MythDragon: Have we just tried, you know, not not giving these people all this money in order to encourage them to go out and get jobs?

Other countries do that, Russia these days has flimsy help for unemployed and poor people and a flat tax. Two pillars of "conservative" fiscal policy. And they're doing... uh... well... it'd work in here in merica! USA! USA!

AbbeySomeone: Has anybody noticed that the manufacturers of synthetic urine and drug testing kits are doing well in this economy?

I hope you're not implying that the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, made a fortune on drug tests. Oh wait, he did.

namegoeshere: Lord Dimwit: I'm also okay with placing a code on driver's licenses and other state-issued IDs indicating that you're on food assistance. That way you can't use your assistance to buy food that you then return for cash and then use the cash to buy booze (assuming you're asked to show ID to purchase booze). I realize it wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might put a dent into the problem and cause a few people to think about what it is they're doing.

Just alchohol? What about cigarettes? Cheetos? Fast food? What about other items? Brand name instead of store brand? What about entertainment items? Toys for the kiddies? Video games? DVDs? Makeup? Where do you draw the line?

Or is it booze because while employed people may have the ability to drink in moderation, welfare recipients are universally Night Train swilling gutter alchies?

Of course I don't believe that all welfare recipients are alcoholics. I grew up on welfare (when we could get it, long story), and neither of my parents drank a drop.

The goal of my hypothetical plan is to deal with (strongly) addictive substances - alcohol, heroin, crack, etc. Addiction can destroy someone's ability to hold down employment. Yes, cigarettes are addictive, more so than alcohol to most people, but they generally aren't as problematic in getting or keeping a job. If the point of welfare is to support you while you look for a job, it shouldn't be used to pay for things that have been noted to cause difficulty in employment. If you can drink in moderation, more power to you, but that's a luxury that maybe you should consider skipping for a bit while you work on getting on sounder financial footing.

Note that I differentiate welfare for those seeking employment from welfare for people incapable of working due to age or disability. That should be available completely without strings at all times. Medical care (including treatment for addiction) should be completely free to everyone (not just those receiving public assistance).

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.

I am beginning to believe you are dumb enough to actually believe this.

I have been there too. When I was 20 I was working 3 minimum wage jobs for a total of 34 hours a week just to get by. I pulled myself out of it but I have some natural advantages that many do not.

Would you kindly stop insulting my character?

As soon as you show some worthy of merit. If you think that because you were able to pull yourself out of poverty then anyone, the person with mental disorders so severe holding down a job would be impossible, the single mom who was left by her husband and daycare would be more expensive than the minimum wage she could bring in, someone so severely disabled that the pain meds make employment a dream, if you think anyone should be able to do because you could, you are an idiot.

I've not insulted you once and I think it's pretty apparent that I can string together thought out opinions with experience to back it up. Yes. I have advantages many do not. What I am saying, and what you fail to understand, is that I am not talking about people who are incapable of helping themselves.

Maybe because you said "I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.", that doesn't leave room for the exceptions you are making now. Nice back peddle.

Ok. See your bolded statement.

CSB: I was widowed five weeks after my wedding while a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance. Cops determined he was at fault. I got nothing. Forcibly ejected from my home. Lived in my car for three months. Moved in with family to get back on my feet. Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance. At the time I made "too much" to qualify for a hardship discount at the hospital and I lost my job. Homeless again. Got a job as a ...

You bolded one situation and the rebutted with a completely unrelated scenario. And you pulled yourself out of poverty by living with family and living with some guy. How bootstrappy!

No, no, no, you guys got it all wrong !

TFA actually proves that the legislation worked perfectly. The dearth of positive drug tests proves that all welfare recipients stopped taking drugs as soon as mandatory drug tests were announced !

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.

I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.

There's ALWAYS going to be problems like this in ANY program. Too bad certain people seem perfectly willing to bankrupt the system trying to make it perfect instead of accepting small amounts of waste as a cost of doing business.

The problem with conservative thinking is that they would rather stick to some impractical sense of what they think is right (that they want to force on other people) than be either practical or compassionate.

It's the same with any of the issues they like to legislate. No one really believes that drugs are particularly good for people, or that abortions are a great idea, or prostitution, or illegal aliens, etc. However, it is obvious that humans will simply seek out all that stuff whether it is good for them or not. There's a reason that the Old Testament mentions these things -- because humans have had the same tendencies for over 5000 years!

So while it is sad that people risk their health, make bad decisions, etc. it is simply impractical to enforce it and it is mean-spirited to punish it.

I know it feels "righteous" to say "you screwed up your life so society shouldn't help you", but actually righteous feelings that harden your heart towards others aren't even Christian! Anyone using the Christian Bible to inflict harsh rules on people is simply not doing it right. The proper Christian response to people screwing up their lives is to reach out to them, shower them with loving compassion, give a good example and trust that some people will turn around based on that. If you're angry or hard-hearted, you're going to Hell, and have no right to specify morals to anyone.

Anyway, anyone who thinks that denying a social assistance to someone who is already proven to be incapable of good life decisions is impractical and un-Christian/inhuman.


Sweet Mother of God! It's like you've been paying attention!

/not perfect, but a hell of a lot closer than most.

Nobody helped this guy! Be more bootstrappy!

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Churchy LaFemme: C'mon, now!

The point was never to stop drug abusers. The point was to put those lazy poors in their place and make the rest of us feel good about ourselves.

Mission accomplished!

Pretty much this.

Is it any wonder that the GOP hates the poor? Bullies always prefer targets that can't fight back

But you can see from the idiots in this thread that the con base wants their politicians to not be swayed by what works. They want repubs to stick with failed ideas because they like those ideas and thats more important to them than fixing the problem.

They especially like punishing people. You don't have to prove anything to a con if you are punishing people. Especially poor people. The more mean spirited the better.

kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

bearcats1983: I had to drive 50 miles to a facility in order to take a drug test (swab only) before my job would hire me. I'd assume most companies have a similar drug testing policy. Why do people on "assistance" get a pass?

Do you even understand why you were tested to begin with? Because if you truly did, you'd have realized that the same logic (such as it is) cannot be used to justify testing welfare recipients.

stonicus: [static.tvguide.com image 220x150]

Nobody helped this guy! Be more bootstrappy!

I don't understand how he could say what he said and not feel massively ashamed of himself for the rest of his life.

TFA seems to have cherry-picked TANF which is not the only form of welfare.

jabelar: The problem with conservative thinking is that they would rather stick to some impractical sense of what they think is right (that they want to force on other people) than be either practical or compassionate.

It's the same with any of the issues they like to legislate. No one really believes that drugs are particularly good for people, or that abortions are a great idea, or prostitution, or illegal aliens, etc. However, it is obvious that humans will simply seek out all that stuff whether it is good for them or not. There's a reason that the Old Testament mentions these things -- because humans have had the same tendencies for over 5000 years!

So while it is sad that people risk their health, make bad decisions, etc. it is simply impractical to enforce it and it is mean-spirited to punish it.

I know it feels "righteous" to say "you screwed up your life so society shouldn't help you", but actually righteous feelings that harden your heart towards others aren't even Christian! Anyone using the Christian Bible to inflict harsh rules on people is simply not doing it right. The proper Christian response to people screwing up their lives is to reach out to them, shower them with loving compassion, give a good example and trust that some people will turn around based on that. If you're angry or hard-hearted, you're going to Hell, and have no right to specify morals to anyone.

Anyway, anyone who thinks that denying a social assistance to someone who is already proven to be incapable of good life decisions is impractical and un-Christian/inhuman.

Welcome to my favorites list.

Cats_Lie: Apparently the law was a huge success, in that it got people to quit their addictions before applying for assistance. No easy feat! And it managed to do it without costly jails or using the criminal justice system. How is this a bad thing?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but the participants knew when the tests were being administered. That gives them time to 'cleanse'.

Cats_Lie: Apparently the law was a huge success, in that it got people to quit their addictions before applying for assistance. No easy feat! And it managed to do it without costly jails or using the criminal justice system. How is this a bad thing?

Obviously this needs to be repeated in other areas of society to totally end vice once and for all. The state is coming after your vices next, buddy.

Enjoy.

I'm looking at the article and I can't find where it list the number people who stopped using drugs in order to pass the test and so as to continue to receive payments.
Also, how do they know how many people didn't show up because they knew they couldn't pass the test?

Poorly reported articles like this could lead someone to the wrong conclusion.

jst3p: Just because you don't agree with my opinion, that doesn't make my opinion stupid. Maybe I'm lucky that I'm not as narrow minded as you, because not once have I said anything disparaging about your character.

kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

Also: This is what falling off your high horse looks like. What a difference an hour makes.

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

You've been ignored! Feel the burrrrrrrn!!!

I did enjoy the "my life is more screwed up than yours so I win" strategy. It's interesting.

Here's an Idea. How about all those slackers get jobs, and get off the dole and stop making babies for lack of anything productive to do?
We can bus them all out to farms, and put them up in tents, and they can work for a living.
They can get fresh air and exercise, and put in a hard day's work and displace illegal migrant workers. There's no law says they can't work for their benefits.
I resent politicians who enable people not to work and other to work illegally.
You don't have to live one block from a fast food joint.
You can pick fresh veggies and eat healthy.
Do it on a farm. Or be bussed to one.
It would work, and they would work.

You want a jobs program that creates jobs?
There is a job proram that creates jobs.


Who haas a problem with working, getting healthy, and living right?

/people that annoy me do.

Tax cuts for the rich failed to create jobs.

Cons are still proposing tax cuts for the rich to create jobs.

Military action in the middle east failed.

Cons now want to attack Iran.

Sex abstinence education failed.

Cons want abstinence education to continue.

Trickle-down economics failed.

Cons want trickle down to continue.

And on and on ...

duffblue: Since it's Florida, wouldn't it be more efficient to assume everybody is on drugs?

I think it's safer to assume the state of Florida has earned it's own tag because its residents are NOT properly medicated.

Hobodeluxe: MythDragon: Have we just tried, you know, not not giving these people all this money in order to encourage them to go out and get jobs?

you know that idea might have some merit if there were a lot of jobs for those people open and just waiting on someone to fill them.

I know !, give them money to move to China where all the jobs are !

Rapmaster2000: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

You've been ignored! Feel the burrrrrrrn!!!

I did enjoy the "my life is more screwed up than yours so I win" strategy. It's interesting.

Thanks for quoting me, I wanted her to see that one.

I would pay for TF if I could know how many people have me favorited and ignored. I am betting it is a pretty even split.

supageil: How many of those that failed the drug tests were Florida legislators who'd supported the law?

Oh, right. They were exempt.

Keep snorting that coke, guys. Coast is clear.

It's obviously an attempt to drive down prices. Less demand because Welfare recipents are unable to partake. No change in suppy. Winning!

jst3p: Rapmaster2000: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Give money to drug addicts and lazy illegal immigrants and completely discount real genuine hard work and true hardship. Welcome to my ignore list, you heartless communist.

If your reading comprehension wasn't so poor you would see that my motivation is based on the fact that there will always be a few bad apples but because there genuinely are some in need it is a cost of doing business if you want to help them.

But just for fun:

a student who was suddenly left with a 220k mortgage and all his debt. No life insurance.

Moved in with a man who broke my jaw and I couldn't talk or eat for two months. No health insurance

Yeah, you are a genuine hard luck story, no bad choices of your own lead you to your shiatty situation. Nope, none at all.

You've been ignored! Feel the burrrrrrrn!!!

I did enjoy the "my life is more screwed up than yours so I win" strategy. It's interesting.

Thanks for quoting me, I wanted her to see that one.

I would pay for TF if I could know how many people have me favorited and ignored. I am betting it is a pretty even split.

Nah, I think the latest ignore system doesn't allow that because your name is in the comment. I can't be sure though. I've never ignored anyone.

Churchy LaFemme: C'mon, now!

The point was never to stop drug abusers. The point was to put those lazy poors in their place and make the rest of us feel good about ourselves.

Mission accomplished!


Actually, I'd say the real reason was neither. I think the real reason was to play to the prejudices of the base so in the next election they'd have ammo for trying to drum up more Republican votes for the voters of Florida.

Tyee: 'm looking at the article and I can't find where it list the number people who stopped using drugs in order to pass the test and so as to continue to receive payments.

it also doesn't list the number of people who bought a urinator to pass the test while high.

doubled99: Drugs should only be legal if you have a job.
Working hard? Contributing to society? Sure, you can have a pill or joint or line to relax you.
No job? Then you're just a bum doing dope-you're under arrest.

So that when your mortgage company rapes you - you feel every thrust

dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

When you stop calling it "fark it" and start calling it "less intrusive government".

kiwimoogle84: supageil: How many of those that failed the drug tests were Florida legislators who'd supported the law?

Oh, right. They were exempt.

Keep snorting that coke, guys. Coast is clear.

This.

I would hope that state legislators would hopefully, I dunno, maybe, not be on welfare though...

kiwimoogle84: And rap master, my this only got escalated to prove a point. I understand hardship and still never took handouts. Don't want pity. Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

Except for moving in with family. And living with that guy for a year. Other than that, absolutely no handouts!

kiwimoogle84: "wanted her to see that." now you're just farming cruel. Karma is a biatch. Thanks.

It is a bumper crop this year, I am hoping to get in on the "cruel" subsidies. I need a lobbyist.

kiwimoogle84:

Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

The plural of anecdote is not data. The singular of anecdote is even less.

But I digress, I've read this hard luck story from you two days in a row. I wouldn't say you want pity. I'd say you want praise. Congratulations for being better than people on welfare. You earned it. Fark them.

I'm hearing some not-too-bad arguments for compassionate intervention with drug users who are on welfare.

But if it were really about "helping those unfortunate people get off drugs", and not just a bit of anti-poor class warfare, then why the hell aren't we worried about the personal spending of those CEOs who receive corporate welfare?

This country gifts TRILLIONS of dollars of our tax money to the owners, operators and assorted higher-ups of hundreds of companies every year, some of whom are currently posting record profits. Where is the concern for their possible drug habits?

Anyone who's spent more than a few days in the company of the wealthy knows that drug abuse--both illegal and prescription--can be just as big a problem for the rich as for the poor. So where are the lawmakers hollering for mandatory drug testing of anyone at a company that receives corporate welfare and tax subsidies? Do you farkers honestly think none of that has ever gone to an 8ball or two?

That's one of the main reasons that drug testing the poor comes across as class warfare to me--corollary drug testing of the wealthy who ALSO receive welfare, and who are just as likely to indulge in substance abuse, is not being touted by anyone.

It's a way of humiliating the poor and undermining their will to demand equal dignity. Until there is a bill on the table to drug-test the CEO's of companies that have been bailed out with tax dollars, I cannot believe otherwise.

Let's do a little probability here. Let D be the event in which a person uses a drug being tested for. Let E be the event that the test comes back positive. What is the probability that a person uses drugs, given that they tested positive?

P(D|E) = P(DE)/P(E)

From Bayes' Formula we have:

P(D|E) = P(E|D)P(D)/[P(E|D)P(D)+P(E|D^C)P(D^C)]

Now let's make some assumptions about the prevalence of drug use and the accuracy of the test:
A) 1% of the population uses the drugs being tested.
B) The test is 95% effective at detecting use of a drug.
C) There is a false positive percentage of 1.5%.

Making these assumptions yields that 2.91% of those tested will fail the test, even though only 1% of the populace uses the drug being tested for. This equates to only 34.4% of people that registered positive as actually being drug users. These people will now have their lives systematically destroyed with this new label "junkie" that has been unjustly attached to them. Once one considers that this is every time a group is tested, and will repeat itself with a fresh new batch of lives destroyed every time this testing cycle comes around, it becomes very obvious how awful this policy is for society.

Even if one disregards the negative societal impacts of such a policy, or even wants to convince themselves that this testing is flawless, it still does not make sense from a purely financial standpoint. How much money was spent on these tests? How much money was saved by denying these drug users their assistance? FTA there was a 2.6% failure rate (not far from what we got with our assumptions), so for every person they catch they have to administer this test 38.5 times on average. Someone also has to administer the program, keep records, blah blah blah.

Oh, and for you trolling jackasses that are so happy to defend the implementation of such obviously horrible policies:
1) Don't even think of trying to argue with the mathematics. It's the one thing that we have in this world that is either correct or incorrect, no argument about it.
2) Don't bother trying to argue with my assumptions because I've already addressed that in the previous paragraph.
3) What's it like to spend your time defending people that are hellbent on destroying you, people you know and love, and the country you live in? Your life is meaningless and I pity you.

For everyone else: This was important enough for me to spend my lunch creating it, and I'd like for it to be reposted everywhere it is appropriate. Please repost this every place this issue is being discussed. Reply-all when your teabagger relative sends you a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW email that discusses this issue. This demonstrates how just a little knowledge of mathematics, combined with a little bit of thinking for oneself can easily expose how incredibly dangerous and destructive the policies that are being pushed by the GOP have become. People need to understand that the GOP is the greatest threat this nation has ever seen. If these people gain control of our government at this point, they will absolutely destroy this country.

Let me just say that the "drug effect" has no bearing on this, in my estimation.

Because if it were left to me, I'd eliminate all forms of welfare immediately, whether the people were on drugs or not.

Rapmaster2000:

lol

kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You're asking if you have the right to spend OUR tax money to test someone else in order to determine whether or not they are eligible for assistance?

No. YOU do not get to dictate how OUR money is spent.

Santa's Knee: namegoeshere: Lord Dimwit: I'm also okay with placing a code on driver's licenses and other state-issued IDs indicating that you're on food assistance. That way you can't use your assistance to buy food that you then return for cash and then use the cash to buy booze (assuming you're asked to show ID to purchase booze). I realize it wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might put a dent into the problem and cause a few people to think about what it is they're doing.

Just alchohol? What about cigarettes? Cheetos? Fast food? What about other items? Brand name instead of store brand? What about entertainment items? Toys for the kiddies? Video games? DVDs? Makeup? Where do you draw the line?

Or is it booze because while employed people may have the ability to drink in moderation, welfare recipients are universally Night Train swilling gutter alchies?

YOU DON'T GET TO USE MY MONEY TO BUY BOOZE!!!

It's not your money.
It's not your money.

Just thought I would repeat that. Since they spent my money poorly on your education.
Also because anyone who is so petty that they would rather trample on the Constitution over a nickel, is probably thick in the head.

KWillets: TFA seems to have cherry-picked TANF which is not the only form of welfare.

As did the last 3 times this was on fark, and everyone got outraged at highly cherry picked fake data.

jst3p
kiwimoogle84

I'm more in line with jst3p in that I think universal mandatory drug testing spends exponentially more money than it seeks to protect. But I am not unsympathetic to kiwimoogle84's sense that there should be something in place to discourage those who would abuse the system, because spending their assistance on crack doesn't sit well with me either.

Is there no middle ground here? Not a rhetorical question, I'm asking because I really don't know. They could do random testing, the cost of which (I assume) would be much less than testing all of them. I'm not sure the "threat" of getting caught dirty would be that much of a deterrent.

Oh, and kiwimoogle84, when you said I spent a year paying off the totaled motorcycle of a dead man, because there was a balance on it and it had to be paid. I was going to make a crack along the lines of "oh, you doesn't mind helping out....you just have to be dead." You know, and follow it up with an "i keed because i love" or some such, as to make it clear it wasn't a personal attack.

Then you told the rest of story, and I had a sad. Jesus Christ. Glad you worked your way out of it.

kiwimoogle84: Rapmaster2000: kiwimoogle84:

Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

The plural of anecdote is not data. The singular of anecdote is even less.

But I digress, I've read this hard luck story from you two days in a row. I wouldn't say you want pity. I'd say you want praise. Congratulations for being better than people on welfare. You earned it. Fark them.

I only wrote it because it applies. And I think you're being sarcastic so I'm just not going to say anything else. Clearly, having an opinion makes a person stupid. I'm just not going to do this anymore.

He conceded: take his head.

Need to screen for nicotine as well. That should be a no-no for public assistance. Smoking is really expensive and bad for you.

baggins2000: Santa's Knee: namegoeshere: Lord Dimwit: I'm also okay with placing a code on driver's licenses and other state-issued IDs indicating that you're on food assistance. That way you can't use your assistance to buy food that you then return for cash and then use the cash to buy booze (assuming you're asked to show ID to purchase booze). I realize it wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might put a dent into the problem and cause a few people to think about what it is they're doing.

Just alchohol? What about cigarettes? Cheetos? Fast food? What about other items? Brand name instead of store brand? What about entertainment items? Toys for the kiddies? Video games? DVDs? Makeup? Where do you draw the line?

Or is it booze because while employed people may have the ability to drink in moderation, welfare recipients are universally Night Train swilling gutter alchies?

YOU DON'T GET TO USE MY MONEY TO BUY BOOZE!!!

It's not your money.
It's not your money.

Just thought I would repeat that. Since they spent my money poorly on your education.
Also because anyone who is so petty that they would rather trample on the Constitution over a nickel, is probably thick in the head.

It is my money and I paid for my education,

Anytime you give my taxes to someone, it's my money (too).

I went to a private college and paid for it all by my lonesome, dink.