With any government program, we can look at the intent, and then await to see how the unintended consequences work out.
That your example was meant to be absurd, in humor, etc ... it was also the only example you gave. Like I said ... Bud Lite maybe.
I am a firm believer that before you can gauge the effectivelness of any program, you have to set it on the strongest possible foundation, then go up from there. Not subsidizing crack heads is integral to any good foundation. Its better for taxpayers. Its better for those who have a crack-head in their link of dependency. And it even puts the pressure on the crack head to be accountable. That makes it not only a win .. but all in spades.
For anyone here to suggest that I have to subsidize a crack head, for even the most convoluted reason, is left-wing liberal willy-nilly nonsense. We have self-poroclaimed Libertarians here who apparently haven't a clue about being a Libertarian. I don't give a **** what anyone sticks in their bodies using their money (so long as they endanger no one else). But I'll be god-damned if they will do it with my money.
Can't be more simple.
LMAO
did you simply just talk like that and think it was that simple?
While again I agree with you in premise the fact remains that you just painted that story biasly with your own partisan brush and not with the brush of reality.
1.) why even mention libertarians, liberals or left wing willy nilly nonsense? this weakens your argument it doesnt strengthen in to anybody objective.
2.) do I agree that "Not subsidizing crack heads is integral to any good foundation." of course but acting like this is all its going to do is dishonesty. Will it do this? it absolutely might and that would be AWESOME.
it could also only catch people that smoke weed and miss all the hard core drug attics
it could also good triple costs since 90+% of these recipients arent on drugs.
it could also could make those 90% fill discriminated against or feel their rights are being violated.
It could also increase crime and domestic disputes
it could also flood the child services system
it could also gives us MORE dependents instead of less.
again Im not saying its going to do any of this for sure or that its good or bad even, just saying these things arent any more less likely to happen in any great margin with out more facts that we do not have.
Sorry, like i said in theory Im all for this but I wont act like its gonna be all sunshine and rainbows and its certainly not "simple" by any stretch of the imagination.
I hope it works and works well and I hope if its broken it can be easily fixed to make it work.