• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug testing for welfare recipients suffers setback

No, one is a group that has paid into retirement insurance all their lives.

Social security isn't insurance. The first generation of recipients never paid in. It has always been welfare. Just because you paid a tax your whole life doesn't make it insurance.
 
Social security isn't a pension or 401 k. Current benefits are paid by current tax payers.

Just like any other insurance policy.
 
If these home test kits worked business would use them, but they don't. I know I have only ever done lab tests. Anyone here taken a non lab test for pre employment?

But companies do use them as evidenced by the links above. The test strips also test to confirm it is urine and will look for things being added to throw the results off. Nowever, have you ever been tested with a strip? Couldn't care less. Your personal experiences are meaningless when talking about what businesses do.
 
A counter-argument says that money given to wealthy citizens and corporations gets spent in ways that benefit the rest of the economy, and all people, including charitable donations.

Flat out "giving" money to wealthy citizens by government is illegal. Find me someone around here who promotes this illegal behavior.

Yet money that is given to the very poor also gets spent: locally, in ways that benefit the grocer and the landlord and other small businesses.

For one thing, BS. The poor shop cheap more than local (who are more expensive). So discount superstores benefit disproportionatey, which means... The money's back in the hands of the rich again. But that's not the important part.

The important part is the COST of taking the money from somewhere else to give it to the poor negates the added benefit. Subtract the money from one place and adding to another place is not a real net benefit.
 
Last edited:
If these home test kits worked business would use them, but they don't. I know I have only ever done lab tests. Anyone here taken a non lab test for pre employment?


I have taken them yes. Buck showed you proof that they can work. Your argument is that since they aren't 100% foolproof (and neither is lab work) that they are worthless is just wrong. These tests would help them find who is doing what. Some people will beat it. Noone is arguing that. And there would be a few false positives (thus the lab confirmation if a test is failed).

Nothing about this is unreasonable.
 
Says you. Thanks anonymous internet guy, but I will go with the experts.

You strategically omit the part of my post that helps you understand something, and then accuse me of being anecdotal?
 
He's nutshelling it, but he's right.
No, he's not. What is done with the tax money is totally uncool, but that does not negate the fact that people are taxed separately and specifically for the money to be used for them (and others, too) later in life. It is not the same as other programs where you can pay zero and still get a benefit.

To claim anything else is simply emotional knee-jerkism against government programs in any form.
 
I have taken them yes. Buck showed you proof that they can work. Your argument is that since they aren't 100% foolproof (and neither is lab work) that they are worthless is just wrong. These tests would help them find who is doing what. Some people will beat it. Noone is arguing that. And there would be a few false positives (thus the lab confirmation if a test is failed).

Nothing about this is unreasonable.

Ok then I bet granny is going to ne mad when she is told to pee in a cup to get her check.
 
I would agree on the surface, but the more i think about it, the concept predicates upon legislating morality.
 
Just like any other insurance policy.

It isn't insurance its welfare. The first entire generation of recipients didn't pay any tax. Also if it were insurance we would call them premiuma not social security tax.
 
No, he's not. What is done with the tax money is totally uncool, but that does not negate the fact that people are taxed separately and specifically for the money to be used for them (and others, too) later in life.

Incorrect. It is mostly PAYGO. Our current taxes go straight out to current retirees. Our ability collect later depends on our ability to tax younger folks later. It's not "our" money we're getting back.

It is not the same as other programs where you can pay zero and still get a benefit.

In this way it is not purely welfare, but it certainly isn't purely old age insurance either. Taxes go to general fund, and nothing but treasury bonds make up the so-called "trust fund."
 
Last edited:
Money "given" to wealthy citizens by government is illegal. Find me someone around here who promotes this illegal behavior.



For one thing, BS. The poor shop cheap more than local (who are more expensive). So discount superstores benefit disproportionatey, which means... The money's back in the hands of the rich again. But that's not the important part.

The important part is the COST of taking the money from somewhere else to give it to the poor negates the added benefit. Subtract the money from one place and adding to another place is not a real net benefit.


Taking money and giving it to the poor (which is what we do now) is a terrible idea and I agree with you that it negates any benefits. However, using money to help the poor become tax paying citizens is more productive than anything else. It may have an immediate financial burden but the payoff would be huge. In the long run our country would have more income coming in (via taxes) less going out on welfare (because people are actually getting off it) and more production (from more workers). One would even expect to see a decrease in crime. A decrease in crime would offer even further benefits, not the least of which would save more money because we would be putting less into prisons. The effects would countless. And the only downside is investing more up front.
 
Social security isn't insurance. The first generation of recipients never paid in. It has always been welfare. Just because you paid a tax your whole life doesn't make it insurance.

Social security is insurance against being destitute in old age after retirement. Which candidate is proposing to do away with SS anyway???

The first recipients of any insurance companies are treated no differently. If you take out policy to insure you for accidents, and have an accident a month later, other than excluding any fraud on your part, you are paid in full for your coverage, even though you have been a customer for only a month.

That's how insurance works.
 
Incorrect. It is mostly PAYGO. Our current taxes go straight out to current retirees. Our ability collect later depends on our ability to tax younger folks later. It's not "our" money we're getting back.
No, you do not get back the exact same literal money that you paid in. I never expect to get the literal same $10 bill back that I deposit into my bank account, but I know that I still get $10 back.

And people ask me why I often put disclaimers in my posts. One would think that every single little nuance wouldn't have to be listed. That said minor nuances don't invalidate the general point. But, apparently they are necessary. :roll:
 
Social security is insurance against being destitute in old age after retirement. Which candidate is proposing to do away with SS anyway???

The first recipients of any insurance companies are treated no differently. If you take out policy to insure you for accidents, and have an accident a month later, other than excluding any fraud on your part, you are paid in full for your coverage, even though you have been a customer for only a month.

That's how insurance works.

Social security is a tax. The opposition in congress called it welfare because that's what it is. The first recipients never paid one premium.
 
Last edited:
I need to speak up about Social Security. It is incorrect to equate this to welfare.

The figures below are loose estimates, on the low side, but it is accurate enough to make my point.

I currently receive $2244.00 monthly. I am 68 years old. By the year 1960, I had paid in at least $1000.00. If the USG bought a 52 year treasury with MY money at 4% (actual rates were higher but I'm trying to make a point without being called out for exaggeration) that $1000 would be worth $3080.00.

Over my lifetime, I paid in about $180,000.00. If I had received the going interest rate of each period, my account value would probably be AT LEAST $360,000.00.

I started collecting at age 67. I'm projected to expire at age 77 (using annuity tables). So, I'll get back $250,000.00 by the time I toddle off to The Rainbow Bridge. The USG will take a $100,000.00 profit on the deal.

I have savings. I could probably support myself without Social Security. However, I'm entitled to it because I PAID FOR IT. It's not welfare. It's just a form of savings. I provided all the money being used for my monthly check.

So, please don't equate Social Security to Welfare.

Now, I think the Social Security system should be remodeled and I'm full of brilliant ideas about this but that's off topic so eventually I'll post this wisdom in an appropriate thread.

<<stretches fingers, rubs eyes, goes to take shower>>
 
I need to speak up about Social Security. It is incorrect to equate this to welfare.

The figures below are loose estimates, on the low side, but it is accurate enough to make my point.

I currently receive $2244.00 monthly. I am 68 years old. By the year 1960, I had paid in at least $1000.00. If the USG bought a 52 year treasury with MY money at 4% (actual rates were higher but I'm trying to make a point without being called out for exaggeration) that $1000 would be worth $3080.00.

Over my lifetime, I paid in about $180,000.00. If I had received the going interest rate of each period, my account value would probably be AT LEAST $360,000.00.

I started collecting at age 67. I'm projected to expire at age 77 (using annuity tables). So, I'll get back $250,000.00 by the time I toddle off to The Rainbow Bridge. The USG will take a $100,000.00 profit on the deal.

I have savings. I could probably support myself without Social Security. However, I'm entitled to it because I PAID FOR IT. It's not welfare. It's just a form of savings. I provided all the money being used for my monthly check.

So, please don't equate Social Security to Welfare.

Now, I think the Social Security system should be remodeled and I'm full of brilliant ideas about this but that's off topic so eventually I'll post this wisdom in an appropriate thread.

<<stretches fingers, rubs eyes, goes to take shower>>

You dont want to think of it as welfare because you collect it and it would hurt your feelings, but the fact is that when the law was passed it was called welfare.

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Why Social Security is WelfareWe don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v. Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

All this makes Social Security "welfare."
Robert J. Samuelson - Why Social Security is welfare
 
Social security is a tax. The opposition in congress called it welfare because that's what it is. The first recipients never paid one premium.

That's the way insurance works. If you think it should be repealed I suggest you start a political party wishing to take your view as their platform.
 
You dont want to think of it as welfare because you collect it and it would hurt your feelings, but the fact is that when the law was passed it was called welfare.

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Why Social Security is WelfareWe don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v. Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

All this makes Social Security "welfare."
Robert J. Samuelson - Why Social Security is welfare
You didn't prove anything by posting this. All you did was find another person who spouts and opines what you want to hear.

And the notion that the first recipients didn't pay in is wholly irrelevant 75+/- years later.


That's the way insurance works. If you think it should be repealed I suggest you start a political party wishing to take your view as their platform.
Apparently, institutions like banks and insurance companies are engaging in welfare because they take money, use it for a different purpose, then give you "different" money back later when necessary. Or, is it just the government that is guilty of welfare because the government is the "bad guys"?
 
That's the way insurance works. If you think it should be repealed I suggest you start a political party wishing to take your view as their platform.

If social secuty is insurance so are food stamps. Fact is the called it welfare when they passed it.
 
Quote Originally Posted by kenvin View Post

You dont want to think of it as welfare because you collect it and it would hurt your feelings, but the fact is that when the law was passed it was called welfare.

He doesnt think of it as welfare because it is something he invested money into. It is something he has worked to receive. He explained that pretty well. He earned it. He didnt just show up at an office and say gimme. SS is not welfare.
 
He doesnt think of it as welfare because it is something he invested money into. It is something he has worked to receive. He explained that pretty well. He earned it. He didnt just show up at an office and say gimme. SS is not welfare.

Golly white folks hate when you point out they are sucking the government for.
 
Back
Top Bottom