States Consider Drug Testing For Welfare Recips

[ChefChiTown]

Why should the taxes paid by a garbage man go to pay for the education of some college kid? Why can't the student get a job to pay for their own education? Did you get government grants or loans when you went to school, Chef? Is that why this has "nothing to do with this"?

In fact, the term "welfare" as is being used by you, and Craig Blair, and your various anecdotes about various welfare queens and your "piece of shit" family members is "nothing more than a term that is used to demonize the government's financial assistance that is given to... [individual people]"

I'm sure that corporate America takes a collective sigh of relief whenever someone like you takes the Limbaugh/O'Reilly (etc.) view and dismisses corporate welfare as no big deal.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508-1,00.html
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

The term "welfare" isn't to demonize anything. That's exactly what it's called. "Corporate Welfare" (on the other hand) was a phrase that was coined by Perot to purposely demonize corporate funding from the US government. But, this conversation has nothing to do with businesses.

Once again, how many people on welfare do you personally know?

I'm willing to bet it's ZERO people because you obviously have no idea how overly abused the welfare system is in this country.

As far as college students getting financial grants from the government: I already addressed that. In most situations, a student's funding will be pulled if they don't maintain passing grades, a certain number of class hours, if they drop out or if they don't graduate. Therefore, those students are earning their assistance. People on welfare don't have to earn shit. They just sign up for welfare assistance and, if they qualify, they start getting monthly financial assistance without having to earn the right to spend our tax dollars.

 

[ThatRedWing]

Everyday I see many people spend $25-$30 on chips, candy and ice cream on their EBT card and two hours later bring a shit load of bottles to pay for their beer and smokes. Did they go to the grocery store where they could have got twice the amount of real food? No, they were just stoned and needed munchies.

 

[Member2019]

Only if all the execs at the banks and other institutions getting bailouts are subjected to the same kind of testing.

Agreed!

 

[usmc071984]

wow. amazing idea. im sooooooooooo behind this! y give away handouts when they are using the little they have right now for drugs. definately needs to happen!

 

[calpoon]

but if I am not getting assistance from the government, how am I supposed to afford drugs? these are tough financial times we're on.

 

[Member2019]

Friday has a point ...

wow. amazing idea. im sooooooooooo behind this! y give away handouts when they are using the little they have right now for drugs. definately needs to happen!

Friday actually has a point.

At what point do we let the government interject big brother for any reason when they provide any service? It may sound reasonable here, but where does it really end? What about people who collect social security, a forced investment plan by the government and your own, invested money, do they get tested too? What's to stop the government from doing that as well?

At the same time, I do differ with Friday, other lefties, etc...

The best way to maintain our freedom is to not give the government the damn money in the first place! I have argued and argued and argued, time and time and time again, that the government is the worst entity to give money to in order to help others. You get this type of "control," and the ignorant majority is just too happy to vote in the death of their own rights in the process.

I agree with Friday that we should not give the government this type of power. But I will disagree with Friday and further state we should not give the government enough money to enact this power!

We must remain educated, independent and self-sufficient to remain free. Government is never the answer. It's why I have never collected unemployment (even though I pay for it). I also plan to never collect social security (even though the government "invested" those funds for me). I do everything I can to be independent of government entitlement programs.

 

[calpoon]

I really agree with you there Prof...in theory.

the thing is that they have already collected that money so what happens to it if it doesn't get spent on social services? they aren't going to just give it all back.

on a kind of :2offtopic note...

why is it that generally "conservatives" link unions with communist or socialist ideals and they are not supported more by libertarians? after all, isn't the whole point that they are a private entity that institutes it's own checks and balances over the market and (some would say) eliminates the need for government to do so?

 

[smoknn]

ok, so we've heard from someone on drugs.

can we hear from someone on welfare now?

drugs and welfare been around for years ....when this country was standing tall...lets face it...today everything is blamed on drugs....heads up..you can get bout any drug out of your system in a matter of days...........well besides the weed........so i guess weed will take the lash for the country standing on 3 legs :1orglaugh 2 funny FYI this country is spending 1.8 billion $ a week for troops to stay in iraq.......add that up monthly...then yearly..... then tell me why this country is going backwards?????? have a nice day http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15377059/

 

[Member2019]

I really agree with you there Prof...in theory.
the thing is that they have already collected that money so what happens to it if it doesn't get spent on social services? they aren't going to just give it all back.

Again, I don't think the government should get the money in the first place. When you involve government, you fuck up the balance. That's always been the problem, and how us Libertarians see it.

Frankly, people collecting food stamps are the least of our worries. It's the "white collar" entitlements that really get to me. The old "sugar momma" problem left us long ago in the US. There are far, far more costly entitlement programs these days.

on a kind of :2offtopic note...
why is it that generally "conservatives" link unions with communist or socialist ideals and they are not supported more by libertarians? after all, isn't the whole point that they are a private entity that institutes it's own checks and balances over the market and (some would say) eliminates the need for government to do so?

Again, unions involved the government long ago, and it fucked them up.

First select state governments mandated labor unions (closed shop states), so the unions had an advantage against employers. But then employers fought back with lobbying efforts, or just left the state, so the states enacted counter-laws to try to make it "fair" for the employer again. Now we have a government controlled bargaining event, with individuals who have no rights caught in between unions and employers. Indeed, the UAW's "collective bargaining" survives on closed shop states like Michigan, and has no power in states like, say, Tennessee.

A public commons v. communism is a fine, but significant difference. A public commons is built by the choice of the individual, and derives its power from the same. It's not communism because the individual choice is supreme. But when you force people to group, and you take away the right of the individual to choose, but they must belong to a union, and they union gains "group rights," you enact communism. Communism utterly fails when the choice of the individual, such as the worker, is disregarded, and his/her choice is not required for the group to obtain power.

The problem, in all cases, has been the government and the resulting removal of the individual choice.

 

[calpoon]

I'm not sure I have any idea what you are talking about Smoknn, but I do believe that George Washington was a stoner.

Read his letters to James Madison, he talks about his horticulture of Cannabis. one curious remark is something along the lines of "I have seperated the female from the male plant and achieved very interesting results."

well we all know that isolating the buds from the seeds has no use in fertilization of crops...that is where the highest concentration of Tetrahydrocannabinol lies!

 

[Mr_Brad]

I would prefer reigning in welfare by limiting what they can buy. Welfare recipients shouldn't be buying sodas and ice cream with the funds. Those fat hogs in the grocery store buying expensive food items make me sick. End of the month they're asking to borrow money from their parents because their kids are hungry. The government could use welfare to help control prices too and I would be all for that instead of drug testing. For instance, cheese on assistance can be only bought for such a price. You'll see grocery stores and manufacturers making products that hit that price.

 

[calpoon]

why cheese but not ice cream? they both are dairy products with about the same amount of nutritional value.

also most "fruit" juices contain the same or more amount of artificial flavors and HFCS as soda.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

I'd feel like a scumbag if I took financial assistance when I could get by on my own. I hate my cousin for doing it. She's a dirty piece of trailer trash. Actually, dirty pieces of trailer trash are better than her. She's...eh, she's just a piece of shit.

Must be the Ohio side of the family. :dunno:

 

[Jagger69]

Someone hurting from losing their lifestyle (eating regular, paying bills on time) due to the meltdown aren't drug addicts...and if they take a hit on some reefer 2 or 3 times on a weekend for some relief from the depressing times, why are they suddenly not qualified for govt assistance? Drug tests don't measure quantity or how many times the drug has been used, or how long ago.
Smoke a hit of reefer once a month, and you'll test positive.
Drink yourself shitfaced all weekend, and Monday you won't test positive for alcohol.
Drug testing is a way for govt to control their agenda, not to get people off drugs.
I'd like to see a drug testing policy implemented for all executives and management of all companies receiving govt bailout loans...I don't want cokeheads making decisions that cost us money.
But that goes for all govt employees as well, imo.

And when there is a test that can detect alcohol use weeks after it has been used, then I'll support the policy.
All or none...

An excellent post with which I agree 100%. It's easy for people to feel outraged over welfare abuse but drug-testing is not the answer. In fact, (surprise!), I am fundamentally opposed to drug testing in general as an invasion of my privacy. It is just another means for the establishment to poke its nose where it has no business being.

Instead of creating another level of government cost, bureaucracy and incompetence in addition to the invasion of privacy, how about this for a plan? We create and enforce much stricter standards under which someone can qualify for welfare to begin with? It has been the loosey-goosey oversight (or maybe the term should be undersight) of state and federal agencies that have created this mess to begin with. Let's treat the problem itself instead of the manifestation of the problem.

 

[calpoon]

nevermind.

 

[D-rock]

I would prefer reigning in welfare by limiting what they can buy. Welfare recipients shouldn't be buying sodas and ice cream with the funds. Those fat hogs in the grocery store buying expensive food items make me sick. End of the month they're asking to borrow money from their parents because their kids are hungry. The government could use welfare to help control prices too and I would be all for that instead of drug testing. For instance, cheese on assistance can be only bought for such a price. You'll see grocery stores and manufacturers making products that hit that price.

Remember though that most of the time the more healthy food actually cost more than the cheap processed junk. I think that’s part of the reason the poor are so unhealthy to begin with.

 

[Facial_King]

Remember though that most of the time the more healthy food actually cost more than the cheap processed junk. I think that’s part of the reason the poor are so unhealthy to begin with.

...oh right!

I guess folks would agree to increase welfare payments to encourage the recipients to get nice and healthy so they could land a job and be strong to do it.

 

[D-rock]

...oh right!

I guess folks would agree to increase welfare payments to encourage the recipients to get nice and healthy so they could land a job and be strong to do it.

One could follow the logic that the healthier people are the less medical expenses they will have later in life that people will have to pick up the tab on anyhow, and it will be a lot more expensive then.

 

[girk1]

I think... some people take this subject a little too seriously for their own good :eek: (problem with humanity)

I have spoken of the outrage people have against welfare before & how misguided it is when Welfare(AFDC) & Food stamps account for less than 1 or 2% of the US Budget(& that's not typically accounting for money spent on wars)

Instead of invading the privacy of these people under the guise of saving money we should end this foolish "War on Drugs" & save much more money & lives to brutal drug violence.

 

[Facetious]

[ . . . we should end this foolish "War on Drugs"

Devil's advo - Stop that ! I'm making lots & lots of unearned income off of "the war on drugs'' in the form of a derivative, so fuck you ! P)
Don't you dare interfere with this righteous, most resourceful ($$$) war to save the children. :angels::updown: "Just say yes ! . . . errr . . . "NO" !

r'member now, "It's all 4 †he kIdZ". :yahoo: