Let me get this straight.

[The T]

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

Hell, those bozos don't even have to get a clearance.

BIG problem. BIg, BIG problem.

HUGE problem.

 

[The T]

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

If it was up to me they wouldn't be. Government employees should all be subjected to the same rules. Fair is fair, right?

If the left...or anyone else that operates from the mantle of Fairness?

Every swinging dick that is elected...especially where they are doling OUT taxpayer funds for ANY purpose should be tested ONCE a friggin' month. And it should come with the job.

After all? We are talking about public TRUST? I don't trust them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I never said they all were.

I said some are.

It was clear that you were making the argument that "these people" or however you worded it exactly, are drug addicts. You came back later and tried to distance yourself from that generalization with "some of them are." If you're not going to be honest about what you're saying, then don't bother.

You don't think so, though.

You need to get out more.

I never said I think this or that about what these people do. All I've said is that nobody here knows, yet so many people are screaming at the top of their lungs as if they were omniscient. What I think is irrelevant. What matters is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE to justify a search.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You're just a fucking idiot, no more educating you. You are a lost cause, ready for the dumpster.

In other words, you got nothing.

When the debate gets tough, the ignorant get abusive.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Because Idiots like you are preventing them from being identified.

Wow, that's stupid. You need to do a search before you can gather the probable cause to justify a search?

And by the way I probably put in more volunteer hours in my community this past year than you have in your entire life.

Well go on and brag a little more about it then.

 

[Divine Wind]

Every swinging dick that is elected...especially where they are doling OUT taxpayer funds for ANY purpose should be tested ONCE a friggin' month. And it should come with the job.

After all? We are talking about public TRUST? I don't trust them.

Agreed. More and more Americans are thinking they don't trust them either. This is where both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protesters find common ground.

 

[The T]

Every swinging dick that is elected...especially where they are doling OUT taxpayer funds for ANY purpose should be tested ONCE a friggin' month. And it should come with the job.

After all? We are talking about public TRUST? I don't trust them.

Agreed. More and more Americans are thinking they don't trust them either. This is where both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protesters find common ground.

OWS should be on the Steps of the Capitol, In front of the Whitehouse....24/7.

 

[The T]

I never said they all were.

I said some are.

It was clear that you were making the argument that "these people" or however you worded it exactly, are drug addicts. You came back later and tried to distance yourself from that generalization with "some of them are." If you're not going to be honest about what you're saying, then don't bother.

You don't think so, though.

You need to get out more.

I never said I think this or that about what these people do. All I've said is that nobody here knows, yet so many people are screaming at the top of their lungs as if they were omniscient. What I think is irrelevant. What matters is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE to justify a search.

The system is rife with fraud and deceit...people bilking the system for all they can get....I think they should do more than test for drugs...hound these people until they get a job...make it as UGLY as possible to BE on Welfare...perhaps it will snap them into being responsible human beings instead of moochers that they are that people are paying for to be lazy and UNPRODUCTIVE.

There are situations to where people fall...fine...WE will help you under certain conditions...the safety net should be there...but that net should NEVER be a hammock and a lifestyle because people have a problem with life and keep making the wrong choices.

It's dishonest...and those footing the bill have every right to expect that thier money is going to intended purpose...and at the same time make is as distasteful to be in the net.

These people most oft than not made a choice to be where they are...

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

~Franklin

It's a little thing called MORALITY. The Government shouldn't be in the business of enabling immoraility especially when others are footing the bill that are the responsible ones.

Welcome to the Great Society of Johnson.

 

[The T]

Oh? And Uhm...'InThe Middle'? YOU aren't In the Middle of anything but your own fucking confusion...YOU are a fucking Statist/Leftist creep.

 

[Divine Wind]

Every swinging dick that is elected...especially where they are doling OUT taxpayer funds for ANY purpose should be tested ONCE a friggin' month. And it should come with the job.

After all? We are talking about public TRUST? I don't trust them.

Agreed. More and more Americans are thinking they don't trust them either. This is where both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protesters find common ground.

OWS should be on the Steps of the Capitol, In front of the Whitehouse....24/7.

If the OWS movement continues, I think it will be by Spring.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The system is rife with fraud and deceit...people bilking the system for all they can get.

I'm sure there are. But that doesn't justify throwing the constitution out the window. It doesn't magically erase a person's rights against searches without probable cause.

I think they should do more than test for drugs...hound these people until they get a job.

You draw alot of conclusions about things without anything to support them. What makes you think that these people don't have a job?

make it as UGLY as possible to BE on Welfare.

What is with people making this ridiculous argument that welfare is somehow glamorous?

perhaps it will snap them into being responsible human beings instead of moochers that they are that people are paying for to be lazy and UNPRODUCTIVE.

Again, with the conclusions but no supporting facts.

There are situations to where people fall...fine...WE will help you under certain conditions...the safety net should be there...but that net should NEVER be a hammock and a lifestyle because people have a problem with life and keep making the wrong choices.

Again, conclusions with no supporting facts.

It's dishonest...and those footing the bill have every right to expect that thier money is going to intended purpose.

That does not give the government the right to disregard the constitutional rights of recipients.

and at the same time make is as distasteful to be in the net.

This is pretty disgusting. You're claiming that there is some kind of moral imperative to demonize the poor.

These people most oft than not made a choice to be where they are.

And you know this because????

It's a little thing called MORALITY. The Government shouldn't be in the business of enabling immoraility especially when others are footing the bill that are the responsible ones.

Wow, that's some big-government-loving BS. The government should not be in the business of LEGISLATING morality.

 

[The T]

Agreed. More and more Americans are thinking they don't trust them either. This is where both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protesters find common ground.

OWS should be on the Steps of the Capitol, In front of the Whitehouse....24/7.

If the OWS movement continues, I think it will be by Spring.

It will be a cold hard winter. Just as long as they remember? There will be no exercising commerce to buy food, buy heat/warmth, clothing, sleeping bags, tents, internet devices for interface to the internet, Music, or anything else manufactured by those evil corporations they are protesting against lest they be shown the Hypocrites that they are.

 

[Valerie]

I agree with Erkel here... (Inthemiddle)

If citizens let the government intrude in this manner it is an invasive slippery slope...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

Hell, those bozos don't even have to get a clearance.

BIG problem. BIg, BIG problem.

Truth is that Mr Obama probably couldn't qualify for any clearance above Confidential because of his past associations.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Because Idiots like you are preventing them from being identified.

Wow, that's stupid. You need to do a search before you can gather the probable cause to justify a search?

And by the way I probably put in more volunteer hours in my community this past year than you have in your entire life.

Well go on and brag a little more about it then.

No brag, just fact. You did sort of question it.......

 

[Valerie]

I understand the probable cause, but just like employment, they can refuse and accept the consequences - no free money.

What do you mean by free?

Employers/employees pay into an unemployment INSURANCE policy.

I'm not talking about unemployment. I'm talking about welfare. That's why I said 'welfare' in my post.

Well, we are all paying into "the system" in one way or another and welfare is a safety net available to all law abiding citizens. If someone wants to make a case against individual citizens for drug abuse, then let them do so... To make blanket statements that characterize all welfare recipients as lazy druggies is just silly class warfare and solves nothing. Example...Drunk people get the safety net and pot heads don't...??? What's next..Medicaid recipients need to have a mandated diet and cholesterol level...?

 

[Si modo]

What do you mean by free?

Employers/employees pay into an unemployment INSURANCE policy.

I'm not talking about unemployment. I'm talking about welfare. That's why I said 'welfare' in my post.

Well, we are all paying into "the system" in one way or another and welfare is a safety net available to all law abiding citizens. If someone wants to make a case against individual citizens for drug abuse, then let them do so... To make blanket statements that characterize all welfare recipients as lazy druggies is just silly class warfare and solves nothing. Example...Drunk people get the safety net and pot heads don't...??? What's next..Medicaid recipients need to have a mandated diet and cholesterol level...?

Did I ever say that all welfare recipients are lazy druggies?

Nope. I did not.

 

[Valerie]

I'm not talking about unemployment. I'm talking about welfare. That's why I said 'welfare' in my post.

Well, we are all paying into "the system" in one way or another and welfare is a safety net available to all law abiding citizens. If someone wants to make a case against individual citizens for drug abuse, then let them do so... To make blanket statements that characterize all welfare recipients as lazy druggies is just silly class warfare and solves nothing. Example...Drunk people get the safety net and pot heads don't...??? What's next..Medicaid recipients need to have a mandated diet and cholesterol level...?

Did I ever say that all welfare recipients are lazy druggies?

Nope. I did not.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply YOU said that...



The entire presumption of citizens being guilty until proven innocent or they don't get their government gruel is just an instinctively repulsive idea to me...

 

[Si modo]

Well, we are all paying into "the system" in one way or another and welfare is a safety net available to all law abiding citizens. If someone wants to make a case against individual citizens for drug abuse, then let them do so... To make blanket statements that characterize all welfare recipients as lazy druggies is just silly class warfare and solves nothing. Example...Drunk people get the safety net and pot heads don't...??? What's next..Medicaid recipients need to have a mandated diet and cholesterol level...?

Did I ever say that all welfare recipients are lazy druggies?

Nope. I did not.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply YOU said that...



The entire presumption of citizens being guilty until proven innocent or they don't get their government gruel is just an instinctively repulsive idea to me...

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

Do you think drug testing for employees is a good thing, in general, or not?

 

[Valerie]

Did I ever say that all welfare recipients are lazy druggies?

Nope. I did not.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply YOU said that...



The entire presumption of citizens being guilty until proven innocent or they don't get their government gruel is just an instinctively repulsive idea to me...

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

Do you think drug testing for employees is a good thing, in general, or not?

As an employer I do not engage in testing and as an employee I am not subject to it. (Yes I am both) IMO someone's ability to do a job should be judged on their ability to do the job, and I personally don't need that type of screening, but I can see how others may find it useful and I am not against it per se. That said, the government is not screening people here as an employer, so it is a very different situation...