- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
A lot of people made the same argument as 1069 and friends when Welfare Reform, part of the Contract with America was proffered by Republicans.
Clinton swore he would never sign Welfare Reform, but did, and it was so successful that on the 10th anniversary tried to take full credit for the program.
I see the same thing happening here.
It will be initially be an uncomfortable transition for some, but will lead to more responsibility and better lives for the parents and children on the whole. Society too.
.
In my opinion, welfare is a necessary evil for folks who have had problems, mostly not of their making, but sometimes even OF their own making. Thing is, at least the way that I see it, welfare is not a permanent solution. The goal should be to get off of it. I think there should be more US dollar spent on promoting this, and less on the continuous state of welfare for some people.
And yes, if someone tests positive for drugs while on welfare, I support having their benefits cut and their children removed. If they are choosing to use drugs rather than take care of their family, I can't imagine that they are doing a great job taking care of their kids.
Utter biased legislation.
Why only welfare recipients? Do it for everyone and make people take the consequences of that. Higher taxes for abusers, fines and ultimately prison. That would solve a lot of problems in the US. After all a majority of drug users are not on welfare.
I agree, it should be a very thin and porous net, not a hammock.In my opinion, welfare is a necessary evil for folks who have had problems, mostly not of their making, but sometimes even OF their own making. Thing is, at least the way that I see it, welfare is not a permanent solution. The goal should be to get off of it. I think there should be more US dollar spent on promoting this, and less on the continuous state of welfare for some people.
Here is a really touchy line, a barrel of worms; Removing children. There are instances it should happen certainly, what they are specifically I can't define legally and won't attempt to. I think it falls into the "I know it when I see it" category, defining it legally is another matter.And yes, if someone tests positive for drugs while on welfare, I support having their benefits cut and their children removed. If they are choosing to use drugs rather than take care of their family, I can't imagine that they are doing a great job taking care of their kids.
Utter biased legislation.
Why only welfare recipients? Do it for everyone and make people take the consequences of that. Higher taxes for abusers, fines and ultimately prison. That would solve a lot of problems in the US. After all a majority of drug users are not on welfare.
No, Pete, this is not what people are discussing. Drug users who are fending for themselves are not of my concern. However, when my tax dollars pay for a drug user's drug. keeping them on welfare, THAT IS my concern.
I agree, it should be a very thin and porous net, not a hammock.
Here is a really touchy line, a barrel of worms; Removing children. There are instances it should happen certainly, what they are specifically I can't define legally and won't attempt to. I think it falls into the "I know it when I see it" category, defining it legally is another matter.
I prefer to see less government, and less intrusion into families by government. In the old days friends and family or churches intervened. That's better than the faceless, morgue-like state. You could even say I'd opt for it takes a village approach, but not as defined by Hillary. For her "village" is a coy term for state.
.
Come on now Pete, even you have to agree that someone using emergency social services shouldn't also be using drugs.
They are coming to the state saying they don't have enough money to feed/house themselves and then they turn around and buy high priced drugs.
Yes and ANY drug user, on welfare or not, is using your tax dollars... that is my point.
In fact I would claim that drug users not on welfare are costing you far more than the welfare payments to the druggies on welfare.
You forget that because of their drug use, billions are being used to prop op the Mexican government and other South American governments in their battle against the drug gangs. And domestically you have billions spent on putting people who have been busted for drugs through the system and putting them behind bars. And then there are the billions used on police solely used to fight the drug war. And then you have the medical costs in the long run for those addicts, that ultimately are paid by the US tax payer in one way or another (higher costs on private insurance for example).
Oh I agree, that is not my issue. My issue is it is a targeted politically correct proposal and not one that will solve anything.
Irrelevant. We are talking about welfare here. That is the topic.
Different topic, Pete.
Different topic, Pete.
That is your opinion. Prove it... and focus only on welfare recipients. Tell us how doing this is NOT beneficial.
Oh I agree, that is not my issue. My issue is it is a targeted politically correct proposal and not one that will solve anything.
I disagree, but whatever. I guess it is politically correct to target the weak in the US and let the rest off for doing exactly the same.
For one it will increase crime most likely.. cutting them off some income will just force them into more crime to feed their habit. Which will increase the cost for you as a tax payer. go figure.
No, it will just transfer money from welfare to jail. Further, you are not looking at this issue, globally. There is more to it than just, "ok, you are using... no welfare, no questions, see ya". Hatch's plan calls for the offer of drug rehab. I would combine that with ending the war of drugs, and using the saved monies to subsidize that rehab. Now, if someone refuses... then "see ya". They commit crimes... enjoy jail. However, one major issue surrounding folks NOT going into rehab is cost. This plan repairs that.
No matter what it is like putting a band-aid on a cut with a gaping gushing wound beside it. And that is my point and why I find this sort of legislation nothing but the usual politics with no vision what so ever. He is only proposing this because it will get him votes and I would wager that he has ties to some rehab companies too
I happen to work with a lot of people who are on food stamps and have their children on free government medical care, when they also drink alcohol heavily(usually during work hours) and smoke weed(again during work hours).
Ok, so you have nothing to say other than you disagree because the legislation is contradictory to your political position. Gotcha.
No I agree with the legislation, I just find it not going nearly far enough. All he is doing is targeting people who most likely wont vote for him but for his direct opposition.. go figure!
And? People on food stamps work too. Should they be drug tested? How about people working for GM and other companies bailed out by the US tax payer? Should they all be drug tested? He does not define "welfare benefits" as far as I can see, so it can basically mean everyone in the country since every American receives some sort of "welfare benefit" either directly or indirectly.
No Pete. WELFARE BENEFITS. It was pretty clear what he meant.
And? People on food stamps work too. Should they be drug tested? How about people working for GM and other companies bailed out by the US tax payer? Should they all be drug tested? He does not define "welfare benefits" as far as I can see, so it can basically mean everyone in the country since every American receives some sort of "welfare benefit" either directly or indirectly.
Each company can drug test. And yes, why not? They drug test professional athletes.
If a company is paying for medical care, they have that right.
There are private companies that can and do fire people that smoke.
So long as they pay the freight, they have that right.
If you don't like it, work somewhere else.
.
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?