Comments for Matters Of Opinion

Comment on There’s More Going On Than Just “Right To Work” by Travis

Travis — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:02:34 +0000

Again: easy. What is thirty bucks per person out of a check when originally they would have gotten nothing? They can either pay up front or have it deducted from their first check. And, like I said, the 2% test is fine for mock arguments, but each state is different regionally, so it’s hardly a solid base number.

Comment on There’s More Going On Than Just “Right To Work” by Travis

Travis — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:54:54 +0000

I disagree on a few points here, Curt. One, the two states will obviously have different demographics and will come up with different results. If the pilot program shows low results and that it isn’t worth doing, then all the better. But, there is also a matter of principle here regarding welfare recipients and drug use, and also a pattern that could help drug users get the help that they need. The false positives could be easily fixed by allowing for a redo, or even two of them, right there in the office if they fail. Now a days the tests results can show up very quickly, and so it would bring the numbers of people that would “fall into the crack” to almost zero. What type should be tested? All, as far as I’m concerned. If it is illegal, it should be tested. Drugs cost money, and taxpayers should not have to subsidize that habit. With the alcohol (and tobacco, for that matter) usage, I would love for there to be some kind of test, but there isn’t, so why bother posing “straw man” arguments, if there is nothing that can be done about it? With the issue of morality, isn’t it better to send them to get the help they need, and have the understanding that their checks would be deducted over time to pay for the costs? It works with other types of “pay it forward” means, why not this one? The children solution would be easy, as well. Which is worse, for a child to live in the home of a drug abuser and starve, posibly be neglected? Or be put under the states care? That is the real morality issue.

Comment on There’s More Going On Than Just “Right To Work” by Curt

Curt — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:52:01 +0000

In 2009, Indiana spent approximately $108 million to provide basic assistance through TANF (temporary aid to needy families) to just under 100,000 families. These are the folks you would cut off aid to. Using the 2% positive test result in the Florida pilot project, it could be estimated that the state would save $2.16 million.

Now, let’s look at the costs of the drug testing. Most drug tests cost between $25 to $30. Let’s use $25 per test to test 100,000 people comes to $2.5 million. And that doesn’t include the costs of all of the paperwork and bureaucracy.

So, in the best case, the State will save….ummmm….NOTHING. IT WILL COST THE TAXPAYERS an additional $340,000.

Yep, stupid and not cost effective.

Comment on There’s More Going On Than Just “Right To Work” by Curt

Curt — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:27:43 +0000

yeah, the whole drug testing thing is stupid and so not cost effective.

First, Indiana family services administration has estimated that setting up such a program would cost over $1 million….before you save one penny in reduced welfare payments.

Second, Florida did a pilot project where they found less than 2% failed the initial drug test. National studies show that standard drug testing produce between 5% and 10% false positives. So, with that high of a false positive rate, we will also have to have a system of appeals for test results, thus incurring more costs and bureaucracy. And this doesn’t even address the court cases that are going to ensue.

Studies also show that standard drug testing also produces false negatives between 10% and 15%. So, when you add in the 5% to 10% false positives to the 10% to 15% false negatives, anywhere between 15% and 25% of the results will be WRONG.

Then one should ask what type of drug test will be done. For current use or past use? So, if a mother with two children has gone through treatment and is not a current user are we going to reject her and let her children go hungry based on her PRIOR usage?

And what about alcohol? Are we going to start testing for alcohol usage? Your logic that “if they can afford to buy drugs” should also apply to “if they can afford to buy booze”. But, we all know that your body metasiticizes alcohol so fast that one can simply abstain for a week and pass a test. So, we are going to penalize drug users but not alcohol users….hardly fair.

And, lastly, there is the issue of morality. Addiction is an ILLNESS that requires medical and psychological treatment. So, if we test all of these people and get positive results are we willing to provide the very costly subsidies to our local mental health treatment centers to offer treatment? That’s like saying we are going to test you for cancer but if you test positive, tough shit. And what about the children of the person who tests positive? Because mommy smoked a joint a month ago, do you really want to let her children go hungry?

Like I said, stupid and not cost effective.

Comment on Iowa, A Close Race, and the Three Legged Stool by Travis

Travis — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:04:52 +0000

Sorry for the delay Curt, I don’t know why it didn’t automatically add it, it’s supposed to after the initial vetting process. Perhaps I do give Paul more credit than he deserves, but though I’m personally not a fan of his I try and be fair in my assessments. I’ll agree that the field should have looked a LOT better, and unless each of the final 4 do a lot of improving Obama will win again. I still like Perry, as a whole, and think he had the best record out of all of them. I think we may see more of him in the future, after he takes some time and learns how to debate.

Comment on Iowa, A Close Race, and the Three Legged Stool by Curt

Curt — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:55:03 +0000

Travis, I think you give RP way more credit than he deserves. The only reason that the Republicans won’t win this fall is that they have fielded a group of presidential candidates where the only intelligent way to choose the nominee is by figuring out who is the least worst candidate.

Seriously…Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum and Romney? They are like the Three Stooges times two. They are all incredibly flawed candidates. It is actually kind of sad and says something about the national party that this is the best that they could come up with. (Oh, wait…I forgot about Cain. LOL. Well, you probably want to forget about him too.)

Comment on Are Progressive Tax Rates Really “Ethical”? And what are the other options? by Lisa Kim

Lisa Kim — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:48:41 +0000

I totally agree with you on that!:) Thanks for such a great piece of writing. I enjoyed reading it!

Comment on The “N” Word by Bobby

Bobby — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:20:25 +0000

The founders were explicated in they’re intent that America is not an empire and to stay out of entangling alliances. Jefferson said it well when he stated: “commerce with all nations, alliances with none”. The founders understood the Blowback principle as well do the Paleo Conservatives and the libertarians. Neo Conservatism is a historical leftist ideology born from trowskyism, leo stratus, irving kristol, and the Truman left. It’s is a complete different philosophy than the “old” right republicanism born from the Lindbergh, Goldwater,Taft, Cooliage, Cleveland, Madison, and Jeffersonian right!! Neo conservatives are not expressly concerned with the welfare state. They might given token cuts to entitlements but express no objection to corpratism and the millitary industrial complex. The middle eastern threat (mainly radical Islam and Iran) come from intervention going back to the coup detat of 1953. America with British help over through a modern democratically elected government and installed a pro western dictator to protect old British imperial sovereignty over Iranian oil!!! That is just the plain fact. The blow back from this intervention was the 1979 Islamic revolution to oust the ruthless us backed shah. 9/11 was a blowback response to further American imperialism and intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, in Pakistan. The US has for over a 50 yr period backed and installed dictators to stabilize countries and then remove them once they’re purpose was fulfilled. This nation building and hypocracy is why there is so much Anti American sentiment in the region. Radical Islam is a Blowback symptom from relentless nation building and imperial intervention. It is not a response to Christian theology or hatred of western culture and democratic. The line of “they hate us because we are rich and free” falls apart when you look into the history of US intervention from a objective point of view and ask yourself ” how would we fell if they did this to us”. Americas involvement in the middle east is not the purpose of spreading democracy because democracy is never achieved when The US nation builds. They always install pro Western dictators. The goal is to control the oil!! Believe it or not. Energy is the most important concern in the future. Oil is not a renewable enegry, and Neo Conservatives see this as the ultamite security threat. He who controls the energy controls the world!!!

Comment on Iowa, A Close Race, and the Three Legged Stool by Travis

Travis — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:04:22 +0000

The best thing that I have learned to do is to lay out plainly and simply the stark differences between the full fledged libertarians and the conservatives who are “liberty minded”. For example (and I think I’ve talked to you about this one before) Ron Paul and his “Audit the Fed” bill is very popular in most Republican circles. However, seeing as the Fed hasn’t even been audited before he writes his book “End the Fed” discredits his point, because it is riding on the populism of the “Audit the Fed” movement without actually going through and DOING it. I’ve proposed in the past a system to make the Fed board more accountable, and to take away powers from them that they shouldn’t have, but to some l’s that isn’t good enough. That is because a lot of libertarian are reactionaries by nature. They want something done now, damn the consequences. That is not conservative, where we recognize that there are a lot of good libertarian ideas, but the means to the end must to slow and laborous, or else populist movements will derail them and push them to even further liberal waters. I consider myself a “fusionist”, where I agree with parts of libertarian thinking but know that it won’t work by pushing through reforms; the reforms must be natural and slow. Some l’s get this, others don’t. By pointing out this to all of them, however, it shows them that the Republican party is not necessarily showing malice towards Paul of his points. Rather, they want to do things the right way, incorporate the three legged stool, and pass GOOD legislation. This is part of the reason Reagan is the “king of the hill” for all legs; he accompanied all three stools with his policies and his ideologies.

Comment on Some Thoughts About Begging For Money… by Travis

Travis — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:54:19 +0000

Sorry for the delay, all new posters have to approved first time around and I’ve been a bit busy. You’re absolutely correct when you say I don’t know his personal situation; I say as much in the article. I have walked in his shoes, however. There have been a couple of periods where I was laid off, one where I was laid off for over a month, right after the birth of my first son, where we had a lot of medical bills, our mortgage was due, our car payments were due, and my wife couldn’t work because she was recovering. No, I did not resort to begging for money, because we were able to manage. Perhaps his situation was extremely dire, and again, I said as much in the article. My point was that after such a short time of not working, one would think rather than spending his time on the corner that it would be better used filling out applications. My condolences about your own families situations, I hope that it works out for you.