Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Should people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
- Thread starter p0ink
- Start date
G
=Gay$Ray=
Guest
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
Oh fuck no. Theres no fucking way the government can do that. Peoples benefits have never been tied to drug use. Why not drug test every drivers license holder once a month, or pensioners and retirees, it would make as much sense? Because its illegal and immoral everywhere except apparently in some fascist fantasy playland.
Oh and by the way, sunshine, in case you havent noticed, Bush and his cronies bankrupted us with the deficit and unemployment, whos gonna pay for those fucking tests every month?
Oh fuck no. Theres no fucking way the government can do that. Peoples benefits have never been tied to drug use. Why not drug test every drivers license holder once a month, or pensioners and retirees, it would make as much sense? Because its illegal and immoral everywhere except apparently in some fascist fantasy playland.
Oh and by the way, sunshine, in case you havent noticed, Bush and his cronies bankrupted us with the deficit and unemployment, whos gonna pay for those fucking tests every month?
Buddy_Christ
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
it'll pay for itself when they fail drug tests.
i think it's an AWESOME idea.
i had an idea on what to do with people on Welfare.
a while back, i heard farms in the US didn't have enough workers. so i came up with a solution....build housing out by the farmlands and give the jobs to able bodied people on Welfare. it would be communities of people, so there'd be more than just farm work job availible. no work = no money & no place to live. hell, they could earn more than welfare gives them.
i think it's a good idea anyway.
=Gay$Ray= said:
it'll pay for itself when they fail drug tests.
i think it's an AWESOME idea.
i had an idea on what to do with people on Welfare.
a while back, i heard farms in the US didn't have enough workers. so i came up with a solution....build housing out by the farmlands and give the jobs to able bodied people on Welfare. it would be communities of people, so there'd be more than just farm work job availible. no work = no money & no place to live. hell, they could earn more than welfare gives them.
i think it's a good idea anyway.
G
=Gay$Ray=
Guest
Look if a person is entitled to benefits, they are entitled to those benefits. You cant retroactively add drug use as a disqualifier. Theres a lot of people who would absolutely love nothing more than to go to work, but they just fucking cant. Should they starve? Hitler tried that shit sunshine, it cant be done.
G
=Gay$Ray=
Guest
Id like to correct my previous post. Where I said "Hitler", I meant to say George Bush.
p0ink
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
you say welfare is a benefit and act like they are somehow entitled to other peoples' money?!
if they aren't responsible enough to have a job or a job that covers their basic cost of living, why shouldn't they be drug tested, especially because THEY ARE SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, NOT THEIR OWN!
they should have no say, because once again, they are not spending money they earned.
=Gay$Ray= said:
you say welfare is a benefit and act like they are somehow entitled to other peoples' money?!
if they aren't responsible enough to have a job or a job that covers their basic cost of living, why shouldn't they be drug tested, especially because THEY ARE SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, NOT THEIR OWN!
they should have no say, because once again, they are not spending money they earned.
G
=Gay$Ray=
Guest
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
You dont get how the social contract works, do you? I cant blame you its at least a 300 level course but what it boils down to is this: when we are born into this society, we are bound to honor the social contract for life. One of the benefits of people bonding into a society is that we can take care of our fallen. wE DO THAT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE ITS THE RIGHT, MORAL THING TO DO. That means if you are having a tough time, society will not let you starve and rot away in the street. Society has a mechanism for helping those who cant stay afloat for whatever reason. Extreme right wingers cant stand this. They are all for the weak, infirm and poor dying away. Well mr Hitleryouth, we as a society reject your inhuman ways. We choose to help our weak and downtrodden, because we are righteous and just.
p0ink said:
You dont get how the social contract works, do you? I cant blame you its at least a 300 level course but what it boils down to is this: when we are born into this society, we are bound to honor the social contract for life. One of the benefits of people bonding into a society is that we can take care of our fallen. wE DO THAT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE ITS THE RIGHT, MORAL THING TO DO. That means if you are having a tough time, society will not let you starve and rot away in the street. Society has a mechanism for helping those who cant stay afloat for whatever reason. Extreme right wingers cant stand this. They are all for the weak, infirm and poor dying away. Well mr Hitleryouth, we as a society reject your inhuman ways. We choose to help our weak and downtrodden, because we are righteous and just.
p0ink
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
so i dont know what i'm talking about because i didnt take some liberal class and listen to some leftist professor spew feel-good, hippy bullshit that comes right out of marx? yeah - ok.
welfare, social security, medicaid, etc boils down to one thing; LEGALIZED THEFT.
we are a society that loves to punish the sucess of others and redistribute the fruits of their labor to the lazy, inept, and undeserving. we, the producers, have one choice; either we let the money, we earned, be taken away from us, or we go to jail. how is that fair?
if you want to help 'the poor' and 'the downtrodden' go work at a soup line or donate YOUR money to charity, not somebody elses.
and yes, since they are not earning that money, they should have no guarantee to it.
you still fail to explain why it would be so 'terrible' and 'inhumane' to have someone be able to pass a drug test before taking money they did not earn. it's the absolute least they should do, so atleast those who actually earn a living, know the money being stole from them might actually be used to by food and not crack cocaine.
=Gay$Ray= said:
so i dont know what i'm talking about because i didnt take some liberal class and listen to some leftist professor spew feel-good, hippy bullshit that comes right out of marx? yeah - ok.
welfare, social security, medicaid, etc boils down to one thing; LEGALIZED THEFT.
we are a society that loves to punish the sucess of others and redistribute the fruits of their labor to the lazy, inept, and undeserving. we, the producers, have one choice; either we let the money, we earned, be taken away from us, or we go to jail. how is that fair?
if you want to help 'the poor' and 'the downtrodden' go work at a soup line or donate YOUR money to charity, not somebody elses.
and yes, since they are not earning that money, they should have no guarantee to it.
you still fail to explain why it would be so 'terrible' and 'inhumane' to have someone be able to pass a drug test before taking money they did not earn. it's the absolute least they should do, so atleast those who actually earn a living, know the money being stole from them might actually be used to by food and not crack cocaine.
p0ink
New member
toga22 said:
we would actually save money, because once one of them fails a drug test, they would no longer be elligible to receive any more stolen money from the government for certain amount of time.
the money might actually be used to buy food and put the heat on, instead of buying rocks and new pipes to replace the one they dropped on the sidewalk outside of a liqour store after burning their lips on the hot glass pipe.
I have no issue with forced drug testing.
But I don't think that it should be limited to those on welfare. If you want to live in this society, then follow the rules and don't do drugs at all.
If you break the rules, then you're removed and can live outside the civilized world.
Why stop and any income or status?
But I don't think that it should be limited to those on welfare. If you want to live in this society, then follow the rules and don't do drugs at all.
If you break the rules, then you're removed and can live outside the civilized world.
Why stop and any income or status?
p0ink
New member
EnderJE said:
wrong. there should not be mandatory drug testing for everyone, only those who are using other people's money to buy their drugs.
if the earners and producers want to spend their income on drugs, they should be allowed to do so. they should be allowed to spend the money THEY EARN however they choose.
those who are spending other people's money should not have the same luxury.
it should be as hard as possible for people here to live off of the hardwork of others.
I don't see how you can make the claim that Social Security is legalized theft - you're getting back money you've paid in, at a minimal interest rate at that. The average person gets back what they paid into the system after 3 years. The life expectancy of a black man is 68 years. So I retire at 65, get my money back over 3 years then I kick the bucket. Its you white people living to be 95 that are bankrupting the damn system. And just how many senior citizens out there are thinking to themselves "hmm, I can either buy food, my prescription medications or crack.......yep I think we'll go with the crack again this month".
Welfare payments is largely foodstamps, which you can't even buy alcohol and cigarettes with.
Welfare payments is largely foodstamps, which you can't even buy alcohol and cigarettes with.
Absolutely right and if drug use only affected the user, then I would have no issue. But drug use doesn't just affect the user.p0ink said:
People are caught in the middle either by being the victim of a user who's on a high and doesn't know what they are doing or in the cross fire of a battle for territory.
You have the right and the choice to fuck up your own life. But not mine, my friends or my kids.
Thus, I have no issue with testing for all and punishment for those who fail.
Robert Jan
New member
why?
so the welfare recipient tests positive what now then? shoot him in the head and bury him in a pit?
so the welfare recipient tests positive what now then? shoot him in the head and bury him in a pit?
Robert Jan
New member
I just don't think creating a large group of people inside the USA who have an income of $0.0000 is a smart thing to do even from a completely selfish point of view.
PS how much does a complete range- drug test cost?
bout the same as a welfare check?
PS how much does a complete range- drug test cost?
bout the same as a welfare check?
Robert Jan
New member
they shouldn't
and?
and?
p0ink
New member
Dial_tone said:
ok, if the government were to require this of all welfare recipients, it would mean a large number of drug tests, correct?
well, if they opened up bids from the private sector, i am sure companies would find a way to do mass drug testings on the cheap.
plus, you are discounting the billions would be saving by denying drug users cash from the government.
MAX 300
New member
An even better way to ensure that people on welfare stay off drugs and don't commit crimes like the lowlifes they are is to lock them all up in prison.
Actually, I think the government should create welfare housing areas where they are kept permanently. Those housing areas should be secured with barb wire fences and any welfare trash that tries to escape should be shot.
Actually, I think the government should create welfare housing areas where they are kept permanently. Those housing areas should be secured with barb wire fences and any welfare trash that tries to escape should be shot.
Robert Jan
New member
isnt the plan to get them jobsMAX 300 said:
Robert Jan
New member
for the same reason we have welfare in the first place to reduce the number of homeless criminal junkies in the streets
scriptfactory
New member
I really hope that is a joke...MAX 300 said:
I really don't have anything against people on welfare getting randomly drug tested but how the fuck would you make drug testing mandatory to recieve a welfare check?! The cost of drug testing a person/family on welfare every month would be really, really high. I don't care how you look at it, the cost would be way into the millions annually.
If you go the random drug testing route then you are not likely to catch someone, really. We were randomly drug tested in the Army and guess how many people got caught? Almost none. Almost everyone was smoking pot also... Random drug testing does not work.
Drug testing is not the solution to dealing with the poverty situation in the U.S. We would end up spending more money that could have been used to actually help someone. I think the focus should be on employment, not drug testing. What percentage of people do you think are wasting their welfare money on drugs? It probably isn't as high as you think.
When I was younger I knew plenty of people in welfare programs. Most of their families had no father and a single mom that was actually working! Such families make so little money that they still qualify for government help. In many cases food was actually an issue for them. Without government help they wouldn't have been able to survive.
Anyways... stupid fucking idea.
Robert Jan
New member
poink, see the previous 10.000 threads on welfare. read them again. youll get nothing new.
IHateAmerica
New member
If junkies get their welfare taken away then there will be a sharp increase in crime among those enterprising among them, coupled with slightly lower demand for drugs causing prices to drop somewhat, and then your CIA just have to smuggle more in to finance their little wars.
p0ink
New member
the point is, it is far too easy for shitbags to be mooching off of the hard work of everyone else and not enough incentive out there to make them earn their own way in life.
they even stopped doing food stamps because it was 'too embarassing' for people to pay with them. instead, they got their own little debit card. *puke*
you should be fucking embarrassed for being a piece of shit and not being able to pay your own way in life.
they even stopped doing food stamps because it was 'too embarassing' for people to pay with them. instead, they got their own little debit card. *puke*
you should be fucking embarrassed for being a piece of shit and not being able to pay your own way in life.
spongebob
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
i think you are starting to fall off the deep end orb, remember, one day you WILL need some assistance. and it may be sooner than you think.
p0ink said:so i dont know what i'm talking about because i didnt take some liberal class and listen to some leftist professor spew feel-good, hippy bullshit that comes right out of marx? yeah - ok.
welfare, social security, medicaid, etc boils down to one thing; LEGALIZED THEFT.
we are a society that loves to punish the sucess of others and redistribute the fruits of their labor to the lazy, inept, and undeserving. we, the producers, have one choice; either we let the money, we earned, be taken away from us, or we go to jail. how is that fair?
if you want to help 'the poor' and 'the downtrodden' go work at a soup line or donate YOUR money to charity, not somebody elses.
and yes, since they are not earning that money, they should have no guarantee to it.
you still fail to explain why it would be so 'terrible' and 'inhumane' to have someone be able to pass a drug test before taking money they did not earn. it's the absolute least they should do, so atleast those who actually earn a living, know the money being stole from them might actually be used to by food and not crack cocaine.
i think you are starting to fall off the deep end orb, remember, one day you WILL need some assistance. and it may be sooner than you think.
Robert Jan
New member
gotta keep the poor and the middle class fighting over irrelevant bits so the rich can run off with all the fucking money hey...
p0ink
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
i will *NEVER* take a dime from the federal government in terms of housing assistance, welfare, food stamps, etc. i would rather die in the gutter.
plus, if things ever got that bad, i have enough in savings to get me by for quite some time.
now back to the topic at hand.
spongebob said:
i will *NEVER* take a dime from the federal government in terms of housing assistance, welfare, food stamps, etc. i would rather die in the gutter.
plus, if things ever got that bad, i have enough in savings to get me by for quite some time.
now back to the topic at hand.
Robert Jan
New member
so if its the state or town gov its ok?
p0ink
New member
this is from the ACLU website in regards to the michigan decision to drug test welfare recipients.
"Consequences of a Positive Drug Test
Refusal to agree to random drug testing will result in denial or termination of FIA income support. The state may also terminate medical insurance, food stamps, and support for pregnant women or nursing mothers.
Parents terminated from FIA assistance are twice as likely to lose custody of their children. Rates of homeless, malnutrition, and unemployment all increase drastically upon termination of FIA assistance.
FIA participants who submit to drug testing also risk losing this same vital assistance. According to Michigan's law, "failure to comply" with a substance abuse treatment plan "shall be penalized in the same manner as a work-first program violation" – a penalty that includes "reduction" or "termination" of assistance under FIA programs.
State officials and the legislature have not made clear what actions constitute "failure to comply" with a treatment program. If compliance with drug treatment means that a person must become entirely drug-free within a specified period of time and remain drug-free for the duration of FIA assistance, then FIA participants with a diagnosable medical condition – addiction – will be excluded from FIA programs unless they are successfully cured of this condition on a schedule and by a treatment modality dictated by a government agency. Such an approach makes a mockery of sound medical practice.
Barriers to Employment
There is no rational basis for singling out welfare recipients for drug testing. Michigan's FIA participants do not fit the description of any category of individuals previously subjected to governmental drug testing. They do not perform dangerous tasks like operating a nuclear power plant, driving a train, or carrying a firearm, and they are not entrusted with sensitive governmental operations like drug interdiction or handling classified information.
Numerous studies identify barriers to employment of much greater significance than use of illegal drugs: low skills; lack of child care; lack of housing; depression and other forms of mental illness; and alcoholism. Most states address these issues with training, counseling and appropriate support, and all states address these issues with less restrictive means than now employed by the defendants. Abuse of illegal drugs, however, affects welfare recipients in roughly the same measure as the general population, and rarely stands alone as a barrier to employment.
States have more effective options for assisting FIA recipients in addressing substance abuse. These include the provision of income assistance and voluntary, comprehensive mental health treatment, not by threatening to deny assistance unless the recipient agree to a drug test. Research demonstrates that supplemental income helps drug and alcohol users decrease or cease their use of harmful substances by bringing stability to their lives. Substance use and abuse is also frequently connected to depression or other mental health problems, thus making mental health services vital in overcoming addiction to alcohol or other drugs."
"Consequences of a Positive Drug Test
Refusal to agree to random drug testing will result in denial or termination of FIA income support. The state may also terminate medical insurance, food stamps, and support for pregnant women or nursing mothers.
Parents terminated from FIA assistance are twice as likely to lose custody of their children. Rates of homeless, malnutrition, and unemployment all increase drastically upon termination of FIA assistance.
FIA participants who submit to drug testing also risk losing this same vital assistance. According to Michigan's law, "failure to comply" with a substance abuse treatment plan "shall be penalized in the same manner as a work-first program violation" – a penalty that includes "reduction" or "termination" of assistance under FIA programs.
State officials and the legislature have not made clear what actions constitute "failure to comply" with a treatment program. If compliance with drug treatment means that a person must become entirely drug-free within a specified period of time and remain drug-free for the duration of FIA assistance, then FIA participants with a diagnosable medical condition – addiction – will be excluded from FIA programs unless they are successfully cured of this condition on a schedule and by a treatment modality dictated by a government agency. Such an approach makes a mockery of sound medical practice.
Barriers to Employment
There is no rational basis for singling out welfare recipients for drug testing. Michigan's FIA participants do not fit the description of any category of individuals previously subjected to governmental drug testing. They do not perform dangerous tasks like operating a nuclear power plant, driving a train, or carrying a firearm, and they are not entrusted with sensitive governmental operations like drug interdiction or handling classified information.
Numerous studies identify barriers to employment of much greater significance than use of illegal drugs: low skills; lack of child care; lack of housing; depression and other forms of mental illness; and alcoholism. Most states address these issues with training, counseling and appropriate support, and all states address these issues with less restrictive means than now employed by the defendants. Abuse of illegal drugs, however, affects welfare recipients in roughly the same measure as the general population, and rarely stands alone as a barrier to employment.
States have more effective options for assisting FIA recipients in addressing substance abuse. These include the provision of income assistance and voluntary, comprehensive mental health treatment, not by threatening to deny assistance unless the recipient agree to a drug test. Research demonstrates that supplemental income helps drug and alcohol users decrease or cease their use of harmful substances by bringing stability to their lives. Substance use and abuse is also frequently connected to depression or other mental health problems, thus making mental health services vital in overcoming addiction to alcohol or other drugs."
p0ink
New member
they don't get to take money from others to buy drugs if they fail a drug test? sounds good to me.
they might lose custody of their kids if they fail a drug test, since they wouldnt be able to put food on the table? sorry, but if you are that fucking poor you shouldnt be spending the money your children need to eat on crack cocaine. again, sounds great to me.
how come i have to pass a drug test for every job i ever had? i have to pass a drug test to have the opportunity to WORK FOR MY MONEY, and these people shouldnt be forced to pass a drug test to get the money I EARNED and they did not?
jesus christ, people.
they might lose custody of their kids if they fail a drug test, since they wouldnt be able to put food on the table? sorry, but if you are that fucking poor you shouldnt be spending the money your children need to eat on crack cocaine. again, sounds great to me.
how come i have to pass a drug test for every job i ever had? i have to pass a drug test to have the opportunity to WORK FOR MY MONEY, and these people shouldnt be forced to pass a drug test to get the money I EARNED and they did not?
jesus christ, people.
IHateAmerica
New member
Most drug addicts work for their drugs as well, whether through legit work or crime. You can buy alot more drugs dealing drugs, selling ass or stealing cars than doing nothing. Last time I checked most highly-addictive drugs cost alot of money. And if there really are hordes of people who take their 800$ at end of the month and buy three onces of weed and spend the rest on food and do nothing but sit and play playstation all day then where do I sign up?
GodOfThunder
New member
MAX 300 said:
I think this is the stupidest post I've ever seen on EF if you are serious. So instead of paying them $200 dollars a month in welfare, we should pay for 3 meals a day, clothing, water, and guards to watch them? The prison system is overcrowded enough with alll the nonviolent drug offenders, you want to add the welfare recipients too? We could call them "welfare caps" if you want to...remind you of anything?
mountain muscle
New member
=Gay$Ray= said:
My benefits are dependant on my drug use or moreover my lack of use. As is my job and paycheck. I get pre-job, post accident and randoms and I work in a well paying high risk field. Why thwe hell should I get tested and these people shouldn't? Isn't it my "right" to have those benefits and job and paycheck? If it is my tax money paying for those benefits then hell yes drug test them.
scriptfactory
New member
Actually my friends were too young to do drugs. I was around 10yo at the time and we really only cared about playing Nintendo and shit. The majority of the people on welfare that I knew where the mother's of my friends. I want to you know how drug test a whole family? When you are on welfare the whole family is in it together.wtlftr said:
So, say someone has a 17yo son that smoke pot (not a drug in my opinion...) They go to the local welfare center or whatever it is called and everyone gets piss tested. The babies have their diapers drained to test for drug content, of course. The 17yo son comes up positive for THC. Do you take away the help for the whole family because one person came up postive? How long do you take away the help for? Forever? One year? One month? Until he can pass the drug test?
What a lot of you people fail to realize is most people on welfare DO NOT USE DRUGS. This is not from a test. This is from my personal experience. The amount of money you get from a welfare program is not enough to support a moderate - heavy drug habit if you want to live in an apartment and not in the gutter. And if you live in the gutter you don't qualify for welfare...
Also, you have to realize that NOT EVERYONE IN AMERICA MAKES A LOT OF MONEY AT WORK! Even if people have a job making $7.50 it's not enough to support a fucking family. The programs that I feel are the most useful are the "food stamp" ones. I can't believe I hear people talking shit about food stamp programs.
scriptfactory
New member
I really wish you would quit calling people on welfare "shitbags". It's really fucking stupid. Maybe you should be mad at the people who set minum wage below $10.00 an hour and expect whole families to be able to live off of it. Even living off of $10.00 an hour is fucking impossible. You keep talking about people earning their own way in life but a lot of people are actually working and still not making enough money to live.p0ink said:
And it's official. You are an idiot. I think this has more to do with the fact that food stamps were being stolen and sold to buy drugs or other items by some people. A card lessens the chance that this would continue to happen.
And it's official. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I would think the vast majority of people on welfare are single mothers with a shitload of kids. The welfare limit is set so low that a person making minimum wage and supporting themselves and maybe one other person wouldn't qualify. I think it's wrong that innocent children have to suffer, so one solution is to somehow educate and stop all these ignorant people from having too many kids. Hand out condoms in the schools. BUt that ain't gonna happen because of the religious right. Most of these pregnancies are probably accidental. Solutions?
ttwarrior4
New member
i saw yes because i sell ghf fast flush liquid and upass and i could make more money. Its the best stuff on the market unlike all the generic crap. Ive never had anyone flunk either. Even had one pass a roid test with it and he wouldnt of without it
mountain muscle
New member
gjohnson5 said:
I wonder if the great poink panther has pondered how many divorced women women with children are on welfare simply because their deadbeat ex-husbands haven't been paying child support like they should have, and because they married young they don't have the skills required to get a job paying enough to cover daycare plus living expenses. She's probably not using drugs but since you don't seem to like ANY sort of welfare at all.
C
Code
Guest
I'm torn on this one, I believe a woman is responsible for herself just as a man is.
The father should only be obliged to pay for 50% of the cost of supporting his children. Nothing more.
Women (or anyone) who cannot afford to feed themselved and proved shelter for themselves do not deserve to have children.
And yes, if the cost were not a factor, all recipients of ALL federal assistance should be drug tested. That goes for food stamps AND things like the Pell Grant and the GI Bill.
The father should only be obliged to pay for 50% of the cost of supporting his children. Nothing more.
Women (or anyone) who cannot afford to feed themselved and proved shelter for themselves do not deserve to have children.
And yes, if the cost were not a factor, all recipients of ALL federal assistance should be drug tested. That goes for food stamps AND things like the Pell Grant and the GI Bill.
Dial_tone said:
C
Code
Guest
The solution?
Don't provide government assistance (without drug testing).
Sink or swim.
Don't provide government assistance (without drug testing).
Sink or swim.
ChefWide said:What is your solution: euthanasia?
Code said:
You said, "Women (or anyone) who cannot afford to feed themselved and proved shelter for themselves do not deserve to have children."
1. Please outline how you plan to prevent those births.
2. What if someone on your "can't afford" list gets pregnant?
3. What about existing families that lose their ability to pay the bills. If they don't "deserve" to have children, what do plan to "do" with those children?
Anyone can bitch, what do suggest we DO about it?
.
Nope.
You do not combat one poorly run idea (welfare) with another government program. Those who would espouse this are making the same idiotic mistake of demonizing the recipient for being a recipient, rather than directing criticisms to a flawed program.
In short, ideas like this are why things never change.
You do not combat one poorly run idea (welfare) with another government program. Those who would espouse this are making the same idiotic mistake of demonizing the recipient for being a recipient, rather than directing criticisms to a flawed program.
In short, ideas like this are why things never change.
C
Code
Guest
1.) Make them immune to beer-goggles.
2.) No beer-goggles, no unwanted pregnancies.
3.) Sweat shops. Little hands can do a lot of work.
2.) No beer-goggles, no unwanted pregnancies.
3.) Sweat shops. Little hands can do a lot of work.
ChefWide said:
scriptfactory
New member
And that is what it boils down to. The cost of bringing new programs into effect to change the education and employment rates of people on welfare is high. It is much more simple and, most importantly, cheaper to continue doing things the way the U.S. has been doing them for a long time.ChefWide said:
I would love to see changes in the welfare system but it won't happen because it is expensive. That mean more of p0inks money is going to be spent to put people on welfare in a better position. I don't think he would be happy with that in the short run, even if in the long run it would be better for the entire nation.
So, it seems as if we can't get rid of any one 'class' of people. Poor, rich, black, or white. The national socialists in Germany tried that many years ago. Look how well that turned out. :S
C
Code
Guest
It was an opinion orb. You want a plan:
The solution is either:
a.) Get rid of the festering, cyclic system of welfare.
or
b.) Enforce legitimate, methods of getting them OFF welfare. Limit the annual amount of welfare they can get. Make it harder to get on the system. Limit the number of times a person can get on welfare. Limit the number of kids someone can claim for welfare.
Matttheskywalker found the beer goggle gene years ago Homie.
The solution is either:
a.) Get rid of the festering, cyclic system of welfare.
or
b.) Enforce legitimate, methods of getting them OFF welfare. Limit the annual amount of welfare they can get. Make it harder to get on the system. Limit the number of times a person can get on welfare. Limit the number of kids someone can claim for welfare.
Matttheskywalker found the beer goggle gene years ago Homie.
ChefWide said:
C
Code
Guest
No, legitimate way == limiting the use of welfare. Regulating it more closely.
ChefWide said:
Tiervexx
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
As matter of fact I have read into the social contract theory, and it is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
First of all, the idea behind it can be used to justify ANY amount of oppression.
Second, all justifications for it would require a previously existing social contract theory. For example: if we our bound to the social contract just being by being born here, than how did the social contract even claim ounership of this land?
Finally, how the fuck can you compare fiscal conservativsm to Hitler? Social conservativism would make sense, but you must know nothing about Nazism, which is extremly collectivist, like the social contract theory, while laissez-faire capitalism is very individualistic.
=Gay$Ray= said:
As matter of fact I have read into the social contract theory, and it is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
First of all, the idea behind it can be used to justify ANY amount of oppression.
Second, all justifications for it would require a previously existing social contract theory. For example: if we our bound to the social contract just being by being born here, than how did the social contract even claim ounership of this land?
Finally, how the fuck can you compare fiscal conservativsm to Hitler? Social conservativism would make sense, but you must know nothing about Nazism, which is extremly collectivist, like the social contract theory, while laissez-faire capitalism is very individualistic.
Tiervexx
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
BINGO!!!
No government program has ever worked before, so why try another one?
Many supporters of welfare are pointing out, correctly that it is very hard for people to get back on their feet, but it is very sad that they do not see that the very programs that are suppost to help the poor, put more people in need of those programs.
Tiervexx
New member
=Gay$Ray=,
Let's pretend for a moment that the social contract theory is some how valid.
The fact that we have so many laws against drug usage would mean that anyone who failed that test are guilty of terrible crimes against the state, right? So there is no conceivable way you can claim that they are still entitled to anything.
Let's pretend for a moment that the social contract theory is some how valid.
The fact that we have so many laws against drug usage would mean that anyone who failed that test are guilty of terrible crimes against the state, right? So there is no conceivable way you can claim that they are still entitled to anything.
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
300 level course at a teacher's union meeting maybe. LOL.
Quite right, Komrade, for the USSR.
However, the US Constitution (and any other document that acknowledges man as a rational being capable of independent thought) speaks of individual rights, and upon further examination (maybe in a 400 level course at the teacher's college you attended), you will understand that society itself is merely a collection of individuals interacting. The presence of a large number of interacting individuals does not create a new entity known as "society" with a new set of rights and obliugations.
If it did, how could you define it? Is your household a society? How about your town? State? Nation? World? Are there sub-societies with all kinds of obligations? is the US a society? What about if I want to leave?
As you can see, the idea of society and a social contract holds up to zero scrutiny. It is nothing more than (putting aside academic discussion for a second) "feel good bullshit".
If rights and the rationality of man is to be respected, than those interactions should be voluntary as long as they respect the rights of all other individuals. If you do not wish to respect and acknowledge the rational nature of man, then, yes, you may call for societal type of programs and legisaltion. But understand that the premise is that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, thus, the conclusion that other people should think for you is likewise flawed. If, after all, one cannot think for themselves, how can we expect them to think for another?
Thus you run into illogic or hypocrisy when examining your premise. Again, we default to "feel good bullshit".
Morality is not the role of government, protecting rights is. Nations that have tried to legislate "rightness" include Iran, North Korea, and some others that finish last in every measure of human rights.
Again, define society and the process by which people "bond" into it. Actually, I saved you the work above - all roads lead to "feel good bullshit".
If protecting individual rights is "extreme right wing", then I guess I am.
Your Hitler references show little understanding of the conditions in Germany 1933-1945, preferring instead to raise the spectre of some sort of cleansing that has nothing to do with the current conditions of the US and draw parallels by invoking Hitler's name.
Tired.
=Gay$Ray= said:
300 level course at a teacher's union meeting maybe. LOL.
Quite right, Komrade, for the USSR.
However, the US Constitution (and any other document that acknowledges man as a rational being capable of independent thought) speaks of individual rights, and upon further examination (maybe in a 400 level course at the teacher's college you attended), you will understand that society itself is merely a collection of individuals interacting. The presence of a large number of interacting individuals does not create a new entity known as "society" with a new set of rights and obliugations.
If it did, how could you define it? Is your household a society? How about your town? State? Nation? World? Are there sub-societies with all kinds of obligations? is the US a society? What about if I want to leave?
As you can see, the idea of society and a social contract holds up to zero scrutiny. It is nothing more than (putting aside academic discussion for a second) "feel good bullshit".
If rights and the rationality of man is to be respected, than those interactions should be voluntary as long as they respect the rights of all other individuals. If you do not wish to respect and acknowledge the rational nature of man, then, yes, you may call for societal type of programs and legisaltion. But understand that the premise is that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, thus, the conclusion that other people should think for you is likewise flawed. If, after all, one cannot think for themselves, how can we expect them to think for another?
Thus you run into illogic or hypocrisy when examining your premise. Again, we default to "feel good bullshit".
Morality is not the role of government, protecting rights is. Nations that have tried to legislate "rightness" include Iran, North Korea, and some others that finish last in every measure of human rights.
Again, define society and the process by which people "bond" into it. Actually, I saved you the work above - all roads lead to "feel good bullshit".
If protecting individual rights is "extreme right wing", then I guess I am.
Your Hitler references show little understanding of the conditions in Germany 1933-1945, preferring instead to raise the spectre of some sort of cleansing that has nothing to do with the current conditions of the US and draw parallels by invoking Hitler's name.
Tired.
gjohnson5
New member
Subzeero said:
For all you people who say yes , please read the facts instead of commenting based on ignorant stereotypes
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1003platt.htm
eh bc drug users do not account for the majority, and lets face it most of us smoke pot so it wouldn't be fair to test them on that drug IMO, harder narcs yea and it should be hair samples that way you can do it randomly and still show positive even if you quit for a long time. What I do think however is that a woman who continues to spit out kids should be forced into being fixed if she wishes to recieve any more funds. I really take issue into giving a woman with 5 kids by 5 guys any money whatsoever for being a dumb slut
Tiervexx
New member
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
This is quite right, but how even can the US Constitution really be legitimized?
You know that the US government has done a terrible job of defending rights.
No government has done a very good job of protecting rights, which is why my belief gets stronger and stronger that we would be better of with private firms doing all of that.
MattTheSkywalker said:
This is quite right, but how even can the US Constitution really be legitimized?
MatttheSkywalker said:
You know that the US government has done a terrible job of defending rights.
No government has done a very good job of protecting rights, which is why my belief gets stronger and stronger that we would be better of with private firms doing all of that.
Re: Shoule people on welfare be required to pass MANDATORY drug tests each month?
I speak of the Constitution as a document which acknowledges individual rights. It has no supernatural or otherworldly origins that give in temporal credibility.
I'm not a hige fan of government either; the concept of other people telling you what to do all the time is kinda bizarre.
Tiervexx said:
I speak of the Constitution as a document which acknowledges individual rights. It has no supernatural or otherworldly origins that give in temporal credibility.
I'm not a hige fan of government either; the concept of other people telling you what to do all the time is kinda bizarre.
Dial_tone said:
Um, laws already exist to that effect sir.
scriptfactory
New member
Where do they exist? He isn't talking about driving while high, he is talking about if you have used drugs and you show up positive for a drug test then you can't drive anymore. I believe he was saying it sarcastically.MattTheSkywalker said:
Even if you are caught while using drugs or alchohol you can still drive. LOL How many times has Robert Downey Jr. been caught for driving under the influence?
scriptfactory said:Where do they exist? He isn't talking about driving while high, he is talking about if you have used drugs and you show up positive for a drug test then you can't drive anymore. I believe he was saying it sarcastically.
Even if you are caught while using drugs or alchohol you can still drive. LOL How many times has Robert Downey Jr. been caught for driving under the influence?
Downey usually isn't driving when he gets nabbed but he's had more chances than Bobby Brown.
