LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[Shyster]

Buy a shotgun.... buy a shotgun.

Just make sure it’s not a semi-automatic shotgun with a pistol-grip stock, because according to Dianne Feinstein that combination is an evil “semiautomatic assault weapon” that must be banned.

[Digitalgypsy66]

I really like what the Air Force has done with the B52 bomber - it will have something like a 90 year lifespan after it goes through modifications in the next few years.

[npv708]

I just have to say this:

For whatever reason, the pro-drug testing welfare recipients memes are all over facebook recently. The perception that the only people/majority who receive welfare benefits are unemployed druggies is so unbelievably frustrating, I don't even know where to start.

The constitutionality of the matter is something that most people have a problem with, but for me it comes down to two things:

1) Why only welfare recipients and not every else that receives government funding to supplement finances? There are work-activity requirements for TANF, etc. From 2009, 28% of 50+ have used marijuana, so why not test Social Security and Medicare.

2) If states can't pass this off as something that could benefit the state fiscally, as the failure of the program in Florida proved, costing the state approx 60k, catching something like 2% of recipients who took the test, then why is it still talked about in that regards. The statistics from Florida are pretty straightforward. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no ... tests.html

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

[tifosi77]

Plus, I'm inherently skeptical of a Navy jet with one engine.

You mean like the A-4 Skyhawk, F-8 Crusader, and A-7 Corsair II?

Yes, actually.

The first Navy jet was the F9 Panther, which had two engines. That was soon followed by the FJ2 Fury (the Navy version of the F-86). The Fury was the first 1-hole Navy jet...... the A-4 was the second, the F-8 was the third and the A-7 was the last.

The FJ2, A-4 and F-8 were contemporaries, developed in the mid-50s, when the world was still in elementary school when it came to jet engines. And the A-7 is essentially a derivative of the F-8 and featured an innovative new type of jet called a turbofan (which is standard fare these days). Note that since the SLUF was introduced, the Navy developed two all-new tactical jets (F-14, F/A-18 and its variants) that are two-holers. So the F-35 represents the first single-engined jet to come into carrier service in four decades.

Ask any Naval Aviator what they think about the single- or double-engine question. Consider this: when the engine on an F-16 (or, inevitably, the F-35) goes wonky the pilot must stop what they are doing and immediately troubleshoot the problem. Seconds count, and they need to know if they can press on or it's time to pull the loud handle and step outside. If a lump fails in an F/A-18..... the pilot can pretty much ignore it in most flight regimes and go about finishing whatever task they are currently doing until they can devote some quality time with their checklist. It is not difficult to find examples of pilot's lives being saved because they had a second lump to bring them back to the boat. It is equally easy to find examples of 1-holers that had to be ditched because of relatively minor incidents (like ingesting a foreign object on takeoff).

There is no fighter pilot in the fleet that will say they prefer a single-engine jet. The acceptance of the single-engine F-35 was nothing more than a mandated compromise to meet the requirements of the USAF and USMC. The funny thing about that is of the three variants under development the Navy F-35C is shaping up to be the only worth a poop, with its larger wing area and greater internal fuel capacity (range). Too bad it can't actually land on a carrier. It's hook-to-gear separation is only 7 feet...... that means that when a landing aircraft runs over an arresting wire, the hook will pass over that same wire before it can be brought back into tension.

[mac5155]

Was this posted yet?

You know he's holding back a smile when he's shooting that M2. lol

[tifosi77]

Ma Deuce......

[mac5155]

Ma Deuce......

I'm kind of jelly piers got to shoot one before I could.

[Shyster]

Plus, I'm inherently skeptical of a Navy jet with one engine.

You mean like the A-4 Skyhawk, F-8 Crusader, and A-7 Corsair II?

[Many good points snipped.]

To be honest, I’m failing to see the need for the F-35 to begin worth versus proven platforms like the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. Yeah, yeah, I know the Chinese and the Russians (especially the Chinese) are developing next-generation aircraft like the PLAAF J-20 and J-31 and the Sukhoi PAK. The odds that the United States would ever find itself up against either of those two nations in a military conflict (especially the Chinese) is staggeringly unlikely. It’s much more likely that the U.S. would be up against some medium power like Iran, and the best they can come up with at the moment is an obviously fake mockup. We’re spending trillions to develop aircraft to fight nations that—economically speaking—we would never possibly fight in the first place.

[tifosi77]

Well, I do agree that we are not very likely to ever find ourselves in a shooting war with China. I mean, they'd never lend us the money to fund it.

But the 4th Gen teen series fighters are getting quite long in the tooth. The F-15 prototype first flew before I was born, and I'm going to turn 40 in six weeks. The F-16 entered service in the Carter administration. And when the F/A-18 first hit the fleet it was a world that had yet to experience something called the 'compact disc'.

Boeing delivered the final F-15C (air superiority variant) to the USAF in 1994. With a planned service life of 16-17 years, we see that those jets - never mind the hundreds that preceded them - should have been retired in 2011. Yet still they fly. The jets are old, and that is a very legitimate reason to replace those types. We're talking about tactical fighter aircraft that spend their lives at high-G and high angles of attack; the airframes wear out. It's not like the venerable B-52 that Digitalgypsy referenced, which just sort of poots itself around the sky like a really ugly passenger airliner.

The Super Hornet is a decent update of the Legacy Hornets, but it's still not anywhere near as good as a proper modern fighter like a Eurofighter, or a Rafale, or even the Swedish Gripen...... never mind the possible 'red' threats out there, which have greater payload and maneuvering capability. (Seriously..... search YouTube for aerial demos of the Su-30........) I am extremely skeptical of the threat provided by the J-20, J-31 and PAK; we'll know more about them in the fullness of time, but as of right now I remain unconvinced they'll ever be much more than technology demonstrators. Aviation equivalents of concept cars.

What I think we need is a conventional aircraft a la the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen, but with the electronic and sensor systems of the F-35. Stealth is a 20th century concept that is not long for this Earth (which is part of the reason I think the Chinese and Russian prototypes are kinda crap), and it simply isn't worth the investment. As you said, they're fighting the last war. Actually, they're fighting two wars ago. If they were fighting the last war, we might get a useful airplane out of it.

[Shyster]

What I think we need is a conventional aircraft a la the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen, but with the electronic and sensor systems of the F-35. Stealth is a 20th century concept that is not long for this Earth (which is part of the reason I think the Chinese and Russian prototypes are kinda crap), and it simply isn't worth the investment. As you said, they're fighting the last war. Actually, they're fighting two wars ago. If they were fighting the last war, we might get a useful airplane out of it.

I think we’re agreeing. The United States military wanted the F-35 to be something so awesome and kickass that it would leave even next-generation aircraft from other manufacturers in the dust. It would have been more appropriate to pursue a “good enough” goal for the new aircraft, maybe something along the lines of an evolutionary development of the Super Hornet. I would have pointed the engineers at the Super Hornet and F-16 said something along the lines of “we want something like that but updated to current technology. Keep it cheap and conventional. If you can carry over parts—even maybe the engines—that would be a plus. Did I mention cheap? Oh, I just said it again.”

[columbia]

Senate Minority Leader Fooled by Report in Military Version of The Onion

The best parody contains elements of truth. Which might explain how the military’s answer to The Onion suckered the Senate’s Republican leader.

Meet The Duffel Blog, if you haven’t already. A must-read for national-security nerds — and anyone who enjoys humor, really — it provides pitch-perfect military parody online, such as this piece about Syria hosting Iraq War reenactors (bylined by “G-Had”) or this one about a Google Street View Prius getting blown up in Kandahar. The Duffel Blog, as dutiful readers know, is America’s oldest online source for fake military news, founded in 1797 in a moment of farsightedness. It often gives more real talk than most legit journalistic institutions, but there is no way you can confuse it with the real news.

Unless you are a senior member of the United States Senate.

On November 14, 2012, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote to Elizabeth King, the Pentagon’s congressional liaison, with a an unusually credulous query. “I am writing on behalf of a constituent who has contacted me regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners receiving Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits,” McConnell wrote in a letter acquired by Danger Room. “I would appreciate your review and response to my constituent’s concerns.”


Um, Guantanamo detainees getting GI Bill benefits? Yes, that’s from the Duffel Blog, as McConnell’s constituent clearly states, complete with the reference URL. Said constituent even notes that he or she can’t find any information about the alleged government payouts to suspected insurgents and terrorists.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02 ... ffel-blog/

[Geezer]

I just have to say this:

For whatever reason, the pro-drug testing welfare recipients memes are all over facebook recently. The perception that the only people/majority who receive welfare benefits are unemployed druggies is so unbelievably frustrating, I don't even know where to start.

The constitutionality of the matter is something that most people have a problem with, but for me it comes down to two things:

1) Why only welfare recipients and not every else that receives government funding to supplement finances? There are work-activity requirements for TANF, etc. From 2009, 28% of 50+ have used marijuana, so why not test Social Security and Medicare.

2) If states can't pass this off as something that could benefit the state fiscally, as the failure of the program in Florida proved, costing the state approx 60k, catching something like 2% of recipients who took the test, then why is it still talked about in that regards. The statistics from Florida are pretty straightforward. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no ... tests.html

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

There are certainly drug and alcohol abuse problems among welfare clients. I don't know if people are including food stamp recipients also but some of those folks also work. As you inferred there are welfare recipients who are employed, who are unemployed because of handicaps, etc. It's kind of an automatic response to figure that this would help prevent people who deserve no help if they're unemployed because they want to party 24/7 at taxpayer expense but as you've suggested there's not much chance of such a policy being effective. Such a policy could be suggested for public housing residents which have huge drug/violence problems;at least in the the county I live in and ten+ counties I'm familiar with.
Some of the problems with drug testing policies are; the cost as you've stated; such tests could likely be avoided or beaten. The fairness could be challenged as to illegal drug testing but not addrressing recipients who abuse alcohol or prescription drugs. What would be done with those failing tests? Would their kids be tossed into foster care after the parent was stripped of benefits. Most people believe in safety nets and also don't want to see bums beating the system. But to help deserving people you're stuck with fraud and undeserving people gaming the system.
I just read a prime example of the waste and fraud in government programs. Our stellar state employees failed to prevent prison inmates and county jailbirds from collecting unemployment benefits. Most people favor unemployment benefits but don't want convicts getting them.
http://www.ncnewsonline.com/opinion/x76 ... employment
As far as testing for social security or medicare I certainly think social security disability should be carefully screened. But regular social security and medicare benefits are based on worker- employer contributions. They're not government charity programs like food stamps, public housing etc.

[PensFanInDC]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

[Gaucho]

Because it's borderline fascism. Actually, scratch "borderline".

[Factorial]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

When is the last time you took a drug test?

[PensFanInDC]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

When is the last time you took a drug test?

Last week. Pre-employment screening.

[tifosi77]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

I personally don't have a problem requiring drug testing for welfare and food stamp recipients. But there are legal challenges to the practice..... like the fact that it's been struck down in several jurisdictions as unconstitutional ("unreasonable search and seizure"). And past experience has shown that the program's costs tend to be completely disproportionate to any sort of effective deterrence/screening goals. For example, in the Florida program over 4,000 applicants were screened but just over 100 failed the test. That's roughly 2%.... and when the costs of testing are weighed against the cost of simply paying the benefit (sans testing) the program ended up costing FL taxpayers something like $50,000, before all the legal fees incurred in defending the law are even factored in. (Gov Scott apparently used outside counsel for the lawsuit, instead of the Atty General's office.) And that program wasn't even in place for a full year.

So on its face, I'm fine with it. But where the rubber meets the road..... it's kind of pointless.

[stinky]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

I personally don't have a problem requiring drug testing for welfare and food stamp recipients. But there are legal challenges to the practice..... like the fact that it's been struck down in several jurisdictions as unconstitutional ("unreasonable search and seizure"). And past experience has shown that the program's costs tend to be completely disproportionate to any sort of effective deterrence/screening goals. For example, in the Florida program over 4,000 applicants were screened but just over 100 failed the test. That's roughly 2%.... and when the costs of testing are weighed against the cost of simply paying the benefit (sans testing) the program ended up costing FL taxpayers something like $50,000, before all the legal fees incurred in defending the law are even factored in. (Gov Scott apparently used outside counsel for the lawsuit, instead of the Atty General's office.) And that program wasn't even in place for a full year.

So on its face, I'm fine with it. But where the rubber meets the road..... it's kind of pointless.

I don’t have an issue with it either, however, honest question - did the drug screening requirement have any statistical analysis done to see if it had prevented drug addicts from applying? I mean, if I were on drugs and knew I might have to take this test, I probably would not subject myself to the test.

[stinky]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

I personally don't have a problem requiring drug testing for welfare and food stamp recipients. But there are legal challenges to the practice..... like the fact that it's been struck down in several jurisdictions as unconstitutional ("unreasonable search and seizure"). And past experience has shown that the program's costs tend to be completely disproportionate to any sort of effective deterrence/screening goals. For example, in the Florida program over 4,000 applicants were screened but just over 100 failed the test. That's roughly 2%.... and when the costs of testing are weighed against the cost of simply paying the benefit (sans testing) the program ended up costing FL taxpayers something like $50,000, before all the legal fees incurred in defending the law are even factored in. (Gov Scott apparently used outside counsel for the lawsuit, instead of the Atty General's office.) And that program wasn't even in place for a full year.

So on its face, I'm fine with it. But where the rubber meets the road..... it's kind of pointless.

I don’t have an issue with it either, however, honest question - did the drug screening requirement have any statistical analysis done to see if it had prevented drug addicts from applying? I mean, if I were on drugs and knew I might have to take this test, I probably would not subject myself to the test.

[Geezer]

Because it's borderline fascism. Actually, scratch "borderline".

I question the effectiveness of drug testing recipients, the cost, etc. But I don't get the fascism angle . They're getting government charity at taxpayer expense. That's not some inherent right,it's a safety net program given them from the generosity of the taxpaying public.
We drug test lots of people for private sector jobs, our military, and require for kids participating in high school sports in some locations. I don't see people receiving assistance as having special priveleges that others don't have.
I don't think it's worth the effort because our country does a poor job administering any of its programs. But I can't see how it's fascist .

[tifosi77]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

I personally don't have a problem requiring drug testing for welfare and food stamp recipients. But there are legal challenges to the practice..... like the fact that it's been struck down in several jurisdictions as unconstitutional ("unreasonable search and seizure"). And past experience has shown that the program's costs tend to be completely disproportionate to any sort of effective deterrence/screening goals. For example, in the Florida program over 4,000 applicants were screened but just over 100 failed the test. That's roughly 2%.... and when the costs of testing are weighed against the cost of simply paying the benefit (sans testing) the program ended up costing FL taxpayers something like $50,000, before all the legal fees incurred in defending the law are even factored in. (Gov Scott apparently used outside counsel for the lawsuit, instead of the Atty General's office.) And that program wasn't even in place for a full year.

So on its face, I'm fine with it. But where the rubber meets the road..... it's kind of pointless.

I don’t have an issue with it either, however, honest question - did the drug screening requirement have any statistical analysis done to see if it had prevented drug addicts from applying? I mean, if I were on drugs and knew I might have to take this test, I probably would not subject myself to the test.

Tbh, I'm not really sure how you could measure a deterrence effect. The only metric they really have available to them is the aggregate number of applicants, and I don't know how you could link a reduction to the policy of drug testing. And in that regard, the law did not deliver as expected.

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.
*****
And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

Even if you count the 40 additional people who canceled their tests as 'positives', it's only 3.6% of applicants. And you'd only be removing $1,200 or so from a $45,000 cost deficit.

I think this is one of the policies that sounds okay on paper (to some), but can't really deliver the promised results. And I think that a big reason for that is the overwhelming majority of people on public assistance simply are not drug users. We all hear about the instances of fraud in the system - the million dollar lottery winner collecting their food stamps, for example - and sort of presume that they are the rule rather than the exception. And that just isn't the case.

[tifosi77]

Because it's borderline fascism. Actually, scratch "borderline".

I question the effectiveness of drug testing recipients, the cost, etc. But I don't get the fascism angle . They're getting government charity at taxpayer expense. That's not some inherent right,it's a safety net program given them from the generosity of the taxpaying public.
We drug test lots of people for private sector jobs, our military, and require for kids participating in high school sports in some locations. I don't see people receiving assistance as having special priveleges that others don't have.
I don't think it's worth the effort because our country does a poor job administering any of its programs. But I can't see how it's fascist .

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy into the fascism argument, either. I could see that claim if everybody was required to take a drug test, and carry around their federal Drug Screening ID card (pass nine drug tests and the tenth one is free!). But this is a instituted as a prerequisite in exchange for taxpayer money.

And I'm honestly not sure I buy the 'unreasonable search' argument that's struck down these laws in other jurisdictions, either.

[Factorial]

Don't forget to get the Heat Factory hand warmer:

http://www.detoxforless.com/pass-a-drug ... e-pee.html

[Pitt87]

tldr

Are we saying that most people on welfare do not use drugs? Well, that may be the case, but if it is then what is the problem with drug testing them?

I personally don't have a problem requiring drug testing for welfare and food stamp recipients. But there are legal challenges to the practice..... like the fact that it's been struck down in several jurisdictions as unconstitutional ("unreasonable search and seizure"). And past experience has shown that the program's costs tend to be completely disproportionate to any sort of effective deterrence/screening goals. For example, in the Florida program over 4,000 applicants were screened but just over 100 failed the test. That's roughly 2%.... and when the costs of testing are weighed against the cost of simply paying the benefit (sans testing) the program ended up costing FL taxpayers something like $50,000, before all the legal fees incurred in defending the law are even factored in. (Gov Scott apparently used outside counsel for the lawsuit, instead of the Atty General's office.) And that program wasn't even in place for a full year.

So on its face, I'm fine with it. But where the rubber meets the road..... it's kind of pointless.

I don’t have an issue with it either, however, honest question - did the drug screening requirement have any statistical analysis done to see if it had prevented drug addicts from applying? I mean, if I were on drugs and knew I might have to take this test, I probably would not subject myself to the test.

Tbh, I'm not really sure how you could measure a deterrence effect. The only metric they really have available to them is the aggregate number of applicants, and I don't know how you could link a reduction to the policy of drug testing. And in that regard, the law did not deliver as expected.

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.
*****
And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

Even if you count the 40 additional people who canceled their tests as 'positives', it's only 3.6% of applicants. And you'd only be removing $1,200 or so from a $45,000 cost deficit.

I think this is one of the policies that sounds okay on paper (to some), but can't really deliver the promised results. And I think that a big reason for that is the overwhelming majority of people on public assistance simply are not drug users. We all hear about the instances of fraud in the system - the million dollar lottery winner collecting their food stamps, for example - and sort of presume that they are the rule rather than the exception. And that just isn't the case.

Worth every penny. I would rather validate that the money given to people isn't spent on illegal drugs than allow every dollar become questionable.

[columbia]

I never hear anyone talking about every employee - from the CEO down - of government contractors also undergoing drug tests.
Why is that?