- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,938
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Against it for the reasons already mentioned. Most people who are hardcore drug addicts and are on welfare are poor in the first place. Remove the assistance and they fall deeper. I know some people are so selfish that they don't care if other people fall through the gutter, but I promise you'll start to care when you see an influx of homeless people roaming the streets and turning up dead in plain site. Because you live in America, you've never seen what that looks like. Take a little trip to Asia and you'll see what it looks like when the system completely abandons people. It's rather disturbing.
The pure punishment approach doesn't work, and I wish people would get past the notion already.
MO is a lot of welfare recipients sell drugs, but don't use.
It MAY save enough money in the long run to cover the costs. Not sure.
.
Oh yeah, we're seeing that with the Leftists, everyday.
For what it's worth, I would say this is a highly unlikely scenario.
This is what I have read, but I don't have a source. Why do you believe this to be highly unlikely. I also read they have a high death rate at a young age. If we're talking the ghetto I believe it's possible. They may use for recreation, but it's not a hardcore addiction. Many of the dealers have kids with women who are on welfare, and the women aren't hardcore users.
Against it for the reasons already mentioned. Most people who are hardcore drug addicts and are on welfare are poor in the first place. Remove the assistance and they fall deeper. I know some people are so selfish that they don't care if other people fall through the gutter, but I promise you'll start to care when you see an influx of homeless people roaming the streets and turning up dead in plain site. Because you live in America, you've never seen what that looks like. Take a little trip to Asia and you'll see what it looks like when the system completely abandons people. It's rather disturbing.
The pure punishment approach doesn't work, and I wish people would get past the notion already.
I realize people don't like their tax dollars aiding drug users, but if it's recreational and occasional it's not our business.
This is what I have read, but I don't have a source. Why do you believe this to be highly unlikely. I also read they have a high death rate at a young age. If we're talking the ghetto I believe it's possible. They may use for recreation, but it's not a hardcore addiction. Many of the dealers have kids with women who are on welfare, and the women aren't hardcore users.
They are welfare recipients. Why should they be "recreating" anyways. Especially "recreating" with illegal and expensive drugs.
Take your recreation and go get a 2nd or 3rd job.
How these particular mothers made ends meet; They got 57 percent of their income from food stamps and AFDC. Roughly half the rest came from work of various kinds. The remainder came from absent fathers, boyfriends, relatives, and student loans. The work these mothers did was extraordinarily diverse. Three held regular jobs under another name, earning an average of $5 an hour. Twelve worked part time at off-the-books jobs such as bartending, catering, babysitting, and sewing that paid an average of $3 an hour.
The only well-paid work open to these women was prostitution, which paid something like $40 an hour. Four of Edin's mothers supplemented their welfare checks this way. Four others sold drugs, but three of the four sold only marijuana and earned only $3 to $5 an hour. They could presumably have earned more if they had sold crack on the street, but they sold only to acquaintances, which was much less risky. The fourth drug seller sold crack as well as marijuana and earned something like $10 an hour, but she was murdered soon after Edin interviewed her, apparently because she had not repaid her supplier.
2) Random drug testing would be FAR more expensive than the measly $400 bucks welfare recipients get now.
Most employers find that a drug-testing program will eliminate people with problem, and not good applicants. Drug tests for small to medium employers generally cost in the $50-$70.00 range, including collection of the sample, laboratory analysis, services of a Medial Review Officer, and communications of the results in the manner most convenient to the employer.
That ain't entirely true.
Intro to Employment Drug Testing for Employers and Human Resources Professionals
I agree, but what I am pushing for is that if any private company receives any money/grant/tax break from the government that they should be forced to drug test their employees.. that should cover everyone in the US. That is a way to deal with the problem on a national scale instead of putting a band-aid on a small part of the problem.
Why limit it to welfare recipients? Why not everyone who gets government money?
Why not corporate CEOs who get bailouts? Students who get student loans and grants? People who actually work for the government, from those in the military on down to the clerk at the DMV?
And how about people who get money from the government indirectly, such as through government services? Why not test everyone who wants to borrow a library book? Can't get your mail until you piss in a cup. If you use the highway, roadside test could become a common thing.
Or maybe this is just another way for politicians to attack the most helpless among us without any real concern for consistency or logic? After all, these people never vote anyway.
Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Normally I disagree with most things this guy does but I applaud this move.
I like most forms of welfare and I believe they serve a necessary function for our society (even though they are going to need to be scaled back because of budgetary considerations, unfortunately), but there is no purpose in spending money where it does not produce any positive benefits for the individual getting the money or for society.
Sorry, but I don't applaud this move. Has Hatch ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?
Uhhh.... Random drug testing is a part of the Military. I don't know how many times I was drug testing in the Army in my 4 years... probably at least 6-8.People who actually work for the government, from those in the military on down to the clerk at the DMV?
Maybe the "helpless among us" should stop contributing to their own helpelessness.Or maybe this is just another way for politicians to attack the most helpless among us without any real concern for consistency or logic? After all, these people never vote anyway.
I can agree with this. I say test them, however the drug addicts will either be sucking our money through welfare or through being in prison.
So I have to support people who have made the decision to be worthless drug users for the sake of not allowing them to be homeless?
I don't understand. Why can't we let people take responsibility for their own actions. If their actions allow them to fall into homelessness, so ****ing be it.
Explain to me again why a welfare recipient gets to sit on their ass doing drugs while I have to work hard to provide this for them?
Yes. And it's not you supporting them, it's everyone. It's not your money. It's not your bank account. Your taxes account for a minuscule percentage, so stop acting like it's draining your coffers. You pay taxes so I suggest you get over it. Not everything my taxes go towards I support, but paying taxes is not an option.
Because the welfare of society matters more than your selfishness. You may not care about an influx of homeless people and people dying in your rich country on the streets, but I do.
Do you know what addiction is and why it often is not a choice?
Punishing people for a mistake they made in starting drug use is not focusing on the now. Maybe a lot of them want to quit but it's hard. Maybe rehab hasn't worked.
I believe in helping people and not giving up on them. Sorry that your philosophy differs.
Oh I see, so they were forced to take drugs.
Gotcha.
:roll:
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?