LogFAQs > #888582959

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Conservative Restaurant SHUTS DOWN after they got DEATH THREATS!!!
Zeus 10/17/17 2:13:47 AM #13:	KevinceKostner posted... The free market spoke Not how the free market works by any stretch, especially considering that the vast majority of thugs weren't locals and therefore couldn't buy from them if they actually wanted. TigerTycoon posted... Does it really matter in Arizona? It's a Republican state. Most of the threats were almost certainly coming from out of state and from far-left liberal-progressive places. However, the workers don't necessarily know where the threats are coming from, crazy people can travel, and crazy people can do a lot of harm even without traveling. TigerTycoon posted... People making death threats from New York and California shouldn't really matter to your business in the long run. If your workers are quitting and/or distracted from their jobs, it makes a big deal. Far-Queue posted... Drug screening for welfare recipients is not worth the cost to taxpayers. On top of that, you kick a bunch of people off of welfare for smoking weed, and then you have a large uptick in homelessness, children of welfare families going hungry because they can no longer afford food, etc. It's just a bad idea all around. Welfare fraud isn't as pervasive as right-wingers would have you believe. If it was implemented in a practical manner and paired with rehab services, it could be worth the cost. However, if it's poorly run and if the problem isn't pervasive enough, it won't do much good. The best compromise might involve random drug screenings targeting batches of people who don't hold down jobs, with the intention of putting them into rehab programs. _AdjI_ posted... Far-Queue posted... Drug screening for welfare recipients is not worth the cost to taxpayers. What would be worthwhile, however, would be drug screening for anyone receiving more than $100,000 in tax breaks. They're getting money from the government, after all, why shouldn't we make sure they're spending it responsibly? lolwut? Equating tax payments with getting money from the government is an argument so intellectually disingenuous that you'd earn a platinum medal from the olympics-class mental gymnastics used to reach that conclusion. Any such argument is predicated on the completely wrong belief that 100% of your income belongs to the government and anything you get back is essentially a favor. In no rational universe should a tax break be conflated with an actual payment Further, the argument stupidly overlooks the intent of the law which, in theory if not in practice, aims to improve the individuals so they can hold down a job capable of generating a net benefit to the government rather than creating an economic drain. Somebody who gets $100k in tax breaks pays far more than $100k in taxes which means that their value to society is higher than the person whose net contribution is a negative amount. However, to some extent, some of the negative-earners are at least partial contributors and others are people who contributed up until retirement. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:888582959] in Conservati... [t:75887405]...</cite> <quote><cite>KevinceKostner posted...</cite> <quote>The free market spoke</quote> Not how the free market works by any stretch, especially considering that the vast majority of thugs weren't locals and therefore couldn't buy from them if they actually wanted. <cite>TigerTycoon posted...</cite> <quote>Does it really matter in Arizona? It's a Republican state. </quote> Most of the threats were almost certainly coming from out of state and from far-left liberal-progressive places. However, the workers don't necessarily know where the threats are coming from, crazy people can travel, and crazy people can do a lot of harm even without traveling. <cite>TigerTycoon posted...</cite> <quote>People making death threats from New York and California shouldn't really matter to your business in the long run.</quote> If your workers are quitting and/or distracted from their jobs, it makes a big deal. <cite>Far-Queue posted...</cite> <quote>Drug screening for welfare recipients is not worth the cost to taxpayers. On top of that, you kick a bunch of people off of welfare for smoking weed, and then you have a large uptick in homelessness, children of welfare families going hungry because they can no longer afford food, etc. It's just a bad idea all around. Welfare fraud isn't as pervasive as right-wingers would have you believe.</quote> If it was implemented in a practical manner and paired with rehab services, it could be worth the cost. However, if it's poorly run and if the problem isn't pervasive enough, it won't do much good. The best compromise might involve random drug screenings targeting batches of people who don't hold down jobs, with the intention of putting them into rehab programs. <cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Far-Queue posted...</cite> <quote>Drug screening for welfare recipients is not worth the cost to taxpayers.</quote> What would be worthwhile, however, would be drug screening for anyone receiving more than $100,000 in tax breaks. They're getting money from the government, after all, why shouldn't we make sure they're spending it responsibly?</quote> lolwut? Equating tax payments with getting money from the government is an argument so intellectually disingenuous that you'd earn a platinum medal from the olympics-class mental gymnastics used to reach that conclusion. Any such argument is predicated on the completely wrong belief that 100% of your income belongs to the government and anything you get back is essentially a favor. In no rational universe should a tax break be conflated with an actual payment Further, the argument stupidly overlooks the intent of the law which, in theory if not in practice, aims to improve the individuals so they can hold down a job capable of generating a net benefit to the government rather than creating an economic drain. Somebody who gets $100k in tax breaks pays far more than $100k in taxes which means that their value to society is higher than the person whose net contribution is a negative amount. However, to some extent, some of the negative-earners are at least partial contributors and others are people who contributed up until retirement. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1