Quite possible. Feel free to look it up.
I never said conservatives were innocent, but I'd rather see my tax dollars spent bombing some third-world nation for oil interests than giving money to an irresponsible person to use irresponsibly. But hey, I'm kooky like that.
I would be willing to wager that "conservatives" don't rack up unnecessary debt as much as liberals. Not that I classify him as such, but the most recent anecdotal evidence would be Bush. Want to compare him to Obama for 2 minutes? I bet I come out on top.
Boo Radley said:Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.
BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.
You have to love Cons, they have such simple answers to a extremely complex problems.
What would you propose to do instead? Unfortunately, your solution would be the beginning of another story.
That sounds strange, and I wouldn't trust a myth like that... Maybe they aren't testing for pot or maybe they are doing other things, like that drink mix that cleans the urine.
Personal privacy... I didn't think you needed it spelled out to you. Random drug tests violate several amendments, most notably the fourth and ninth. But you don't seem to think that matters.
Edit: And fourteenth.
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.
At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.
Quite possible. Feel free to look it up.
I never said conservatives were innocent, but I'd rather see my tax dollars spent bombing some third-world nation for oil interests than giving money to an irresponsible person to use irresponsibly. But hey, I'm kooky like that.
I would be willing to wager that "conservatives" don't rack up unnecessary debt as much as liberals. Not that I classify him as such, but the most recent anecdotal evidence would be Bush. Want to compare him to Obama for 2 minutes? I bet I come out on top.
Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.
BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.
That's fine. I wouldn't mind a small premium to make sure welfare funds weren't wasted. Plus I would think it might still reduce costs if you withhold funds from people who do not pass or do not agree to testing.
We'd have to implement it to find out, and I'm willing to give it a shot. Besides, you could argue a laundry list of positive externalities (sorry if I had to break out an economics discussion and vocab session, Kali) that could come from those below the poverty not being on drugs, or not being subsidized (sorry again) for this bad behavior.
Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.
BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.
Sometimes it's a necessary evil.
You may refuse.
It's not really consent if you're being coerced. If your choice is "consent to this test or we throw you into the street", then no, you really can't refuse.
It's the same choice I have at work. It's been upheld.
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.
At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.
That's fine. I wouldn't mind a small premium to make sure welfare funds weren't wasted. Plus I would think it might still reduce costs if you withhold funds from people who do not pass or do not agree to testing.
We'd have to implement it to find out, and I'm willing to give it a shot. Besides, you could argue a laundry list of positive externalities (sorry if I had to break out an economics discussion and vocab session, Kali) that could come from those below the poverty not being on drugs, or not being subsidized (sorry again) for this bad behavior.
So your idea is to institutionalize them. How do you deal with families? Have you decided that poor people can't afford their families and they all get sent to the halfway house where instead of living as a family, they live in a commune? Perhaps I am running away from or with your idea, but that seems contrary to the precept of maintaining and supporting the nuclear family, which is one of the key ideas behind welfare.
Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...
Big government when you want it to be.
Sometimes it's a necessary evil.
I'm not saying 100% of welfare recipients are using money for drugs. I'm not even saying most are. Maybe they just use money they steal instead.
Honestly though, all I'm saying is that the action of not-necessarily-the-few may indeed be hurting the many. Even if it takes money to do so, I would feel a little better knowing that welfare was spent where the overwhelming majority of the people are on the up-and-up. Then again, I've just always been against using subsidies to impede or negate social Darwinism.
This program is a complete waste of money and should be used as an example of something that is truly a waste of taxpayers money.
Spend $178 million to save a few thousand is crazy, but it's typical politics in action.
This is why we can recall the idiots we once thought had a couple of brain sales but their actions betrayed them.
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.
At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.
A workhouse was a place where those unable to support themselves were offered accommodation and employment. The term was the usual word in England, Wales, and Ireland for the institution more commonly known in Scotland as a poorhouse.[1] Its earliest known use dates from 1631, in an account by the mayor of Abingdon in which he reports that "wee haue erected wthn our borough a workehouse to sett poore people to worke".[2] The workhouse was colloquially known as 'The Spike' as a reference to the spikes used by the inmates to pick oakum,[3] also specifically the casual ward of a workhouse.[4]
Although small numbers of workhouses were established in other European countries, the system was most highly developed in England. Holland, for instance, had three large workhouses for the entire country,[5] whereas the English county of Cheshire alone had 31 by 1777.[
Living conditions after 1847 were governed by the Consolidated General Order, which contained a list of rules covering every aspect of workhouse life including diet, dress, education, discipline, and redress of grievances.[28] Inmates surrendered their own clothes and were required to wear a distinctive uniform. Men were provided with a striped cotton shirt, jacket and trousers, and a cloth cap. For women it was commonly a blue-and-white striped dress worn underneath a smock. Shoes were also provided.[29]
Inmates were free to leave as they wished after giving reasonable notice, generally considered to be three hours, but if a parent discharged him or herself then the children were also discharged, to prevent them from being abandoned.[28] Food and accommodation were provided free of charge, but by entering a workhouse paupers were held to have forfeited responsibility for their families; men and women were segregated and children were separated from their parents.[29] In some cases, like that of Henry Cook in 1814, the Poor Law authorities forced the husband to sell his wife rather than have to maintain her and her child in the Effingham workhouse. She was bought at Croydon market for one shilling; the parish paid for the cost of the journey and a "wedding dinner".[30]
Education was provided for the children, but they were often forcibly apprenticed without the permission or knowledge of their parents.[29] The comic actor Charlie Chaplin, who spent some time with his mother in Lambeth workhouse, records in his autobiography that when he and his half-brother returned to the workhouse after having been sent to a school in Hanwell he was met at the gate by his mother Hannah, dressed in her own clothes. Desperate to see them again she had discharged herself and the children; they spent the day together playing in Kennington Park and visiting a coffee shop, after which she readmitted them all to the workhouse.[31]
There were many well-meaning measures, such as the provision of medical officers and chaplains, but in many ways the treatment in a workhouse was little different from that in a prison, leaving many inmates feeling that they were being punished for the crime of poverty. Some workhouse masters embezzled the money intended for blankets, food and other essential items. Visitors reported rooms full of sick or elderly inmates with threadbare blankets and the windows wide open to the freezing weather.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?