the conservative base is selling to them and their party members are just eating it up. Nobody wants to be giving their money away to someone and having them just sort of kick back and mooching when they could be working and making their own money.

It's not about making anyone into Guinea pigs the problem is EVENTUALLY this was going to become a law somewhere. If you keep repeating something, no matter how false it is, and you get other people to repeat it for you this is what happens.

Just be happy we didn't have a conservative president who made this some sort of crazy Federal law for all 50 states to obey.

Me Personally? I know of 2 people that are on some sort of government aid that all use that money to buy drugs and pay for their rent. So I'm sorry to say it DOES happen sometimes.

In an election year this was a mistake for the republicans and a victory for democrats. I try to take some solace in that.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^Darkhand:
I support this kind of legislation. Even if it's totally wrong at least it will shut up everyone who says that welfare recipients are drug addled losers.

I bet Florida welfare recipients would disagree that the effect you mention justifies the means. I just think if it wasn't drug testing, it would be some other hoop to jump through. This isn't about drug testing.

You may be right.
But eventually someone SOMEWHERE has to put this theory to test. I'm sorry it has to be anyone but at the very least the citizens of Florida will now be used as a perfect case to NOT implement this sort of legislation anywhere.


Why?! It's just so random a requirement. To accept it as necessary or reasonable, you first have to buy into the bullshit that needy people are on drugs. It's like requiring drug testing for all gay couples who seek a marriage license, or for all gun owners. It's just a barrier.

It shouldn't be a requirement in Florida or anywhere else, and to rationalize or justify it as some sort of case study that other states can point to is just ridiculous. Welfare recipients shouldn't be treated as guinea pigs just to benefit a few idiots looking to score points with their dipshit lemming constituents.

>> ^notarobot:

blocked in Canada. Use modify headers to get around silly geographic silliness
or
use this link: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with
-jon-stewart/full-episodes/#clip610145


Yarr, blocked in Thailand also. I tried your .ca link here, but it manages to stream a 30 second commercial only to say "sorry, we are experiencing temporary difficulties downloading your lineup". Living in a land of ubiquitous piracy plus running 99% of the time with AdBlock and NoScript has made me very impatient with advertising, DRM, etc.!

Thanks anyway for the alternate ideas, I'm looking up the modify headers solution now.

Just think of the 60s' and 70s' doper generations who will be retiring soon and no longer have to think of drug testing. Old folk dopers will be on the rise.