Reply With Quote
Obvious trolling aside, the idea that a proposed governmental program acts as an example of natural selection is... intriguing.
Mother ing cosigned sons. If a in junkie can't stop doing drugs and can't live without welfare, then it's not the government's problem if he dies. All that type of person is doing is draining money from the government, empowering drug dealers with a very loyal customer, and endangering other people with a habit he's willing to kill for. He's not offering a dam thing to society.
Obvious trolling aside, the idea that a proposed governmental program acts as an example of natural selection is... intriguing.
It ain't the law yet mr. knowitall.
Don't forget to mention all the white trash, wife beatin' shirt wearin' rednecks on welfare too. I'm not surprised at all as I know there are different views on this issue. And wgaf about UT.
So what are u sayin…Dat it’s a bad ting?
It sucks to be poor. Tell me something new. Don't apply, don't get tested. Don't do drugs, don't worry about testing. See how easy that was?
What if it was you? If it was your kids, and you were a drug addict, the state should step in and take your kids from you. Get your drug on or get your kid on, don't get both on.
But you aren't going to the government asking for living assistance while you are supporting your drug habit with the money you are given. Therein lies the difference. Government interference into your life is preventable by not filling out the do ents that give consent.I would be able to raise my kids and support my addiction regardless.
Every group of people is a cross section. The military has to be drug tested. They are a cross section of society. Should we also not drug test the military?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.
So? There are different speed limits for different parts of town. Things are applied as they are needed.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.
They can be denied money. There's no provision for government assistance in the BoR. Unlawful search and seizure, right to be secure in persons, is given up when consent is given. Otherwise every employer including the military is violating it with random drug testing.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.
Tax return, no. That's already my money. Student Aid isn't generally given to the student, but to the school.
Imagine living under your parents' roof and expecting to be able to do drugs and be a lazy while they pay for your way of life. When you are getting taxpayer money to live on, you are under their roof and you should expect that you are being monitored. There should not be an attractiveness to welfare.
Slippery slope. There's a difference between emergency assistance and lifetime assistance. A mother of 5 living in government housing with her boyfriend isn't necessarily a victim. If she's content with that, and bilks the taxpayer for all she can get while funding the drug habits of herself and her bf, that's not the same as someone being left homeless because of a natural disaster.
Let's keep it focused on the situation at hand. We could posit hundreds of alternative examples. Why shouldn't welfare recipients be required to be screened for illegal drug use in order to receive taxpayer money?
Before you get financial aid there's a question about whether you have ever been charged and convicted with any drug related crime. If the answer is yes, you get no financial aid. It has been ammended to only include charges incurred while on financial aid.
Why shouldn't recipients of ANY taxpayer money be required to take a drug test? How do we know they are NOT going to spend the money on drugs? There are always cases of fraud when it comes to government money.
I see you, DMC.
As gay as you are, I agree.
WTF? You about tax dollars being wasted then you don't care about how these people are wasting their money?
Sympathy and compassion are not things I should be forced into. I voluntarily give to charities here in town. But I give to those charities because I know where the money is going and how it is being used. It doesn't make you a heartless SOB because you don't want to see YOUR money given away indiscriminately.
You'd be foolish to think this bill is going to solve any real problems. But this type of thinking is a step in the right direction. Which could potentially lead to greater changes.
There's a fine line between people who truly need help and people who simply want it. But when it comes to the money I've worked for, I should have a say in where it goes.
this reasoning is flawed and stupid. Anyone whoever worked with a drug user knows how easy it is to pass those test. And once they get the job, they go back to using without fear of being tested again. If there aren't randoms in this program, which there aren't, it's a waste of money.
This thread is a buzz killer. Time to fire up another bowl.
exactly
i wish somebody would shove an AIDs infested shank up your gooch when you least expect it
AIDS takes to long to kill someone ing rhotovirus bull . But i like where your head's at.
Apples and oranges. You are focused on the taxpayer money, not on the person who's requesting it.
It's blatantly obvious why victims of a natural disaster need aid. It's not obvious why welfare recipients continue to need it. The test is to make the drug portion go away, not to deny benefits. It doesn't address prescription abuse, but like JaG said, you have to start somewhere. You cannot simply have a free living scheme set up and think you are going to ever get a handle on the deficit.
No, I'm focusing on the person requesting it. Everyone receiving government funds should be required to take a drug test.
And there are some who will blatantly take advantage of a situation when a disaster occurs. It happens.
No you aren't.
Just because you have the person in your sentence doesn't mean you are focusing on the person.
The commonality, according to you, is the request for taxpayer money. That's the lever that should drive the drug test. Not the person, but the taxpayer money request.
I don't care who they drug test, but you cannot say it's the same thing just because both are getting taxpayer (not government) funds.
Those are limited situations and that is a part of the landscape of running a nation. Doling out free living coupons to drug addicts isn't the same thing as being schemed or conned.
Clayton Williams ed up by saying the girl might as well lay back and enjoy it if they are being raped. That seems to be what some here are saying, that we should just give our money to the drug addicted trash so they don't hurt us.
Yes, I am and just because you say I'm not doesn't make it so and yes I can say that because they are both getting money from the government.
And you are calling welfare recipients drug addicts which I would say is the minority and not the majority.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions