La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne


That is just sad. They need someone to care about them to. I really have little sympathy for you. How would you feel if someone loved fell on hard times would you abandon them?

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne

Originally posted by StigShen


Well I agree with your first part there, but you don't know what tough love is. Don't worry, your time is coming. I've seen a whole lotta people take that dive off the high horse in the past few years.

I've been homeless for a while before. I learned that it sucked big time, that being poor sucks big time, so I took the necessary steps to make the money I need in a market people demand to prevent that from happening again.

Nice try though.

You should read a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Outliers. In it he shows just how much luck has to do with success and how little effort does. Just because you were lucky to find the steps available to you does NOT follow that EVERYBODY has the chance to step up as you did.

reply to post by dreamseeker


If I loved them? If it was someone close to me, I would attempt to help. If they wasted my help on bad choices, I would let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

On a side note....How much thought have you given to your outlook on things and your financial situation? Ever think that maybe not knowing much about reality has resulted in your current situation?

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by StigShen

 

Or I could demand that the government stick to the Constitution which it swore to uphold.

Redistributive policies are a smack in the face to the foundations of liberty.

edit on 18-3-2011 by HaveAnotherOne because: (no reason given)

Providing for the common welfare is a responsibility of government. If they can't meet that most basic mandate, then what is the purpose of government at all? Now we can argue about the methods and choices by which the government does and should provide for the common welfare, but it is still the responsibility of government nonetheless.

nvm, won't be baited.

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne


So you were homeless as well? Hmmm well you did not learn your lesson did you. It is bound to happen to you again until you realize we are all the same.
I know a lot about reality; reality is different for everyone. Some people are rich and others are poor. This of course baises our veiws.
I have worked very hard all of my life and I have a degree. I have paid bills and seen the ugly realities of life. I have a disablity that makes it hard if not impossible for me to work full time. I get sick much easier than most people; I am allgeric to flurscent lighting and can't stand for too long. Before you make any snide comments I did not have to share this with you and this is not my fault. I have inborn immune defiency; I used to take shots for it. The shots gave me complications. Regardless of all these things I put my health at risk many times to work agianst the DRs suggestions. Finally my Dr suggested I get on disablity so I can live a long healthy life. The way I was headed I would be dead by now.
You know nothing of my life so you can't judge me. I know nothing of your either so I am trying my best not to judge you; you do make it hard though.

This is pretty much going through.
I talked to my uncle this past weekend who
works in Tallahassee and he told me they will be voting on these kinds of things
this quarter. so expect it soon.
There is also talk of not only testing those on welfare but possibly moving to other
govt. assisted benefit programs.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by StigShen

 

I hear you; I am in a similar position. I have 2 part time contract jobs; as needed basically. I worked since 15 years old and had many full time jobs. I am almost done with my master's in psychology. It is rough out there right now a lot of people no longer want to hire the educated or those with tons of experience because they don't want to have to pay more money.
The thing is what they don't realize is we are willing to work for less money.

As a middle-aged man I am really behind the 8-ball. Some 25 year-old kid is not going to hire me to work in his store. My age and experience are a threat to mid-level managers. Yet it's those mid-level managers that do the hiring in every place from burger joints to electronics stores. And if one can't even get a crappy job in sales, fat chance getting one elsewhere.

Like mopping a floor maybe a the local high school? Not a chance. Those jobs go to family, people who know people.

Go to truck driving school. I blew five grand to get my CDL last year. I saw ads in the paper all the time for truck drivers, so I figured it was time to adapt, yet again, and set out on a new career path. Only to find out that the ads are BS. If you don't have at LEAST five years experience, you aren't getting hired.

reply to post by StigShen


I agree just look at what happened to many countries in Africa that is what happens when a government stops caring about their people.

reply to post by EternalChef


What other benefits are they talking about? Do you know?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Indeed you are correct. I googled this and sure nuff some articles came up on the sterilization idea. This is not new however and he clearly got the idea from the UN who has long had this type of program in effect in Third World Countries.

blog.beliefnet.com...

It's part of the general UN population control agenda.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yikes sterilization for who? That is against any persons rights. Are we becoming like a third world country?

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne

Originally posted by StigShen

I've been homeless for a while before. I learned that it sucked big time, that being poor sucks big time, so I took the necessary steps to make the money I need in a market people demand to prevent that from happening again.

Nice try though.

Oh. So you're a liar and a hypocrite.

I thought you said you never got any help from anyone?

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by StigShen

 

Left alone, capitalism would do just fine. Governmental interference in the form of bailouts causes undue and unnecessary fluctuations in the market.

Government having its hand in EVERYTHING is the problem we as a nation face. Less government, not more, is what enables the market to function normally. '

Redistribution is not a function of government. In fact, it is theft by force, which if any private party would attempt to do, they would be immediately arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. That is not symbolic of a free nation.

We all have an obligation to our fellow citizen. If you don't want "re-distribution" then go live in a cave hunting bear and picking berries.In the meantime, the rest of civilization will march on, sharing their resources, to build up infrastructure, to invent new things, to expand our horizons.

But aside from that, the economic problems in this country have very little to do with government bailouts, or even government spending. It all comes back to the Federal Reserve System. A terminally flawed, vampiric economic process. It's not even a system, it is a process by which to strip a nation of it's natural wealth and resources.

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne

Originally posted by StigShen


Well I agree with your first part there, but you don't know what tough love is. Don't worry, your time is coming. I've seen a whole lotta people take that dive off the high horse in the past few years.

I've been homeless for a while before. I learned that it sucked big time, that being poor sucks big time, so I took the necessary steps to make the money I need in a market people demand to prevent that from happening again.

Nice try though.

Why is it that every time I get into this discussion they pull that BS "I have been homeless too" card?

You have not been homeless, if you had been, I wouldn't have to be explaining this stuff to you.

Are you telling me that I didn't take the necessary steps, with all of my education and work experience?

Originally posted by StigShen

Providing for the common welfare is a responsibility of government. If they can't meet that most basic mandate, then what is the purpose of government at all? Now we can argue about the methods and choices by which the government does and should provide for the common welfare, but it is still the responsibility of government nonetheless.

Actually, general welfare is the term. As in welfare of the nation, not the individual.

Unless you think you know more about it than the founding fathers did, you are simply wrong.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

Now, following Jeffersons quote, redistribution of income is NOT enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, nor is any other social program.

reply to post by StigShen


No offense intended, but you are full of fecal matter.

Slept in the back of my truck for a little more than a month and a half, in the summer of 2007. In Phoenix.

Making ridiculous assumptions about people makes you look like a fool.

reply to post by StigShen


He's a troll. Best not to feed the trolls.

reply to post by larrydavid


Where did I say I got help?

I hated it so much, I did what was necessary. Worked 80 hour weeks at a crap job until I found something better.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
La Bruzzo's proposes drug test

NEW ORLEANS – Despite failing in four previous attempts, state Representative John LaBruzzo once more is trying to pass a bill in the Louisiana Legislature that would require welfare recipients to pass a drug test.

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.

Now this is a good way to lower what is spent... half to 30 % will stop applying...


Drug test every recipient, those that fail either get treatment or nothing...


then add in random surprise drug test for all involved...
why it failed four previous time I do not know but...

I think Texas should consider this....

That is a great start, I agree.

While we're at it I think the Congressmen and Senators along with Wall Street figures need to also submit to random drug tests. If they wish to represent us or to play with the accumulated wealth of our country, I would expect no less.

I would vote for this measure if it came to California, but ONLY if it included politicians and bankers. They are the ones who really have the power to bankrupt us, not a percentage of welfare recipients.

Khar