Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 90
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    a cardbroad box under the overpass
    Posts
    3,431
    vCash
    1500
    How about drug testing politicans each time they pick up a paycheck, CEOs before they get government contracts or corp. welfare? Musicans and actors before they sell their products to our children? After the wall street collapse, we should test brokers and bankers.

    Why not mandate drug testing for everbody who will get grants and loans for college? Or You and your girlfriend must be tested before you get a marriage license? How far do you want to take this? It's all fine and dandy when you subject one group of people, but how would alot of us fair if it came to our back yard?
    Last edited by WES445; 02-07-2011 at 10:05 PM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,745
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    How about drug testing politicans each time they pick up a paycheck, CEOs before they get government contracts or corp. welfare? Musicans and actors before they sell their products to our children? After the wall street collapse, we should test brokers and bankers.

    Why not mandate drug testing for everbody who will get grants and loans for college? Or You and your girlfriend must be tested before you get a marriage license? How far do you want to take this? It's all fine and dandy when you subject one group of people, but how would alot of us fair if it came to our back yard?
    There are a lot of jobs that require drug testing. While being a welfair reciepient isn't a job, I wouldn't have a problem with the terms of recieving government money.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by b1e9a8r5s View Post
    There are a lot of jobs that require drug testing. While being a welfair reciepient isn't a job, I wouldn't have a problem with the terms of recieving government money.
    Why is a clean drug sheet a prerequisite to receiving government money? I fail to see the connection at all.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    The basis of this idea is twofold. First, that accepting certain kinds of help from the government is a moral issue, and those that do so have moral problems. It's paternalistic nonsense. Second, it's frankly an issue of racial stereotypes. Saint Ronald Reagan himself helped propagate the inaccurate, racially charged stereotype of the ghetto "welfare queen" driving a Cadillac, and it still exists today.
    Indeed.
    Last edited by Bravo95; 02-08-2011 at 12:49 AM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,284
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I doubt it. What does that have to do with anything?
    hi, my name is joke, have we met yet?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    38,284
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by b1e9a8r5s View Post
    There are a lot of jobs that require drug testing. While being a welfair reciepient isn't a job, I wouldn't have a problem with the terms of recieving government money.
    This, and this is where I draw that line.

    You are receiving basically 'free' money. Imposing stipulations that require you to follow the basic laws that the rest of society are expected to follow. You won't follow those rules, then you shouldn't be allowed this 'free' money.

    I have always viewed welfare as 'free' money, maybe that is the difference.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Ohio State University
    Posts
    1,198
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I have always viewed welfare as 'free' money, maybe that is the difference.
    Eh, "free", "stolen", same thing. That's what I tell the cops.

    = N E W | Y O R K =

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,745
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    Why is a clean drug sheet a prerequisite to receiving government money? I fail to see the connection at all.
    Because welfare SHOULD be a temporary solution, not a permanent one. It should help persons stay afloat not help pay for someones drug habit.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    I don;t think the government should be getting into this frankly. Whiile I understand the concept of wanting to ensure ethe money is well spent, it just reaches too far into a persons private life for me to be comfortbable with it.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    This, and this is where I draw that line.

    You are receiving basically 'free' money. Imposing stipulations that require you to follow the basic laws that the rest of society are expected to follow. You won't follow those rules, then you shouldn't be allowed this 'free' money.

    I have always viewed welfare as 'free' money, maybe that is the difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by TunTavern View Post
    Eh, "free", "stolen", same thing. That's what I tell the cops.
    Quote Originally Posted by b1e9a8r5s View Post
    Because welfare SHOULD be a temporary solution, not a permanent one. It should help persons stay afloat not help pay for someones drug habit.
    I sort of thought that was the whole point.

    There's a bit of detachment from reality here. I always read these arguments evincing sentiments of the poor man having "pulled a fast one" on the rest of us, so to speak. As if the poor rallied their democratic might and stuffed Congress with welfare proponents ...

    No no no. Welfare wasn't the poor's idea. Congress (i.e., rich white men, especially in the '30s) instituted the welfare system because it was terrified of a bunch of poor, unemployed people running around. It was terrified of an uprising, especially in the name of communism or fascism.

    So let's not get confused here. The poor aren't the only ones with an interest in welfare checks. $200 to a guy makes him less likely to be homeless, it makes him less likely to steal, makes him less likely to get angry at the government that keeps sending him checks. That stands true whether the guy is sober or is a drug addict. And, of course, not all poor people are drug addicts. But all the same, not all poor people are vindictive thieves on the verge of homelessness. It's just that no one really cares to find out which poor people actually are and which aren't.

    When you cut a check to someone, you don't follow where it goes. That's just ridiculous. There are more ways to spend money unproductively beyond drugs. And poor people are not the only ones who spend wastefully.

    If you want to argue that we just shouldn't be cutting checks in the first place, go right ahead. I'll ask that you keep a historical perspective, but go right ahead. This idea of conditioning welfare checks on sobriety is just crazy, though, and frankly, it's nothing but demeaning to poor people.
    Last edited by philab; 02-08-2011 at 01:06 PM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,967
    vCash
    1490
    This whole thing is silly. I don't even like the government's standards of what a "drug" is, much less agree with them using it to limit benefits.

    Alcoholics will pass, a casual weed smoker will fail (for something that should be legal anyway).....I mean you may as well test them for caffeine, candy, cigarettes, raid their wardrobe for high priced clothing, check their cable plan, check their cell phone, monitor their car for excessive mileage and ban them from video games since they are all things welfare "shouldn't" pay for.


    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    I don;t think the government should be getting into this frankly. Whiile I understand the concept of wanting to ensure ethe money is well spent, it just reaches too far into a persons private life for me to be comfortbable with it.
    Agreed and very libertarian of you!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    This whole thing is silly. I don't even like the government's standards of what a "drug" is, much less agree with them using it to limit benefits.

    Alcoholics will pass, a casual weed smoker will fail (for something that should be legal anyway).....I mean you may as well test them for caffeine, candy, cigarettes, raid their wardrobe for high priced clothing, check their cable plan, check their cell phone, monitor their car for excessive mileage and ban them from video games since they are all things welfare "shouldn't" pay for.




    Agreed and very libertarian of you!
    I would imagine if you polled 2500 people you'd have more then you can count on your fingers of people who would want to do that.


    I'm torn on this issue. I don't like the idea of someone with a drug problem getting money. Maybe i'm naive in the fact that i've never done it. But I can't help but to think crackheads aren't very good at their jobs, and will have trouble finding employment. It shouldn't be our responsibility to pay them welfare for that.

    But on the other hand, how many are actually crack heads. How many aren't just casual weed smokers, who statistics show doesn't affect you anymore then booze. Where does booze play in? Lots of questions, and different scenarios. So i'm on the fence on how I feel, because I see both sides.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,967
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    I would imagine if you polled 2500 people you'd have more then you can count on your fingers of people who would want to do that.


    I'm torn on this issue. I don't like the idea of someone with a drug problem getting money. Maybe i'm naive in the fact that i've never done it. But I can't help but to think crackheads aren't very good at their jobs, and will have trouble finding employment. It shouldn't be our responsibility to pay them welfare for that.

    But on the other hand, how many are actually crack heads. How many aren't just casual weed smokers, who statistics show doesn't affect you anymore then booze. Where does booze play in? Lots of questions, and different scenarios. So i'm on the fence on how I feel, because I see both sides.
    I understand being on the fence and I think it's because the root principle here makes sense, but there's just no practical way to enforce it. "drug test" is just way too vague and missing out on a hundred other expenditures that welfare isn't designed for.

    Again we got back to welfare as a necessary, but imperfect system. The majority of people on it do not abuse it, so we keep it alive for their sake.

    This is no different than when I see a guy on the street asking for money. If I have it, I give it knowing full well that he might spend it on booze or he might go buy a hamburger. It's not in my control, but hey a person in need is a person in need, so whatever is going to make his day better is fine by me.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,745
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    This is no different than when I see a guy on the street asking for money. If I have it, I give it knowing full well that he might spend it on booze or he might go buy a hamburger. It's not in my control, but hey a person in need is a person in need, so whatever is going to make his day better is fine by me.
    I think this is more or less the issue here. I know a lot of people who will go buy food for someone but not give actual money.

    I wouldn't have a problem with this policy in principle, but I wonder what the cost benefit would ultimately be.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    a cardbroad box under the overpass
    Posts
    3,431
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I sort of thought that was the whole point.

    There's a bit of detachment from reality here. I always read these arguments evincing sentiments of the poor man having "pulled a fast one" on the rest of us, so to speak. As if the poor rallied their democratic might and stuffed Congress with welfare proponents ...

    No no no. Welfare wasn't the poor's idea. Congress (i.e., rich white men, especially in the '30s) instituted the welfare system because it was terrified of a bunch of poor, unemployed people running around. It was terrified of an uprising, especially in the name of communism or fascism.

    So let's not get confused here. The poor aren't the only ones with an interest in welfare checks. $200 to a guy makes him less likely to be homeless, it makes him less likely to steal, makes him less likely to get angry at the government that keeps sending him checks. That stands true whether the guy is sober or is a drug addict. And, of course, not all poor people are drug addicts. But all the same, not all poor people are vindictive thieves on the verge of homelessness. It's just that no one really cares to find out which poor people actually are and which aren't.

    When you cut a check to someone, you don't follow where it goes. That's just ridiculous. There are more ways to spend money unproductively beyond drugs. And poor people are not the only ones who spend wastefully.

    If you want to argue that we just shouldn't be cutting checks in the first place, go right ahead. I'll ask that you keep a historical perspective, but go right ahead. This idea of conditioning welfare checks on sobriety is just crazy, though, and frankly, it's nothing but demeaning to poor people.
    You raised a very good point on how welfare keep the underclase docile. If King Louie had fed his people instead of him and his noble class peers living the high life, he may had kept his head and French Revoltion wouldn't occur. Look at the Arab country in chaos now. It more about being unemployed and hunger then democratic needs.
    This drug testing is part of a long trend to bash the poor and their benefits. What people don't realize those link cards keep alot of supermarts afloat. Just go to a poor neighborhood supermarket on the first of the month to prove that point. Drugdealers don't accept links.
    Its a know fact that poor people suffer from drug use and acholicism, but that rate isn't that much higher then the rest of society. The drug baron aren't making billions of dollars off their trade on just the poor. This is a social problem that I don't feel that we have to penaltize the underclass while giving Lindsey Lohan and Rush Limbaugh a pass. I know that these people support themselves, but they can afford treatment for these problems while a poor person can't, and also suffer less harsh treatment by the court system as well. If we gave top drug treatment and better schooling to the poor, I wouldn't have such a problem with this policy.

    This seems to be another reason to give less to the needy, during a time when those with the most get more.
    Last edited by WES445; 02-08-2011 at 04:01 PM.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •