Sunday, June 19, 2016

Welfare Idiocy

Let’s take another leftist apart, shall we? Today’s fool is Rep. Gwen Moore (Moron – WI), who has shown that she doesn’t get it. What doesn’t she get? She doesn’t get how money works of why people are sick of giving welfare to people like her. See, Moore is a former welfare dependent who wants to drug test “rich” people out of spite.

Here’s the story. Gwen is upset that people want to drug test poor people who want welfare. Ten states require this. Whined Gwen:
“Republicans continue to criminalize poverty and to put forward the narrative, the false narrative in fact, that people who are poor and reliant upon the social safety net are drug users.”
Really? How does drug testing “criminalize” poverty in any way? It doesn't. It adds another punishment aspect to a specific crime, it does nothing vis-a-vis poverty. Moreover, if this is a “false narrative,” then why get upset at all? Wouldn't the Republicans just be wasting their time? What do you have to fear in letting them try?

Interestingly, the AP tried to back up her assertion of this being a “false narrative” by claiming that “evidence from test results from the states that [do test] indicate that [welfare recipients] are no more likely to use drugs than the general population.” Supposedly, seven states did testing and found only 427 drug users out of hundreds of thousands of users, so the evil Republicans are clearly evil liars too, right?!

Well no. This is completely misleading. According to their own data, there were 321 positive tests out of 2996 people tested, or 10.7% of people tested. One in ten is not a “false narrative.” What’s more, this doesn’t count people who refused to undergo testing. They excluded those people even though drug testers typically count those as positives. So the 10.7% number could be much, much higher. Again, not a false narrative. Indeed, I suspect that if Gwen were told that one in ten government employees belonged to the KKK, she wouldn’t willingly dismiss that as a “false narrative,” she would view finding those 10% as something critical. In this case, the Federal Government alone spends $717 billion each year on welfare (not counting medical spending or private spending). A 10% drop would save $71 billion. That's hardly irrelevant.

Anyways, to try to stop the testing, Gwen introduced a bill called the “Top 1% Accountability Act” which would require anyone who is claiming itemized deductions over $150,000 to submit a clear drug test or they won’t be able to take their deductions and will be stuck with the standardized deduction. Moronic.

Her little team of short-bussers have calculated that this will only affect people who make at least $500,000 a year. Personally, I doubt that though. Why? Because the IRS code starts wiping out your deductions once you get into the mid-$100k’s. If Gwen paid her taxes, she would probably know this.

More to the point though, Gwen has fundamentally misunderstood why people want welfare dependents tested. People want welfare recipients, like her lousy ass, tested because I work my butt off for every penny I earn, and I don’t want the government handing out my money to some lazy slug who won’t work because they would rather smoke dope. I’m willing to help someone in the short term IF they need the money to get back on their feet, but I don’t want to support their lazy lifestyle and I sure as hell don’t want to support someone who can afford to use drugs and who would rather use drugs than sort out their lives. F-off Gwen.

What’s more, I don’t see any reason to drug test wealthy, productive people because they are productive. They work hard and contribute greatly to society if they are making that kind of money. I don’t care what they do in their private lives at that point. I only care if someone wants to live off my money.

Moreover, her attempt to claim that rich people are living off me by claiming tax deductions is bull – she’s one of those who equates tax deductions with spending. That wrongly assumes that everyone owes taxes. That’s bunk. Taxes are something we have allowed the government to take, they are not something that is a right of the government. You do me no favors not robbing me, Gwen.

What's going on here is that Gwen wants to avoid the moral stigma of being a beggar. She's trying to equate taxpaying with begging and that's garbage.

Now, if you want to drug test rich recipients of government funding, I’m all for that. Let’s haul the CEO’s of any company who wants a government handout, i.e. GE, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, Warren Buffett, into the bathroom and let ’em fill that cup to the rim. I’m up for that. But don’t pretend that the people who pay taxes owe you jack or that we are wrong to insist that you stay off drugs before we share our hard-earned cash with your lazy ass.



AndrewPrice said...

Congrats to Cleveland, btw! Great series, great game, great finish!

Kit said...

I have no idea what happened at Cleveland except that they won some indoor game. ;-)

tryanmax said...

My disjointed thoughts are these:

I've worked various government jobs and they all required a drug test. If one has to pee clean in order to earn wages from the government, certainly the same requirement ought to apply to those who are simply given the money.

Technically speaking, I am a welfare recipient, or at least my daughter is. They aren't TANF benefits, so it's apples and oranges, but because it's medical, so you bet there are plenty of medical tests. There's no drug screening, but still. If anybody wants to complain about indignity, how about proving your illness to obtain medical benefits? Not that I think it's indignant, but that's how the left operates.

Following that thought, the hoops one has to jump through to determine eligibility are really simply. Yeah, it's a pain in the neck to periodically round up your paystubs and other documents and mail them in. (Or email, these days.) What leftists like Moore want is to offer welfare on simple say-so. Uh, not gonna fly.

I am a bit surprised she's moving away from the standard Think Progress line about drug-testing being not cost effective. My guess is that people just aren't convinced by that idea. After all, Andrew debunked it pretty handily in a couple sentences.

Finally, drug testing programs don't even necessarily kick people off of welfare. According to an Independent Journal article, Tennessee has a typical procedure:

- Welfare applicants first take a written examination, with questions to reveal if a person might be using drugs;
- If the written exam raises suspicions, an applicant must pass a urine test;
- Applicants who fail the urine test must enter a treatment program or face welfare ineligibility;
- After treatment, applicants must pass another urine test or face welfare ineligibility for an amount of time determined by the state.

Anthony said...

I think Gwen Moore's goal is getting tough on the rich, which is a popular theme on both sides of the aisle nowadays (though both sides take slightly different positions).

Its a stupid proposal which has no chance of becoming law but the hard left will lionize her for it.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, That's exactly what she's doing. But it doesn't make her actions any less stupid.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree. Proving an illness is a much greater invasion of privacy that proving you are drug free.

I think debunking the cost effect is really simple actually. As you see, the AP even needs to play this game of comparing the total number caught versus the total number of people getting benefits, as if they were all tested. Talk about bad logic! I could use the same "logic" to say that I know of one racist and there are 320 million people and 1 in 320 million is nothing! Think that would fly? So why does this crap fly with them?

Personally, I think her goal is to raise anger of poor people against rich people, and to try to generate a sense of shame in those who would question anyone's right to get benefits.

BevfromNYC said...

This makes my head hurt. I agree that this idiot is just doing it to raise anger. I wish just once these morons would point out that much of those "deductions" are "charitable deductions" to worthing charities that help "poor people on welfare". That includes many, many billions from "evil corporations" who donate time/money/in-kind donations to help those in need.

But hey, who needs that extra $350+billion dollars in charitable giving anyway. Let them eat cake...

Kit said...

The FEC released the money spent by the various campaigns.

Trump's campaign has $1.3 million
Hillary's campaign has $47 million.

I would call it a dumpster fire but as one fellow on twitter named Kevin Collins (@kwcollins) put it: "Calling @realDonaldTrump's campaign a dumpster fire is unfair to dumpster fires, because dumpster fires at least have some fuel"

AndrewPrice said...

I'm worrying about you, Kit.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, The real irony on the left is that if they ever get their way, they will basically destroy their own followers... people who are least likely to be able to survive in the harsher world leftists want to create.

But then, leftists have never been known to be long term thinkers.

Kit said...

Eh, I'm better now.

I'm more sitting back and enjoying the show.

Kit said...

I've finally reached the acceptance stage. I'm at peace with Trump as our nominee.

tryanmax said...

Obligatory "Yuk, Trump" disclaimer.

You'd think the pundits would've learned by now not to make any predictions regarding Trump. They're reading tea leaves while the guy is grinding coffee. His money numbers are so far off the norm--as is everything else about his campaign--that it's all but impossible to know what to make of them. And look! Even his lack of funds is getting him free air time.

Don't forget, Trump's a business man and business often runs on promised money rather than money in the bank. Political campaigns are run so differently than a business. I never thought of it before, but the cash-in-the-coffers model evidences that most pols don't regard the same way as the business world, or even the average household.

Furthermore, Trump is the first presidential candidate in US history that has to run against the party that he supposedly represents. Nobody can hope to know what that means.

Meanwhile, Hillary's numbers are only as good as they are because she's basically in hiding. Her own campaign acknowledges this. Let's wait to see what happens when she finally shows up.

Sidenote: I recommend that we forgo the traditional presidential debate format in favor of a presidential argument. Basically, cut out the moderator.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The money numbers are meaningless. For one thing, with nearly a billion being spent by PACs, what the individual campaigns spend is negligible. Secondly, Trump is funding himself on a pay as you go method, whereas Hillary is using the more traditional war chest/piggy bank method.

CrisD said...

Hi Andrew!
Well said!
I'm backkkkkk!!!
-Christine Mayock

AndrewPrice said...

Hi Cris! Welcome back! How've you been?

CrisD said...

Hi Andrew!
I have a 15 month old grandchild! I lived in guest room for first year to care for him to avoid infant daycare (although I, myself, had a daycare facility when I was younger!). I encouraged my career minded daughter but was glad to provide the TLC! And hubby visited me every weekend!
You will be shocked to hear that I am against Hillary!!!
Watching Brexit returns! The news looks very interesting as of Thurs evening EST! The world is speaking!?!?
Hope all is well with you and your family! I will be trying to keep up here!

AndrewPrice said...

Congrats Cris! That sounds terrific!

I am not shocked! LOL! No sane person can support Hillary for any political office.

Thanks! Things are going very well lately! :)

Post a Comment