Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
3 Likes
This is a great idea. I would, however, included ALL elected officials in the mix. After all, they’re benefitting from tax dollars, too.
10 Likes
Oh, yeah!
1 Like
Just curious, what ailment was that? (slowly now, I’m taking notes here…
This is fucking fantastic!
1 Like
That’s an insult to responsible crack smokers everywhere.
1 Like
It would not hurt to randomize drug testing for members of Congress, either.
3 Likes
Been saying that to counter-balance the welfare testing for several years now.
I mean, if we are going to penalize ‘takers’ of taxpayer dollars, the Congresscritters certainly fall into this category.
2 Likes
Love the rhetoric. But just as dumb a policy position as drug-testing those in need of public assistance.
3 Likes
Nope. Definitely less dumb.
6 Likes
It is bad precedent no matter what economic bracket you are targeting. I am sure you would likely get far more positives testing the 1% to be sure, but it is dumb idea up and down the socioeconomic spectrum. The only time people should be drug tested is if they are operating machinery and it is a public safety issue, etc.
2 Likes
I agree, so you missed my point. I would target large Federal Contractors first anyway.
Probably because it’s not Milwaukee owned. It’s been nearly dismantled, much like newspapers everywhere.
1 Like
Burn!
The “Kiss my ass, WATB billionaires (and Deadbeat Donald)” part of me loves this, but my pragmatic self says it’s a waste of time. It’s an attention grabber, but lack of attention isn’t really the problem. Everyone knows the 1%, the 0.1%, etc are getting tax breaks they don’t need.
Drug testing poor people who get benefits is stupid because studies show a low rate of drug use. If studies showed a high rate of drug use, I might support testing. Billionaires aren’t using their tax breaks for drugs, they’re using them to keep people impoverished and to work against policy that helps anyone other than themselves.
So maybe someone can come up with a test for those things and deny tax breaks based on the results. We could call these tests the FEC and labor laws.
3 Likes
I say we give them drugs so they won’t know or care how much we tax them!
1 Like
I agree as a policy, but what I really like are two separate points she’s making with her proposal:
-
The GOP wants to criminalize poverty, while doing nothing practical to alleviate it.
-
Tax giveaways to the rich are, as Milton Friedman* wisely pointed out, tax spending -effectively you’re booming the revenue back to the taxpayer but it’s still spending.
This is something progressive organizations have to hammer and hammer. If you have set rates, every deduction is really the government giving people money - and on a per capita and arguably aggregate basis the very rich are the greatest takers in the country.
*Milton Friedman was an interesting guy. Conservatives like to cite and claim him, but there’s no evidence he was a social conservative or even a libertarian. His focus was on using monetary policy to manage the economy vs. stimulus, but he wasn’t against government spending per se.
7 Likes
Great idea. All corporate welfare recipients must pee in a cup and have it tested before being awarded any taxpayer government subsidy, since they happen to get the lion’s share of it as it is. Why can’t I get a decent Representative that thinks on their toes like this woman? Life can be so unfair.
5 Likes
Well by golly, l think this is an excellent idea!
2 Likes
I don’t disagree. Which is why I said I love the rhetoric.
2 Likes