While they're at it they should replicate the German driver's licensing system, which requires thousands of Euros in training costs and passing of an extremely difficult (compared to US standards) exam.

4/10/2013 1:49:18 PM

Public Transportation is not that bad. One of my friends takes a bus from raleigh to chapel hill every day. People just have too much pride to do anything they think is beneath them.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/10/2013 1:54:27 PM

I think people should have to get insurance on their dogs too, and licenses. What if somebody's dog bites me and there is no entity to sue to get money?!?!?!?!?!?

4/10/2013 2:35:47 PM

I totally agree. I don't have a dog, when your neglected pet bites me because you leave him locked in the house all day while you lock yourself in a cubicle, I should be paid.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/10/2013 2:37:24 PM

Well I've got good news for you http://dogbitelaw.com/

4/10/2013 2:38:21 PM

I've changed my mind. I don't think anyone should be held responsible for potentially dangerous things they have.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/10/2013 2:40:37 PM

Why does the GOP think people should have their cars seized for not insuring them but not their assault weapons? How many lost/stolen guns are used in crimes because the owner failed to secure them? The owner should have to insure the weapon against negligent or unauthorized use that could kill somebody. Then there would be somebody to sue when a parent like Nancy Lanza gives her kid an arsenal and the psycho commits mass murder.

4/10/2013 3:40:29 PM

Except that bearing arms is a right and driving is a privilege

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/10/2013 3:41:16 PM

The founding fathers did not have to worry about licensing and insuring their horses.

4/10/2013 4:05:31 PM

Neither did they have to register their knives / axes / hammers

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/10/2013 4:11:19 PM

http://gawker.com/5994378/religious-freedom+fighting-nc-lawmaker-opposes-islamic-prayer-in-legislative-meetings-i-do-not-condone-terrorism

4/11/2013 11:50:59 AM

Quote :

"Lawmakers worry about the darndest things. How else to explain Rep. Mark Brody, R-Union, introducing a bill to allow school buses to go 55 mph because he’s tired of being stuck behind them? Others include: • The effort to amend the state’s indecent exposure law to be sure it includes “the nipple, or any portion of the areola, or the female breast.” • Rep. Robert Brawley’s effort to allow lobbyists to once again freely give gifts to lawmakers, without fear of reporting requirements. • The opossum right-to-work bill, which legalized Brasstown’s annual opossum drop on New Year’s Eve. • The bill from two lawyers, who also happen to be state senators, to require couples to wait two years rather than one year before they can divorce. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/13/2823082/at-halfway-point-gop-lawmaking.html#storylink=cpy"

4/14/2013 10:42:19 PM

They should make it illegal to show restaurant commercials after 10PM because most restaurants are already closed.

4/14/2013 10:48:54 PM

Quote :

""NC Republicans introduce legislation banning the display of restaurant advertisements after 10pm or when the restaurant is not open. State Senator Billy Dangbeard of Bucktooth County stated on the senate floor "North Carolinians do not have any business out after 10pm. Momma always said the devils work is done at night, and banning late night food advertisements will help keep North Carolinians indoors where they belong, ready for church on Sunday" "

4/15/2013 12:13:42 PM

you posted that quote from The Onion, right?

4/15/2013 12:15:00 PM

No I found it on WRAL.

4/15/2013 12:17:27 PM

Cracking up at "Billy Dangbeard"

4/15/2013 12:18:13 PM

from Bucktooth County

4/15/2013 12:19:10 PM

I assume that Bucktooth County is somewhere in the northeast part of the state?

4/15/2013 12:19:39 PM

I think it borders Tennessee

4/15/2013 12:21:35 PM

Public transportation sucks all the dick, especially in Raleigh.

4/15/2013 1:22:13 PM

in charlotte CATS is ok (and safe) as long as you shit yourself before boarding.

4/15/2013 1:32:03 PM

NC Republican bill to raise insurance rates fails in committee
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/16/2829652/auto-insurance-bill-fails-in-house.html

4/17/2013 12:21:27 AM

NC Republicans fire former ALE director that already demoted himself, cite "personnel issue".
http://www.wral.com/ex-nc-ale-director-fired-by-new-administration/12347712/

4/17/2013 1:46:24 PM

that's a good start. they should just eliminate ALE altogether. fucking worthless.

4/17/2013 1:48:41 PM

^

4/17/2013 1:50:01 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/16/2830003/nc-bill-would-eliminate-class.html

Quote :

"The bill would formalize changes made in 2009 that dropped class-size limits in grades four through 12 and gave school districts more flexibility to transfer funds. But for the first time, the bill also would drop restrictions that limit class sizes in kindergarten through third grade to 24 students in individual classes. The state provides funding for one teacher for every 18 students in kindergarten through third grade. That funding covers all teachers, including instructors of art, music and physical education. That means actual class sizes are larger."

4/17/2013 1:57:21 PM

NC Republicans introduce plan to eliminate teachers assistants for elementary students, and bolster ALE funding.

4/17/2013 1:59:22 PM

You should need an ID to vote because voter fraud happens 0.001% of the time.
There shouldn't be any checks for firearms at all.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/17/2013 2:49:04 PM

ahahahahhahahahahaha

http://www.wral.com/drug-testing-for-benefits-bill-passes-senate/12369158/


This is great limited/small government. 2.1 million dollars for reimbursements for drug testing.

4/23/2013 3:13:49 PM

While I don't mind the idea, I do have problems with 1) cost, 2) government intrusion, and 3) government search without probable cause/warrant.

It fails the sniff snort test.

4/23/2013 3:20:08 PM

Yes this has been shown to work wonderfully

4/23/2013 3:56:52 PM

the fact that those who are paid by the taxpayers refuse to be drug tested should tell you all you need to know about this ridiculous bill

that and ^

4/23/2013 4:08:44 PM

What % of votes are fraudulent

What % of people are gay

What % of babies are aborted

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/23/2013 4:11:04 PM

We should be drug testing congress people, that'd be interesting...

4/23/2013 5:26:23 PM

The people that run the stock markets do nothing but cocaine and hookers. Test them.

4/23/2013 5:29:15 PM

It took me less than 1 second to figure out that the numbers in that graphic are total bullshit. As a conservative, math and skepticism come naturally.

4/23/2013 9:52:54 PM

i dont really give a shit about welfare

they need to get rid of that stupid free phone program that the wireless companies and drug dealers are exploiting

4/23/2013 10:25:15 PM

Less than one second huh? http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/welfare.asp

4/23/2013 10:29:12 PM

Rather than linking to another website (whose slogan, BTW, is 'rumor has it') who then quotes an unnamed author from the Tampa Tribune you could just try to be self reliant and do the math yourself:

Savings to state from 2% reduction in recipients = $60,000 for the year
Savings to state from 100% reduction in recipients = 50 x 60,000 = 3m
Cost of drug testing 100% of recipients = 178m
Cost of drug testing per year / cost of full year of welfare = 178/3 = 59.3

Do you honestly believe that the cost of drug testing is 60 times higher than the total cost of supporting people on welfare? How could that possibly add up?

And while you are at it: right click on the image and find the photobucket user stlsaxman. Google image search 'stlsaxman'. Look at photos he has posted on the internet. Read his posts on DU. Does he look like an unbiased source of information to you, or a complete liberal retard? What does that make you for regurgitating his bullshit without thinking?

For the record: I am against government mandated drug testing too, but that isn't the point. The point is this: Be skeptical, think for yourself, try to understand both sides, read, learn, trust your own judgement.

4/23/2013 11:02:08 PM

Quote :

"Rather than linking to another website (whose slogan, BTW, is 'rumor has it') who then quotes an unnamed author from the Tampa Tribune you could just try to be self reliant and do the math yourself:"

Really? People think Snopes isn't a reliable source? Here's the Tampa Tribute article (which I also read) http://tbo.com/ap/politics/welfare-drug-testing-yields--positive-results-252458 or is that not enough either? Do I need to personally travel to Florida and study the state's system?

Quote :

"Savings to state from 2% reduction in recipients = $60,000 for the year Savings to state from 100% reduction in recipients = 50 x 60,000 = 3m Cost of drug testing 100% of recipients = 178m Cost of drug testing per year / cost of full year of welfare = 178/3 = 59.3 Do you honestly believe that the cost of drug testing is 60 times higher than the total cost of supporting people on welfare? How could that possibly add up?"

As the article points out, the state must reimburse those who pass the test for the cost of the test (since the law forces applicants to pay for their own drug tests), thereby coming close to negating any savings from not having to pay for welfare for those who fail.

Your math is wrong because everyone on welfare isn't being tested; just new applicants. Also, it's more like $36,000 a year rather than $60,000 so it's actually even more ridiculous than your estimations, which shows that the program was doomed to fail from a fiscal standpoint even if more welfare applicants were testing positive. The program was never actually about saving the state money from the start, but rather finding another way to stick it to poor people.

Quote :

"And while you are at it: right click on the image and find the photobucket user stlsaxman. Google image search 'stlsaxman'. Look at photos he has posted on the internet. Read his posts on DU. Does he look like an unbiased source of information to you, or a complete liberal retard? What does that make you for regurgitating his bullshit without thinking?"

Who gives a shit what he is? He created a graphical representation of data which he had nothing to do with the collection of. What makes you think I am just "regurgitating without thinking" anything?

Please do be a little more condescending and assume that no one else knows how to do math or think for themselves because they aren't a good ole conservative like you.

[Edited on April 23, 2013 at 11:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/23/2013 11:12:27 PM

You sir, are an idiot. The person who wrote the article is an idiot. The person who made the graphic is an idiot. The numbers are incorrect. They are so wildly incorrect that anyone with the slightest concept of reality could spot the error immediately. Good luck in life.

[Edited on April 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

4/23/2013 11:30:35 PM

[Edited on April 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM. Reason : I'm better than that]

4/23/2013 11:39:05 PM

Well fuck me. This is probably the biggest idiot I've ever made of myself on here.

I'm not a big fan of eating humble pie, but I am willing to admit when I've made an ass of myself.

I've been misunderstanding things this entire time under the assumption that the testing program cost $178 million, when that is in fact the budget for the cash assistance program itself, meaning of course as you stated that the graph is complete bullshit.

So, in other words, the drug testing program isn't really saving the state money in the end, but it isn't costing it a ton of money either as I have misled to believe with my posts.

I'll find my way to the door.

[Edited on April 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/23/2013 11:41:28 PM

It's well known still that drug testing people on welfare doesn't actually save any money.

It's more a "feel good" move for Conservatives, so they can get the feeling of spitting on poor people, without actually having to spit on poor people.

It's strange this precedent doesn't permeate to other types of government assistance, why not drug test all public university students, or anyone receiving medicare/medicaid/social security, or people who get rural phone and Internet service subsidized by the government, and farmers?

Seems particularly spiteful to pick on poor people (and it seems to have a tinge of racism, considering those other assistance programs don't come under fire-- since the perception is that blacks are more likely to be on welfare).

4/23/2013 11:53:00 PM

My turn to eat crow: I assumed that you would blindly believe a random, source-less graphic on the internet and that you would be too lazy to read the article and find the error... You proved me wrong. I was also rude and it was unnecessary.

My understanding of the bill is that it would only deny them the cash portion of the TANF funding based on the presumption that they might spend it on drugs. The cash portion is only 27% of the total cost of welfare. I did not know that they could re-test the following month, or that 96% would pass the second time. As far as budget goes, it is a wash. What it does do, is make welfare recipients pay a $30 fine and quit drugs for 30 days before they piss clean and start getting their checks later. That may do some good. My problem is that I do not want the government performing chemical analysis on my bodily fluids and keeping records of it. I also do not want myself or anyone to be dependent on the government for my survival. That dependence undermines the democratic process by preventing dependent people from voting from the politicians who wish to free them by ending the programs they depend on. Anyway, that is just my opinion. Sorry for being an ass.

4/23/2013 11:58:55 PM

https://actionnc.nationbuilder.com/pee_cup

Here you can buy a pee cup for them.

4/24/2013 12:15:39 AM

Quote :

"That dependence undermines the democratic process by preventing dependent people from voting from the politicians who wish to free them by ending the programs they depend on."

This is a non-sensical statement.

Poor people don't exist because of anti-poverty programs. Anti-poverty programs exist, because poor people exist. A cursory look at the history of this country (or any society at any point in the history of the world) will demonstrate this.

Poor people must exist in any real-world market economies. The problem isn't that poor people exist, it's how do you 1) prevent the poor from being a drag on society 2) ensure that the poor children have equal opportunities to not be poor adults.

[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 12:32 AM. Reason : ]

4/24/2013 12:31:52 AM

that's mostly true, but not entirely true. I have a friend who lost his job a few years ago and got on unemployment. He knew he could go out and get a job, but he just bummed around and visited people like me and went on drinking binges until the unemployment ran out and then he got another good job. He freely admitted to doing this and his reasoning was 'fuck it, I paid my taxes into the system and now I'm taking a break'. I paraphrase, of course.

Unemployment insurance is just one example of social insurance / social spending and I think it is analogous to many of the others. There are millions of people on welfare, lets call that number Y. Some of them would find a way to work if welfare wasn't available, lets call that number X. While we could debate whether that number is 2% or 20% of the total welfare recipients, you must agree that not ABSOLUTELY EVERY PERSON on welfare is incapable of supporting themselves otherwise. Therefore there is a positive real integer (no half ppl) value of X, such that 0<X<Y. How do we get X people off of welfare and into the economy? How do we do it without hurting the rest? How do we make welfare less attractive to otherwise able recipients?

Lets say we make a change to the system. We take away food stamps and welfare checks and we replace them with an EBT card. Now poor people can pay for their shit at walmart without the stigma associated with busting out food stamps. Well that's great for poor people who can't do any better, but that stigma was a motivating factor for people who can. I'm not a cold hearted SOB. I feel sympathy for people embarrassed to use food stamps. I feel anger toward people who swipe their EBT to pay for food and then use a damned $100 bill to buy a bottle of liquor, especially when I pay $25k a year to the federal government and I am walking through that same Walmart with a calculator trying to keep my family on a budget. I have to ignore these feelings and be pragmatic when I envision a solution.

Well look at the changes that have taken place. Look at the system the way it is now. Welfare is called "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families", but for most people, it isn't temporary. It was part of the 'Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.' It does not promote personal responsibility in any way. As far as work opportunities are concerned: Why are we allowing states to ignore the work requirements? Maybe backing off the weed for 30 days will give somebody a chance to do their damned laundry.

Look, I see both sides of the issue. I think of myself as 'middle of the road'. From where I sit, I think we need to take a right. That's all.

My fear is that when you add up all the poor people that depend on welfare, and all the old people who depend on social security, and all the veterans who depend on the VA, and all the government employees who depend on their paycheck, and then add in all the people who depend on the patient protection and affordable care act for health coverage... that the sum will be 51% or greater of the electorate. Then, we have a problem. No Republican will ever win another election. The checks and balances in our system will be broken. Social spending will increase until we suffer the fate of Greece, or maybe even the USSR. This isn't necessarily a fundamental problem with left wing thinking, it is a problem with the two party system, and all of the term limits, campaign finance reform, and Ron Pauls in this country will not be enough to fix it.

[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 1:28 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2013 1:24:41 AM

I, for one, would like to commend both Vulcan91 and emory for the resolution to a disagreement on the Internet. We don't have many users here who actually look at what they have written and then offer mea culpas.

I think the discourse would go a lot further if people were able to do that, and put pride aside. So GG.

4/24/2013 7:06:18 AM