La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

Originally posted by amcdermott20

Originally posted by Michelle129th

Just a side note also, the last time I checked doing any kind of drugs was ILLEGAL...rich or poor. If anyone chooses to do drugs then they should have a consequence for breaking the law.

You must not check that often then.
Ever heard of alcohol? tobacco? oxycontin?
the partnership for a drug free america must be doing their job well.

en.wikipedia.org...

Alcohol, tobacco and PRESCRIBED oxycontin are not illegal to take and/or possess. What is your point exactly? If any of you bothered to read the article by the way, he's not proposing to drug test each and every welfare recipient

The current bill would require 20 percent of people who receive benefits to submit to drug testing. Welfare recipients who test positive would have to receive treatment or lose their welfare check.

Only 20% of those receiving benefits, which is probably the percentage that aren't actively looking for work and those that are able to work but come up with excuse after excuse as to why they can't. And even then, if they are tested positive their cheques wouldn't be ripped from their hands and then kicked on the streets to fend for themselves as everyone is crying about on this thread.

reply to post by bluemirage5

just cuas an "illegal" works more for a lower rate . and we do less work at a higher rate has nothing to do whith lazyness.
its an issue of selfworth. i would not scrub toilets for 5 dollars an hour.us bump the rate up to 12dph now were talking

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

So the folks in your neighborhood are abusing welfare to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars. And we see thread after thread here with people getting all fussy about it. And I agree, it is waste and fraud and should be cleaned up.

But how many threads do we see about the redistribution of wealth, and our tax money going to subsidize one of, if not the most profitable companies in the history of company-ism? Zero to none that I have found.

And that is in my opinion the result of the right-wing propaganda campaign.

I gave you a star for your overall post even though I disagree with your final conclusion. Obama has bailed out GM, AIG, paid off the unions, etc etc etc, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, in 2 short years. So it has nothing to do with rw propaganda, imo. It has to do with the silent MSM.

But I'll bet that there are plenty of people here who complain about welfare drug users, who do the occasional drug themself. So, it's OK for them to do drugs, but not the people who receive their charity? Very weird logic, imo.

All the while, we subsidize the globe's despots and dictators and we finance covert military operations the world over.

*** ATTENTION ***

Stop with the bickering and off topic posts.

You May Be Post Banned.

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne


How sad. You have really exposed your ignorance and the hatred that you have inside your heart.

To talk trash about an entire country reveals just how flawed your character really is.


Even if you had some valid points to this discussion, (which i really dont think you do), everything you say from here on out is pretty much null and void.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by HaveAnotherOne

 

Thankyou for proving my point.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I'm sorry, but I have noticed throughout the many pages of this thread the lack of statistical support on your part. You keep reverting back to the same line " Hypocrisy at its finest " routine. If you are so confident in your stance, why not submit viable evidence? Without, your argument has no merit.

For example, no where in the Constitution, under Article 1 section 8, does it state that the Congress has the power to implement any social programs. Especially if said program is a burden on the tax payer.
Do you see how I did that? Suggested specific articles in which to research.

Fact still remains, that here in the US, any and all social programs are Unconstitutional. Fact still remains that these programs are indeed a burden on the tax payer. The USG does not have the right, under Article 1 Section 8, to redistribute another mans wages. Taking the fruits of a mans labor, and giving to another, is by design, a socialized nature. Socialism, in its truest form, has never survived. Its a failing system.

The point is, is that it is not the place of any government to take from one, and give to another. Further, its not the role of the government to provide pay checks to people, just because. It's counterproductive, and further strains the Free market.

reply to post by larrydavid


I could post the statistics showing the average IQ in Australia is lower than other modernized 1st world countries.

Would that make you feel better?

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne


And America has the highest percentage of people in jail than any other nation.

www.nytimes.com...

So by your logic, Americans are criminals.


FAIL

*** REMINDER ***

This thread is not about any nations IQ's or Criminal Stats.

Get Back On Topic,

You Post will be removed.

Originally posted by Michelle129th

Alcohol, tobacco and PRESCRIBED oxycontin are not illegal to take and/or possess. What is your point exactly? If any of you bothered to read the article by the way, he's not proposing to drug test each and every welfare recipient

If a "law" is unethical...do we support it just because it's the "law?" Do we spend more of the money we don't have to chase those who break unethical "laws?" And who decides which 20% get tested?

Only 20% of those receiving benefits, which is probably the percentage that aren't actively looking for work and those that are able to work but come up with excuse after excuse as to why they can't. And even then, if they are tested positive their cheques wouldn't be ripped from their hands and then kicked on the streets to fend for themselves as everyone is crying about on this thread.

"[W]hich is probably the percentage that aren't actively looking for work..." Probably??? How do you tell the difference between those who are trying like hell and not being hired and those not looking? Both will say they are looking, and even come up with "proof."

And, no... They would not be ousted. We would just spend more of the money we don't have to "treat" them.

Rats,

Originally posted by jplaysguitar
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

its an issue of selfworth. i would not scrub toilets for 5 dollars an hour.us bump the rate up to 12dph now were talking

edit on 18-3-2011 by jplaysguitar because: add a word

This is the mindset that sees people on welfare for extended periods of time. I would eat dog crap for $5/hr if it meant the difference between my kids eating or not eating.

You proclaim your "self worth" would be in jeopardy if you had to scrub toilets for $5/hr...but yet your "self worth" is just fine receiving a handout while you do nothing but complain about how much money you "think" you deserve?

If you are able to work, get off your butt and do it. While you ARE working, hand out resumes for better paying jobs..THAT is how one climbs the job ladder. How do you think it looks on a resume with a huge gap of non-employment while you're waiting to start at the top of the food chain rather than be realistic and start at the bottom.

Michelle

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Michelle129th

Alcohol, tobacco and PRESCRIBED oxycontin are not illegal to take and/or possess. What is your point exactly? If any of you bothered to read the article by the way, he's not proposing to drug test each and every welfare recipient

If a "law" is unethical...do we support it just because it's the "law?" Do we spend more of the money we don't have to chase those who break unethical "laws?" And who decides which 20% get tested?

Only 20% of those receiving benefits, which is probably the percentage that aren't actively looking for work and those that are able to work but come up with excuse after excuse as to why they can't. And even then, if they are tested positive their cheques wouldn't be ripped from their hands and then kicked on the streets to fend for themselves as everyone is crying about on this thread.

"[W]hich is probably the percentage that aren't actively looking for work..." Probably??? How do you tell the difference between those who are trying like hell and not being hired and those not looking? Both will say they are looking, and even come up with "proof."

And, no... They would not be ousted. We would just spend more of the money we don't have to "treat" them.

Either support the law, or get out and try to have it changed. I have no problem with people taking prescribed medications, drinking a beer, or smoking a cigarette, so I personally have no issues with the laws pertaining to those.

I'd assume the 20% would chosen by the government. They have the facts and figures, not us.

The issue to me is NOT the fact that people receive welfare. I have no problem giving up taxes on my pay to help those in need. This thread is NOT about whether or not people SHOULD be or DESERVE to be on welfare...it's about what people should be or deserve to be DOING with that money, and that time...it should not be getting high! I truly believe if we give treatment to (at least some of) those testing positive...it may be enough to turn them around, kick their self esteem into high gear and get them back into the workforce. If they're sitting home getting high, I fail to see how that cycle will just magically break itself. Again, this is all MY opinion...nobody has to agree, as I don't agree with yours.

(on a side note, this thread is also not about corporations sucking us dry either...I am humble enough to say I have no education or clue about any of that...otherwise I would be posting in the financial threads).

Michelle

reply to post by Michelle129th


You still haven't explained to me what the 14 million Americans who are unemployed are supposed to do.

You keep talking about just get a job, even if its crappy.

What job? At this point in time we are lucky if 300,000 new jobs get added every month.

So what are the other 13,700,000 Americans supposed to do?

You cant feed yourself or your family by filling out applications or submitting your resume to jobs that don't exist.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I disagree everyone can fall on hard times. There is no guarntees with jobs either we are all dependent on something regardless. It is simply inhumane to not have a system to help those who need it.
Section 8 housing would not have to exist if apartments were more reasonable and there was enough jobs for everyone and that accomendates disablities. This programs are humane and how does that make it unconstutional forget about yourself for a minute. It is selfish to complain about the small amount you pay into the system. We are taxed from everywhere I can understand. I would rather see my tax money go towards helping others than being wasted on $1,000 government toilets or something.
I have 2 part time jobs and I still need some assistance. Life is so short really for this arguement.
Back on topic; where is the money coming from to test people? Short answer probably from the tax payer!

reply to post by larrydavid


Now would be the perfect time for them to learn a new skill. Web design (php, Ajax etc etc).

There are countless free tutorials online just sitting there for the taking.

Once they learn a new skill, they have increased their marketability. Jobs looking for php programmers are popping up all over.

reply to post by dreamseeker


Why dont you fund the entire cost to build an apartment building, and then rent them for a price you deem "reasonable" while still covering costs, labor, etc etc?

It is unconstitutional since there is no specific power in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to undertake this income redistribution scheme.