Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not quite as convinced as you are that the government wants us physically fit and off the couch. I believe it's the opposite. They want our fat lazy asses right there on that couch shoving cheesy poofs down our throats while we digest their corporate news and distract ourselves with American Idol.
I'm not quite as convinced as you are that the government wants us physically fit and off the couch. I believe it's the opposite. They want our fat lazy asses right there on that couch shoving cheesy poofs down our throats while we digest their corporate news and distract ourselves with American Idol.
Maybe not, but government is driven by voters. Once you're footing the bill for your neighbors bad health habits, it'll be a compelling argument to pass laws forcing him to get off his fat ass and down to the gym.
Rather than derail this thread, I started another on this topic:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206719-totalitarian-government-happens.html#post4768090
Idiot....taxpayers helped build the road with their taxes.
Most welfare takers aren't taxpayers more like taxtakers.
The Joe Schmoe driving on a public road isn't asking for special favors like someone that rolls into a welfare office demanding a handout along with no questions about where the money goes.
Then we should all be drug tested before we're allowed to use publicly funded roads and highways.
Provide your statistics that show "most "welfare recipients" aren't taxpayers". Prove it.
Let them collect but they should feel embarrassed about letting other people pay their way.
Let them collect but they should feel embarrassed about letting other people pay their way.
1) "Letting" and having no other alternative are not the same thing.
2) On what basis do you conclude that recipients don't already feel some kind of displeasure about their need to rely on assistance?
3) A mother should NEVER feel shame over the fact that, when push came to shove, she did whatever it took to make sure that her children were fed, regardless of her personal feelings about the situation. My girlfriend is a mother, and you wouldn't even begin to understand the sacrifices she's had to make for her daughter at time, to include a few things that she's not exactly been proud of. I'd like to see you tell her and I both to our faces that she ought to be embarrassed, or try to make her feel ashamed. If there was anything left of you by the time she finished with you, I'd personally put the bullet in your head, after first force feeding your pureed entrails to your own mother right in front of your eyes.
Feeling ashamed of being on the dole is not a bad thing. In fact it's just the opposite as it demonstrates pride in oneself.
You're a real twisted mother fucker.
I'd personally put the bullet in your head, after first force feeding your pureed entrails to your own mother right in front of your eyes.
But Lis you know as well as I do that drug tests are easy to cheat. Not that I'm saying there's some kind of huge majority of people cheating because I couldn't possibly know that, but having been in that scene for a lot of my earlier life, I know that people who get high that end up having to take a drug test for one reason or another, WILL do what they can to cheat a test. I've done it. Many of my friends have done it.
Uh, where in the Constitution does it talk about getting your free welfare check from other taxpayers????
But Lis you know as well as I do that drug tests are easy to cheat. Not that I'm saying there's some kind of huge majority of people cheating because I couldn't possibly know that, but having been in that scene for a lot of my earlier life, I know that people who get high that end up having to take a drug test for one reason or another, WILL do what they can to cheat a test. I've done it. Many of my friends have done it.
So what you're saying is that since it's easy to cheat a drug test, all these welfare recipients who passed must have just cheated the test, and are all on drugs they bought with food stamps. That about right?
You have a strange way of trying to make a point. I mean I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm TOTALLY convinced of your argument by the time you get to "pureeing entrails".
Ask Florida how much money they wasted on less than 2% testing positive. They actually test positive at a lesser rate than the general population.
Cons are really for small government.
As the article notes, the tests are expensive and raise difficult constitutional issues. They are also stigmatizing and frequently register false positives.
Ignoring all of these issues, it's still not clear what the tests are designed to accomplish. Although it's not stated explicitly in the article, I assume that someone who tests positive will be denied government assistance to which they would otherwise be entitled. As troubling as it is to imagine the government paying people who then abuse drugs, it's not clear that denying them the benefits, particularly benefits which would be used to support family members who are not on drugs, will improve anything. Is someone addicted to cocaine likely to quit if their habit effectively becomes more expensive? If drug tests are applied, I prefer that a positive result would prompt drug counseling or treatment rather than a denial of benefits. Of course, this would be more expensive.
You have a strange way of trying to make a point. I mean I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm TOTALLY convinced of your argument by the time you get to "pureeing entrails".
There are different ways to make different kinds of points. Arguments are for making logical points. Pureed entrails are for making the point that when you disrespect the woman I love, it's not going to end well for you.
I have to get drug tested by the feds AND the employer to do my job. It is not illegal because it is a requirement to have my licenses in order.
These people are asking for charity from the government
However, these stated goals can be found nowhere in the legislation, and with good reason: the States commissioned study undercuts each of these rationales as a likely feature of the proposed legislation. As noted, researchers found a lower rate of drug usage among TANF applicants than among current estimates of the population of Florida as a whole. This would suggest that TANF funds are no more likely to be diverted to drug use or used in a manner that would expose children to drugs or fund the drug epidemic than funds provided to any other recipient of government benefits.
Chandler teaches, however, that it is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing. Chandler, 520 U.S. at 322; see also Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 81 (observing that the Court does not simply accept the State's invocation of a special need but instead must carry out close review of the scheme at issue before determining whether the need is special as that term has been defined through Supreme Court precedent) (quoting Chandler, 522 U.S. at 322).
The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake, and the Constitution dictates that the needs asserted to justify subverting those rights must be special, as the case law defines that term, in order for this exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply. Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 81. That showing has not been made on this record.
As the State has failed to demonstrate a special need for its suspicionless drug testing statute, the Court finds no need to engage in the balancing analysisevaluating the States interest in conducting the drug tests and the privacy interests of TANF applicants. Florida has already conducted its experiment. It commissioned a Demonstration Project that proceeded unchallenged, and it was based on suspicion of drug use. Through this effort, Florida gathered evidence on the scope of this problem and the efficacy of the proposed solution. The results debunked the assumptions of the State, and likely many laypersons, regarding TANF applicants and drug use. The State nevertheless enacted Section 414.0652, without any concrete evidence of a special need to do soat least not that has been proffered on this record.
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-10-24-ACLUTanfOrder.pdf
The problems with Liberals is you want to give the same assistance to a single mother whose husband passed on and a single mother on welfare who is to lazy to look for a job.
I say if a person has to submit a drug test to work they should also submit to a drug test to get our tax dollars.
If you collect welfare money you dont have a job which means you dont pay taxes ie federal taxes .. Plus if they buy goods they are buying them with welfare money which is tax payers money not theirs.
The problems with Liberals is you want to give the same assistance to a single mother whose husband passed on and a single mother on welfare who is to lazy to look for a job.
Yes, in both situation the kids should be taken care of. But what the mother has to do get the assistance should vary.
There's nothing wrong with assisting single Moms. It just can't become a way of life for them for years and years.
And there is nothing wrong with a person being ashamed of being a charity case either.
Shame comes from a conscience from doing something wrong. Suddenly finding yourself needing help should not be accompanied by shame unless there was previous wrong doing.
If people have the money for illegal drugs they have the money to pay more taxes.
Wall Street cokeheads for instance.
And there is nothing wrong with a person being ashamed of being a charity case either.
Shame comes from a conscience from doing something wrong. Suddenly finding yourself needing help should not be accompanied by shame unless there was previous wrong doing.
it is wrong to let other people pay your way.
