buy a gun
If I had my way, absolutely. What kind of a parent can afford drugs but not rent, food, clothes? That kind of parent is the worst thing for the kid. It guarantees that the kid will grow up and also be a dependent of the welfare system.
The negative is that the drug abuser will just not apply, so the kids will go without. Child protective services has to get involved in those cases.
Like I said, give them time to clean it up. Would you want your kids raised by drug addicts?
In the short term, that is correct. In the long term you would have fewer of all of these.Did you not understand what Manny was getting at earlier? What are the long term effects of this? Beyond the immediate savings the state would get, you would have more crime, more people in prisons, more health care costs, meaning you negate any little bit of savings on the front end and it would end up costing more.
I hate welfare too and think it should be reformed in some way, but this sets a dangerous precedent in addition to being stupid
Try not to hurt yourself thinking about this
This nation cannot be held prisoner by lazy ass en led people. They do not deserve any charity. If it's given to them, so be it, but we cannot keep funding the crime farms of America because we fear crime, or we feel guilty for not raising another person's children. Without funding they will not be nearly as productive. A woman will not see having a child as a viable alternative to getting a job, and see having many kids as a promotion. The lazy ass dead beat dad will not feel more justified in bolting on his family by knowing they will be better taken care of by the government (taxpayers).
Enough is enough. Generations of ing lazy ass people need to meet natural selection.
No kidding. Kids who see their parents work hard, end up with good work ethics. Kids who see their parents take from others, will most likely do the same.
What right does anyone have to take the tax dollars and buy non essentials like alcohol or drugs? If they can afford this, then tax payers is being too generous to them.
This is a possibility, but eventually most will be turned in. cannot watch over 100%. that would be wrong in other ways.
The new legislation even mentions treatment programs.
I like the legislation as not wasting resources on those who will not help themselves.
Don't forget those who get pregnat so they can be supported by the state instead of living under mommy and daddy's rules.
There will still be some who are totally irresponsible.
Who else besides me is for mandatory tube snipping of irresponsible breeders? Both men and women?
Do people who use drugs on welfare spend all of that money on drugs? They spend it on food and basic necessities as well that allow them to at least have some form of living standards.
Take that away, and now you have drug addled people with NO money and an addiction that they can no longer sustain outside of crime. Do you think they're gonna say, "well, they pulled my welfare, better get a job so I can sustain my habit". No, they're going to rob and steal and do whatever else they can do, thus an increase in crime, an increase in jail/prison populations and on and on
A lowering of already rock bottom living standards by pulling welfare will inevitably lead to hungry people, which in turn leads to more health problems. More hospital visits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot an enormous bill because you can't turn them away. Welfare is also tied to public housing, right? Pull it and now you have more homeless people, who will also suffer more health problems because they live on the streets. Eating bad food, exposure to elements, etc. All these people will end up at the hospital for one reason or another, adding to our bill
Finally, it sets the precedent that anything tied to fed/state money is fair game for them to invade your personal liberties by demanding a drug test. Some posters before gave some good examples of that, like telling you what to eat or tying drug tests to unemployment, etc. I guess, for me, it's just another way for government to control your life, something I hate.
Now, if you want to argue that we enabled them to become what they are, I'll completely agree with you. We did. And the system is ed. But more government meddling, to me, equates to more expensive in the long run, every time
please, explain
In the long run the mothers who now have 15 kids because they can will not have that option. In the future there will not be 15 kids from a drug addicted welfare mother to wreak havoc on the nation and become wards of the state penal ins utions. That doesn't mean any welfare parent will lose out, just those who are addicted to drugs. Sounds like a fair deal to me. It sucks to cut skin cells out, but cancer has to go.
It's not even about them spending it all on drugs. It's about them having that addiction and needing the money from taxpayers instead of getting a job or taking care of their kids. Drugs or kids, not both.
Your solution: Give them money so they won't steal it from you.Take that away, and now you have drug addled people with NO money and an addiction that they can no longer sustain outside of crime. Do you think they're gonna say, "well, they pulled my welfare, better get a job so I can sustain my habit". No, they're going to rob and steal and do whatever else they can do, thus an increase in crime, an increase in jail/prison populations and on and on
Negative.
My solution: them. If they want to commit crimes, we can start a drug rehab right now with either a bullet or a cell. Either will make you quit cold turkey.
Have you ever lived on welfare? Have you ever lived in the society you are talking about? It's a giant con and like all cons there are victims who fall by the wayside, but to combat that you have to take a hard stance.A lowering of already rock bottom living standards by pulling welfare will inevitably lead to hungry people, which in turn leads to more health problems. More hospital visits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot an enormous bill because you can't turn them away. Welfare is also tied to public housing, right? Pull it and now you have more homeless people, who will also suffer more health problems because they live on the streets. Eating bad food, exposure to elements, etc. All these people will end up at the hospital for one reason or another, adding to our bill
Our bill will reduce over time when these people cease to exist as they are now. Some will become productive out of necessity and some will die.
So? My employer can demand a drug test. Anyone working for the government can be drug tested. Don't want to be tested, don't apply.Finally, it sets the precedent that anything tied to fed/state money is fair game for them to invade your personal liberties by demanding a drug test. Some posters before gave some good examples of that, like telling you what to eat or tying drug tests to unemployment, etc. I guess, for me, it's just another way for government to control your life, something I hate.
Watch out for that slippery slope. There doesn't need to be all out Orwellian rule for welfare related drug testing to be in effect.
I didn't enable . Charity isn't an enabler. My money was taken from me when I earned it, I didn't say "hey, let's support some lazy ass drug addict so she can spit out a few shaking premies".Now, if you want to argue that we enabled them to become what they are, I'll completely agree with you. We did. And the system is ed. But more government meddling, to me, equates to more expensive in the long run, every time
Don't pawn that off on me.
There aren't that many on welfare who just didn't want the rules mom and dad laid out at home. The large majority of these people came from poverty, never saw a way out and were raised with the honest belief that they were born to just exist, no purpose other than whatever show comes on that day. There's no inquisitive nature, no desire for learning, no reaching out. Just the kid down the street, get a baby and the community of unwed, welfare parents will take over raising it.
If the kid has mom and dad who actually have rules, and the kid made a decision to leave, the kid is head and shoulders above the lot we are mostly talking about in terms of future outlook.
No. The sanc y of the human body must be preserved. This is why I am pro-choice. No forced medical procedures unless it's an agreement for services rendered.There will still be some who are totally irresponsible.
Who else besides me is for mandatory tube snipping of irresponsible breeders? Both men and women?
-sigh-
Dude, you may be trying to troll, but some of your responses are hilarious. A bullet or a cell. Who pays for the cell?
As for all the let em die stuff, c'mon. This will never be an option, and you know it
And the we stuff in the end is the proverbial 'we'. Whether you like it or not your tax dollars have been enabling those s
The having kids response is a decent point, until you realize that they'll keep ing and procreating regardless. Those babies will then end up in taxpayer funded hospitals with us footing the bill
Come back to reality and refute my points with something other than let em' die. Maybe then I'll listen
Oh, and no, I've never been on welfare. And yes, for many it is a giant con
The cell is being paid for regardless.
If someone decides that they have to have their drugs so they will commit crimes (happens now), they get dead or get put in jail eventually. You don't stop crime by buying out the criminals.
It is now in the insurance business.As for all the let em die stuff, c'mon. This will never be an option, and you know it
You act like I have personal responsibility. That's like me saying you are enabling drug lords in Mexico because your tax dollars are going there. Did you direct them there? Did you even sign up to pay taxes? No. We are not given a choice, we don't "pay" taxes, we are robbed before the money gets to us.And the we stuff in the end is the proverbial 'we'. Whether you like it or not your tax dollars have been enabling those s
That's just it. If you keep feeding homeless dogs they will hang around and have pups. Stop feeding and you just have the dog and some pups, and the dog either dies or leaves. The pups will figure it out. There won't be more dogs and pups though.The having kids response is a decent point, until you realize that they'll keep ing and procreating regardless. Those babies will then end up in taxpayer funded hospitals with us footing the bill
As it stands, we are footing the bill for illegal immigrant kids left and right. Your suggestion is to cater to the lazy en led s. Mine is to cut them off. Yours ensures more lazy en led s. Mine ensures a short period of "wtf" followed by some ing and crime, followed by more money to spend on things we should be spending on. Prisoners don't procreate.
Austin is a fine example of this dynamic at work (ironically). 10 years ago you might see a bum on a few corners in major traffic areas. Today you will see them on every corner, the same one for a year or so. That person doesn't want to work, they want free living. Others see it and they want it too, so now you have 30 year olds out there perfectly healthy with "feed me" signs. Welfare is the same way. There are those who need it and then there are the rest who just see it as a viable alternative to work. You have to ween these crackheads off the subsidy teat by hook or by crook. Whatever works. Offering the other teat doesn't work.
Get something resembling a stance other than "pay the man so he won't hurt us".Come back to reality and refute my points with something other than let em' die. Maybe then I'll listen
I was raised poor. My friend lived in the projects. We thought he was rich because he had tile floors and a brick home. His mom didn't work. He had better clothes than we had and our dad worked on a farm. We didn't get welfare because my dad was too proud to accept charity. In those small towns, getting disability approved is the lottery win. It means you never work again, you have a home, you have a car, you have an income, and you don't do , forever. If you can live with another loser who gets welfare and food stamps, you have a higher standard of living than people who work 18 hours a day on farms and in most factories. Then they have kids who grow up and end up living across the way in the next unit, set up the same way, getting disability for drug abuse and getting welfare because they have 5 kids with different last names.Oh, and no, I've never been on welfare. And yes, for many it is a giant con
I've seen the system for over 40 years and I've lived in and out of it. I have family who work with kids from those systems at correctional facilities. My sister runs a boys home and has for 25 years where there are at least 20 kids at any given time in transition to or from some detention facility, or who were rescued from trash can homes where they were being abused. They know the system, their entire existence is predicated on the system. Their parents were allowed to exist because there is a system in place that fertilizes these nuts and enables their survival.
Don't tell me about welfare and crime, and act like I should have Stockholm syndrome for these ing crackhead s. It's not going to happen.
But what if I am the drug addict? Your proposal seemingly only applies to the poor, because they're the only ones who would undergo su ionless testing. I would be able to raise my kids and support my addiction regardless. This is my problem with the whole thing. It's based on a presumption that will result in tests for a cross-section of society. There are plenty of other instances where people take state or federal money, but they will not be tested to ensure money is not being directed toward drugs or other illicit activities. There's no guarantee kids will get the money they need to live; the whole government appointee thing sounds bersome and likely far more expensive than what drug users cost tax payers now. Besides which, I'm not sure it passes Fourth Amendment muster.
so you want to pay them to not commit crimes? got it.
Before you get your tax return I want a drug test. Also before any student gets any financial aid both the parents/guardian and student need to pass a drug test.
lol MonkeyIsGod thinking people on welfare should be able to use taxpayer dollars on drugs
are you in kidding me?
"Taxpayers better finance their drug habits so we can prevent crime"
I've been a pretty far left democrat on a lot of things since I started following politics, but this is where the Democratic party pisses me off. Drug testing people requesting government aid seems like common sense so the government isn't financing the habits of a junky.
i know what I'm about to say probably brings nothing to the table so there's really no point in reading if you're trying to have a serious discussion in this thread
but anyway, there's nothing more annoying than women in their 30's, who are on welfare, and think they are the . they always walk into gas stations with their UT shirts, talking loudly with their chests puffed out high. somebody needs to remind them that unless they are cleaning our toilets for minimum wage, they need to just do society a favor and kill themselves
So after a national disaster like a tornado or flood all victims should be required to take a drug test right? Sounds fair to me. Before a Governor can ask for federal funds they too need to take a drug test. Pee in the cup Perry!
I too don't have a problem with it but I also think it will cost more and not truly solve the issue.
Yeah because that's what the law is you stupid .
crofl why am i not surprised that me and dok agree on this?
Tbh maybe the welfare s wearing UT shirts piss you off, the s who save up from each welfare check so they can buy a 200 level ticket when the Lakers visit Phoenix piss me off like no other.
For all the I talk about UT the dream masters program I'm applying for is UT's accounting program so....
as much of a moron as he is, im with DMC
who cares if these s, n!ggers, and spear chuckers die because they have nothing to curb their addiction? It's called natural selection. Some will turn their life around and the other worthless s will just die leaving the world a better place.
Darwin would be rolling around in his grave right now if he had to listen to those opposing this bill
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
