Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

A cop can enter your home for ANY reason or NO reason at all in Indiana? That ain't American.

---

Hello,

As I've said many times on these pages, if you DON'T look out for the OTHER guys rights, yours too will soon be gone... Now, I see from THIS thread, that the right wing is VERY upset because a cop can enter their house WITHOUT a warrant...

But, I wonder if they're very upset about Florida Governor Rick Scotts new law that forces POOR people to undergo a search of their body fluids (drug test) before they can receive state services - a search, by the way, WITHOUT a warrant or probable cause. I'll bet not. I wonder if they make the CONNECTION between theses searches. I'll bet not.

excon

I suppose you think the general welfare clause means people have a constitutional right to cash benefits from the state without restriction or exception? If so, why the hell am I working?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I suppose you think the general welfare clause means people have a constitutional right to cash benefits from the state without restriction or exception?

---

Hello again, Steve:

The state is allowed to pass restrictions/laws. They just can't SEARCH a citizen WITHOUT A WARRANT to see IF he's following those restrictions. It's pretty FUNDAMENTAL to the Fourth Amendment.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

More importantly, do you SEE the connection between these TWO Fourth Amendment violations? Do you SEE that your support for ONE warrantless search WEAKENS your argument against the OTHER warrantless search? Do you see, that as repugnant as it may be, you MUST support the Fourth Amendment, EVEN when you really, really WANT to see what THAT guy has in his pocket? Do you see that, THAT'S why freedom is hard?

excon

No ex, I'm sorry I don't see the comparison. I get your point, always have, but I don't see this as an infringement of privacy rights. I see no problem with a reasonable effort at ensuring my tax dollars buy food, not crack. People don't have a constitutional right to my money.

A similar law in Michigan was ruled unconstitutional in 2003.The ruling was upheld by the Appellate Court. It did not make it to SCOTUS .

I think if I was going to question the constitutionality I'd go with the 14th amendment 'equal protection clause'. I could make a better case in saying that they didn't ask TARP bankers to take drug tests before they were given my money. Why not make students pee in a cup before they are eligible for a student loan ? There are the examples of mandatory testing to qualify for state employment to go with in saying that it is just a condition for qualification to counter the argument that it's a 4th amendment violation.

I'm about to sound liberal... If I came under dire straits and had to file for welfare benefits after working a lifetime ,I would find it degrading to have to prove my worthiness by having to pee or give hair sample. If I'm denied because the supplements I take give a false positive ,what is my remedy to appeal ?
I want to see Scott take a mandatory drug test as a condition of his continued employment .

Does it matter that one of Scott's ventures is a controlling interest in Solantic Medical Centers(which he signed over to his wife while he serves as Governor ) ;which coincidentally offers drug testing as one of it's service ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I see no problem with a reasonable effort at ensuring my tax dollars buy food, not crack.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I too, have no problem with REASONABLE enforcement. But searching people BEFORE there's probable cause to do so, ISN'T reasonable at all.

Using your logic... I'm sure you get a tax deduction on the interest you pay for your home.. I'm a renter. I DON'T get that government HANDOUT. I think it would be REASONABLE for ME, to require drug testing of YOU, because you're spending MY tax dollars, and I want to know what you're buying. I DO have that right, doncha think?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm about to sound liberal...

---

Hello tom:

In spades... But, you NAILED it.

excon

Ex, my home is paid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, my home is paid for.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I would have dropped it, but...

Let's assume your home was just your average Texas home. Let's assume that it cost you $100K. Let's say you borrowed $80K and financed it over 30 years. That means you paid about $200K in INTEREST that you were able to deduct from your taxes. That's probably around $50K - $75K in real TAX dollars that you DIDN'T pay, that I, as a renter, DID PAY.

Don't you think that gives me some RIGHTS into how you conduct your personal affairs? After all, you DID spend some of MY tax money on your lifestyle. No, not some... A LOT OF MY TAX MONEY, and I have the RIGHT to KNOW if you're WORTHY of my largess...

excon

You should have become a landlord. Then you could've had your mortgage paid for by the renter ,and also taken the deduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I woulda dropped it, but....

---

I think you need a better example. I pay my taxes, I've met the government's conditions, I'm not taking a thing from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I think you need a better example. I pay my taxes, I've met the government's conditions, I'm not taking a thing from you.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Let's speak ENGLISH here... You took advantage of a deduction that I don't get. I'm not BLAMING you for it. I'm just mentioning it. But, I AM going to COUNT it. It's MONEY that went into YOUR pocket, that would have gone into MINE if I qualified... I didn't..

Therefore, you are the recipient of government LARGESS at MY expense... Given that it's MY tax money you're spending every month, that OUGHT to give me SOME influence over how you live your life, oughtn't it?

You can SPIN it any way you want, because if you didn't, you couldn't justify your position.

excon

Ex, nothing went into my pocket and I took nothing from your pocket. You're reaching here.

IF this money existed and you had qualified, it would have gone into both of our pockets. There was no government largesse on the rare occasion I was able to go beyond the standard deduction which you have available also. There was no gift, I didn't gain anything, I just lost less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I suppose you think the general welfare clause means people have a constitutional right to cash benefits from the state without restriction or exception?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, nothing went into my pocket and I took nothing from your pocket. You're reaching here

---

Hello again, Steve:

It's like I said, I would have dropped it...

There's only TWO ways the government GIVES money directly to taxpayers... It sends them a check, or it gives them a tax deduction/credit. No matter HOW you acquire it, the MONEY is the same. It's TAXPAYER money.

You think if you receive a check, you should be put under scrutiny. But, if you get your taxpayer money through a deduction, then it's all fine and dandy.. I'm simply pointing out to you, that it makes NO difference HOW you acquire your government largess - it's STILL government largess.

excon

Yes, most people don't look at deductions as paymments to them. Thus why a straight percentage tax where everyone pays a percent, no matter what their income

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

There's only TWO ways the government GIVES money directly to taxpayers... It sends them a check, or it gives them a tax deduction/credit. No matter HOW you acquire it, the MONEY is the same. It's TAXPAYER money.

---

Sorry, I disagree. I ACQUIRED my money by working for it, the government GAVE me nothing. They simply TOOK less
Of MY money that I EARNED. Getting to KEEP what I EARNED is NOT a HANDOUT, it is not LARGESSE, it is MINE. You think what's MINE is YOURS and you are not ENTITLED to what's MINE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Sorry, I disagree. I ACQUIRED my money by working for it, the government GAVE me nothing. They simply TOOK less

---

Hello again, Steve:

You have typical wrong way right wing thinking... They took less from YOU, but NOT from me. That means, assuming all else was equal, you wound up with MORE money in your pocket than I did.

Now you can SAY it's because you worked harder than me, but it's really because the government FAVORS you over me. They GAVE you something they DIDN'T give me.

Therefore, the money that YOU have that I don't, is a GIFT from the government, and I think you ought to be drug tested for taking it. Why are you more deserving of it than me? You're not. You just have more powerful friends than I do.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

yes, most people don't look at deductions as paymments to them. Thus why a straight percentage tax where everyone pays a percent, no matter what their income

---

Yup . I would sign up for that in a second. Both Steves are right. The truth is that a deduction is not a giveaway like welfare . The recipents of welfare ,not contributing to the Federal coffers, fall under the social safety net that tax payers support.

Deductions are a result of social or behavioral command and control . The government likes when people buy homes so they incentivize with breaks. People complain when the government does it for businesses . Not so much when they benefit.

The thing is that the housing market has been permanently warped because of government incentives .Working the system created the crazy bubble that the market has yet to come out of.

Fr . I'm in full agreement with the flat tax concept. Make all the IRS and tax accountants go out and get real jobs!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

You have typical wrong way right wing thinking.... They took less from YOU, but NOT from me. That means, assuming all else was equal, you wound up with MORE money in your pocket than I did.

---

Dude, I understood your point the first time. I just don't consider getting to keep what's mine as LARGESSE. I'm with Chuck and tom, let's make it equal.

Steve

P.S. I don't think a drug test is necessary as a precondition to getting government largesse, but I think it reasonable as a condition to CONTINUED long term government largesse for those capable of supporting themselves. It's not financially or morally responsible to intentionally expand the nanny state. I LOVE helping others, I don't love when politicians take more of my money and give it to people who game the system.

P.P.S. Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money