Welfare recipients should be drug tested...

[dilloduck]

No, you assume wrong.

They don't ammend anymore, they just violate what already exists.

What I meant was that if we allow them to circumvent the 4th amendment by making welfare recipients piss in a cup, they will follow it with even more abuse of it.

If you approve of the Patriot Act, for instance, then I'm not even going to bother continuing this discussion with you...that's a perfect example of how the federal government violates consitutional rights.

Then how do you recommend citizens effect change in this instance ?

 

[Paulie]

Then how do you recommend citizens effect change in this instance ?

Jesus christ, are you seriously asking me that question?

You don't already have a pretty good idea what the citizens of this country should be doing to change this situation?

The fucking list is endless. Get off the government teat and get a job, be a fucking man (or woman) and make a reasonable effort to kick your drug habits, quit bitching about your skin color holding you back and empower yourself...there are minorities that are CEO's, high ranking officers and NCO's in the military, high ranking government officials, so race is not an excuse anymore for failure in this country.

To name just a few.

Bottom line...your life is what you make it. It's not the federal government's responsibility to support you financially when you are physically capable of supporting yourself. But because so many people DO make it the govt's responsibility, the govt has millions of people by the balls.

And that's bullshit.

 

[Shattered]

Horsefeathers. "Victims of society" my ass. Those truly in need deserve help. They don't deserve cable TV, high-sped internet and a late-model vehicle to drive to the welfare office in.

And our current system is nothing but a bureaucratic monster abused at every level that could easily be overhauled to better weed out the abusers.

But don't blame society for indivudal lack of will. That's bullshit. Liberal policies created and perpeutate the nanny state. Simple as that.

Jesus christ, are you seriously asking me that question?

You don't already have a pretty good idea what the citizens of this country should be doing to change this situation?

The fucking list is endless. Get off the government teat and get a job, be a fucking man (or woman) and make a reasonable effort to kick your drug habits, quit bitching about your skin color holding you back and empower yourself...there are minorities that are CEO's, high ranking officers and NCO's in the military, high ranking government officials, so race is not an excuse anymore for failure in this country.

To name just a few.

Bottom line...your life is what you make it. It's not the federal government's responsibility to support you financially when you are physically capable of supporting yourself. But because so many people DO make it the govt's responsibility, the govt has millions of people by the balls.

And that's bullshit.

(Why do I feel like NM?)

 

[dilloduck]

Jesus christ, are you seriously asking me that question?

You don't already have a pretty good idea what the citizens of this country should be doing to change this situation?

The fucking list is endless. Get off the government teat and get a job, be a fucking man (or woman) and make a reasonable effort to kick your drug habits, quit bitching about your skin color holding you back and empower yourself...there are minorities that are CEO's, high ranking officers and NCO's in the military, high ranking government officials, so race is not an excuse anymore for failure in this country.

To name just a few.

Bottom line...your life is what you make it. It's not the federal government's responsibility to support you financially when you are physically capable of supporting yourself. But because so many people DO make it the govt's responsibility, the govt has millions of people by the balls.

And that's bullshit.

Bravo but I'm talking about citizens who are NOT on welfare. What is it you suggest they do ? Wait for those lazy slobs to see the light? That's right up there with only arresting terrorists who turn themselves in.

 

[Paulie]

Bravo but I'm talking about citizens who are NOT on welfare. What is it you suggest they do ? Wait for those lazy slobs to see the light? That's right up there with only arresting terrorists who turn themselves in.

Well, I'm personally not on welfare, and I don't really know what the hell I'm supposed to do about the ones who are.

What can you really do to make someone see the light? I was pretty much talking about the welfare citizens affecting their own change, not the non-welfare citizens.

Everyone is responsible for themselves. I don't even like the idea of welfare...I like unemployment, but that's a temporary fix that gives someone a little help until they can find work...and it runs out, so it keeps that fire under your ass to continue searching for work...not to mention that the program also helps FIND you work. It's not a bad idea, and besides, it's also not a Federal thing...something like that should NEVER be a federal thing.

Some people just think they're above working a minimum wage job to support themselves or their family...and they probably get a kick out of the fact that the government is willing to pay their bills for them while they rape the system. Sounds pretty un-american to me.

But with the way the government has turned their back on so many working Americans by allowing out-sourcing to foreign nations, and letting Mexicans pour into the country to do all the shit work which keeps wages low, you almost can't blame those welfare people, to a certain degree.

Like i said earlier in this thread...the social system in this country is beyond repair...and that includes the employment structure.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

your a passionate poster, and intelligent as well. Even when i dont agree, I respect you immensly.

Well, I'm personally not on welfare, and I don't really know what the hell I'm supposed to do about the ones who are.

What can you really do to make someone see the light? I was pretty much talking about the welfare citizens affecting their own change, not the non-welfare citizens.

Everyone is responsible for themselves. I don't even like the idea of welfare...I like unemployment, but that's a temporary fix that gives someone a little help until they can find work...and it runs out, so it keeps that fire under your ass to continue searching for work...not to mention that the program also helps FIND you work. It's not a bad idea, and besides, it's also not a Federal thing...something like that should NEVER be a federal thing.

Some people just think they're above working a minimum wage job to support themselves or their family...and they probably get a kick out of the fact that the government is willing to pay their bills for them while they rape the system. Sounds pretty un-american to me.

But with the way the government has turned their back on so many working Americans by allowing out-sourcing to foreign nations, and letting Mexicans pour into the country to do all the shit work which keeps wages low, you almost can't blame those welfare people, to a certain degree.

Like i said earlier in this thread...the social system in this country is beyond repair...and that includes the employment structure.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im sorry shattered, but i agree with gunny and paulitics

(Why do I feel like NM?)

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The real tragedy is that the ACLU is protecting the wrong amendment. It shouldn't be about the 4th amendment (which this would violate, I suppose), it should be about the 10th amendment, as it was understood by pretty much everyone until the 1930's. The federal constitution is a document of a very few limited powers, and guess what? Handing out checks for poverty relief is not one of those enumerated powers.

States can do it constitutionally, but they shouldn't. No branch of government should, ideally. We should phase out social security and medicaid, too. People think we have a choice between government welfare and social darwinism, and that's just not true. Private charity and fraternal lodges did a much better job of getting people back on their feet before the war on poverty. Reduce the taxes to pay for social programs, and you'll notice two things: A) fewer people need aid to begin with, and B) people have a lot more income to donate. Or C) fewer households need two incomes to pay the bills, so one of the parents can do volunteer work.

 

[jillian]

The real tragedy is that the ACLU is protecting the wrong amendment. It shouldn't be about the 4th amendment (which this would violate, I suppose), it should be about the 10th amendment, as it was understood by pretty much everyone until the 1930's. The federal constitution is a document of a very few limited powers, and guess what? Handing out checks for poverty relief is not one of those enumerated powers.

States can do it constitutionally, but they shouldn't. No branch of government should, ideally. We should phase out social security and medicaid, too. People think we have a choice between government welfare and social darwinism, and that's just not true. Private charity and fraternal lodges did a much better job of getting people back on their feet before the war on poverty. Reduce the taxes to pay for social programs, and you'll notice two things: A) fewer people need aid to begin with, and B) people have a lot more income to donate. Or C) fewer households need two incomes to pay the bills, so one of the parents can do volunteer work.

What kind of world you want to create.... sweat shops, poverty, elderly people starving to death... a world out of Upton Sinclair or John Steinbeck. What an incredibly ugly image.

Additionally, the smallest share of taxes goes to social programs. There would be minimal tax benefits to the population if those things were terminated. Want tax savings? End corporate welfare and control military spending (e.g., get us out of Iraq, which is driving our deficits and robbing our children of their future).

And while you're talking Constitutionality, I'd remind you of the "necessary and proper" clause which allows government to take all steps necessary and proper to the running of the country. I'd say protecting the weakest, sickest and poorest amongst us is far more noble than the world you envision. I'm glad I don't live in such a world. I'd also say that our greatness can be measured by how well we succeed in caring for our oldest, poorest, sickest and weakest....

or.... we could just toss 'em out onto ice flows and let them fend for themselves.

 

[dilloduck]

And while you're talking Constitutionality, I'd remind you of the "necessary and proper" clause which allows government to take all steps necessary and proper to the running of the country. I'd say protecting the weakest, sickest and poorest amongst us is far more noble than the world you envision. I'm glad I don't live in such a world. I'd also say that our greatness can be measured by how well we succeed in caring for our oldest, poorest, sickest and weakest....

or.... we could just toss 'em out onto ice flows and let them fend for themselves.

The problem with that thinking is that we have so many people doing anything they can to be labeled old, sick,weak and poor. Plus we have other groups of people who want to opt out of the "working for what you get game" by claiming victimization. Then there's always the plan to hope you really get screwed by some "rich" people so you can win a huge lawsuit.

Our economy needs people who help--not people whose goal is to take.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes! If the government thinks that drug testing would be good for people who are dependent on government then the welfare recipients should be tested. I also even think that women should be prevented from becoming pregnant while they are on welfare. I think of it this way. Children, while they live under their “parents’ roof” must obey the rules that their parents make. If an adult falls onto hard dimes and returns home for help then if to get the help he must follow the instructions that the parents make, then the person must follow instructions or leave. If, I call on someone for money to help me out, it is understood that I will follow their rules and recommendations or risk not getting their financial assistance. It is a choice. The welfare recipient can leave the welfare system if the demands set by the welfare system are too difficult or unfair.

If you want your privacy, then go be self-reliant and be on your own!

 

[Shogun]

I would not be opposed to drug tests for those on welfare or who collect food stamps. If nothing else it is an incentive to become self-sufficient. then again, i'd legalize pot for law abiding, autonomous citizens too.

I've seen the abuse of food stamps and I think there is merit to the conservative concern of wasting tax payer efforts while maintaining help necessary to those who don't abuse the system. I'd try to small changes first though...

My first step would be to end food stamps being used at chain retail stores and create local, closer shops located in poor areas of higher welfare population. THis would create employment and remove food stamp abuse from chain stores who only care about profit margins. Let the chain retail stores provide GENERIC STOCK to supliment money they will lose from this seperation from cashing in food stamps. These local shops would only provide GENERIC labels and no tobacco or alcohol products. Stictly offering nutritional necessities. You can see where I'm going with this.


I disagree, too, that drug tests would violate the 4th amendment when talking about income/housing that is provided by the government.


I also disagree with comparing welfare recipeints with employees who are required to take drug tests because employees are REQUIRED BY THE PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I'm sure there is a compramise.
America needs a Franklin Junto political party.
my 2 cents.

 

[eots]

the whole dam countrys on welfare and china might just decide to cut us all off if we are not good

 

[dilloduck]

the whole dam countrys on welfare and china might just decide to cut us all off if we are not good

Will they make us take drug tests ?