Be careful of what you wish for, Captain. Balancing the budget might be the worst thing that can happen to our great country. Budget-cutting can be riskier than deficit spending. The United States experienced six periods of depression in the 110 years beginning 1819. Every significant reduction of the outstanding debt was followed by a depression, and every depression was preceded by significant debt reduction.

 

Was I off-topic yet again by pointing this out?

 

So you don't think there should be a balanced budget? Exactly how much in debt would you like to see this country?

 

That's the problem with your side. You think we can just keep printing money with nothing to back it up. Government is not the end all to be all of everyone's troubles. How about working hard and not spending more than you make? Novel idea, huh? How about actually working for a living instead of being a generational welfare recipient? How about a little personal responsibility?

 

I'm all for helping anyone. Everyone needs a hand from time to time. Welfare is not meant to be a way of life. PERIOD. The program was never designed to be a long term fix. Look at the official name of the program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Notice the word TEMPORARY. If anyone should receive it for a longer period of time it is the elderly.

 

Again, my question, what do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

Too lazy to google yourself?

 

Too lazy to actually check what someone's said before you put words in their mouth?

No because he already knows the answer like I do. There is no comparison or correlation. It's a stretch and when challenged you notice the poster who asserted his claims has avoided answering it and switched the topic of the debate multiple times when challenged. It's quite humorous how easy and predictable this poster is when confronted with any sort of challenge to any insane far left talking point.

 

Any idea sounds great when surrounded by like minded people and assertion and ideas go unchallenged. You find the validity of these ideas when confronted with resistance there is no credible response.

 

Makes a great soundbite though.

So you don't think there should be a balanced budget? Exactly how much in debt would you like to see this country?

 

That's the problem with your side. You think we can just keep printing money with nothing to back it up. Government is not the end all to be all of everyone's troubles. How about working hard and not spending more than you make? Novel idea, huh? How about actually working for a living instead of being a generational welfare recipient? How about a little personal responsibility?

 

I'm all for helping anyone. Everyone needs a hand from time to time. Welfare is not meant to be a way of life. PERIOD. The program was never designed to be a long term fix. Look at the official name of the program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Notice the word TEMPORARY. If anyone should receive it for a longer period of time it is the elderly.

 

Again, my question, what do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

 

See post #117 & #118 .

So you don't think there should be a balanced budget? Exactly how much in debt would you like to see this country?

 

That's the problem with your side. You think we can just keep printing money with nothing to back it up. Government is not the end all to be all of everyone's troubles. How about working hard and not spending more than you make? Novel idea, huh? How about actually working for a living instead of being a generational welfare recipient? How about a little personal responsibility?

 

I'm all for helping anyone. Everyone needs a hand from time to time. Welfare is not meant to be a way of life. PERIOD. The program was never designed to be a long term fix. Look at the official name of the program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Notice the word TEMPORARY. If anyone should receive it for a longer period of time it is the elderly.

 

Again, my question, what do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

Think of the national debt as a percentage of GDP, not a number with a lot of zeros. It's been worse in the past -- percentagewise.

Think of the national debt as a percentage of GDP, not a number with a lot of zeros. It's been worse in the past -- percentagewise.

 

You didn't answer the questions. You do duck and dodge quite nicely, however.

See post #117 & #118 .

 

:thumb:

You didn't answer the questions. You do duck and dodge quite nicely, however.

It helps discussion to end your sentences with periods, not question marks. I ignore most questions because they tend to be combative ... not earnest inquiries for info. For instance, if I say that national debt signifigance should be measured in terms of GDP percentage, why would you ask a second time for a number figure? Whoops, I almost ended this post with a question mark.

It helps discussion to end your sentences with periods, not question marks. I ignore most questions because they tend to be combative ... not earnest inquiries for info. For instance, if I say that national debt signifigance should be measured in terms of GDP percentage, why would you ask a second time for a number figure? Whoops, I almost ended this post with a question mark.

 

Translation:

 

I would rather post random tripe then actually engage in a discussion because I can't back up the tripe that I posted. We're back the Alinsky method of obfuscation.

 

Still as condescending as ever as well.

 

That darned old Constitution. Maybe we should just scrap the thing.

 

Where does it say in the constitution that you won't have to take a drug test to get welfare?

 

I'm late. I see this has been covered now.

It helps discussion to end your sentences with periods, not question marks. I ignore most questions because they tend to be combative ... not earnest inquiries for info. For instance, if I say that national debt signifigance should be measured in terms of GDP percentage, why would you ask a second time for a number figure? Whoops, I almost ended this post with a question mark.

 

Again, nothing of substance from you.

Time for some math:

 

16,017 applicants tested

37 people failed the drug test

Avg 2013 benefit package in TN was $17,413

 

So removing those 37 individuals from the system saved $644,281 to the taxpayers.

 

Now there has been vary responses of the cost of these drug screens. So I did the math and determined if the test was $40.22 the taxpayers would break even in the money spent on testing and the money saved from paying users a benefits package.

 

One number I keep seeing is that the drug screens cost around $100 (a few in here have said that). So using that amount, the taxpayers of TN are spending more on tests than they are saving by cleaning up the system. However, I'd counter that if one test was $100, the state of TN probably negotiated a lower rate for the large amount of testing they were going to be doing (for goodness sakes I hope they did negotiate but it's TN so who knows). How much they negotiated the price down, no idea.

 

But now let's also look at the idea that there were some of the 15,980 that tested clean do use drugs but either stopped temporarily because they knew they were being tested or they just got lucky. If any of those who snuck through the system tested positive that would up the amount saved in paying benefits and also increase the breakeven cost.

 

Oh the article mentioned that 81 people filled out paperwork but then never showed up or followed up. I'm willing to be that may be because they knew they would test positive and instead of failing and getting their name in the system, they withdrew and may try again later when potentially clean. If that's true for half of those 81 the breakeven cost on the tests is now over $80 which is probably higher than what a negotiated price would be for the screens.

 

So maybe TN is saving money by the testing.

Those who speak loudest...

 

Trey Radel, Busted On Cocaine Charge, Voted For Drug Testing Food Stamp Recipients

 

That said, I do think that there's something to be said about the distinction between people using their own money and taxpayer's money.