It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Maslo
 


What happens when you come off welfare and want children, can you reverse the steralization? Or do we commit everyone on welfare to a life of poverty. Dont forget in these hard times you never know when YOU or one of YOURS may end up on welfare, god forbid.


No one said they supported PERMANENT sterilization...

It'd only be permanent if you decide to be in this situation permanently......




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I understand that there is a thread that discusses this.

I decided to open a new one because Florida passed this legislation this week and this is a very popular topic...


I guess going to collage does nothing for common sense.

rick scott did not do this to help any body but himself and his wife, he divested his interest in the company and put them in a trust fund in her name.




Despite government studies that show welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the general population, the Florida state senate has approved a measure mandating drug testing for the state’s welfare recipients. The bill, HB 353, now heads to the desk of Republican Governor Rick Scott, who has repeatedly said it was one of his highest priorities. Scott’s motives are highly suspect since he co-founded an urgent care chain, Solantic, that just so happens to provide drug testing services. During his 2010 election campaign, Scott’s holdings in Solantic were worth an estimated $62,000,000. According to the Palm Beach Post, the governor divested his interest in the company in January. Well, sort of– he placed the controlling shares in the business in a trust in his wife’s name


the above quote came from here
morallowground.com/2011/05/06/florida-sen ate-passes-bill-requiring-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients/

also see this article

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion

kinda like dick chenny hunh.



edit on 21-6-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Not only should drug testing of welfare recipients be mandatory, but temporary sterilization (while receiving assistance) should be also.
edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)


Well, Heil Hitler.

People like you willingly hand over power to a corrupt government to achieve your short term goals, all based on envy.

I suspect anti-freedom boobs such as yourself will eternally fail to see the danger in your wishes. But, to sum up, welfare recipients who might get high are not the problem. People like you are.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
So...let me make sure I got this...

You want to bring welfare in line by spending more money on it?

The testing alone could cost more than the recipients recieve. Don't even get me started on the costs of sterilization with temporary being even more expensive as you would require 2 surgeries.

How about, we take all the money....hell, we can even take 1/10th of the money provided to the bank bailouts and invest it directly into educational / training programs for those on welfare. Maybe we could even throw in some business start up loans with all the leftovers....of the 1/10th.

Be far cheaper...and get a ton of people off welfare.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Not only should drug testing of welfare recipients be mandatory, but temporary sterilization (while receiving assistance) should be also.
edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)


Well, Heil Hitler.

People like you willingly hand over power to a corrupt government to achieve your short term goals, all based on envy.

I suspect anti-freedom boobs such as yourself will eternally fail to see the danger in your wishes. But, to sum up, welfare recipients who might get high are not the problem. People like you are.


Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....

instead, tell me why you defend welfare recipients doing drugs on taxpayers' dimes and why you also support welfare recipients to continue populate, clearly displaying that can't take care of the ones they already have.


edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....


Something wrong...your base premise.

You are assuming that the majority of welfare recipients WANT to be on welfare.

If the base premise is wrong, the solutions derived will be wrong.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


This is repugnant. Forced sterilization? I think you have some personal problems you need to take care of if you're wanting to control what goes on inside of someone's body through force by the state.


Just... how irresponsible do you actually want to be??? As there is always CULLING to make plenty of room for your reproductive rights issues. And from my personal observations... NEITHER SIDE (left/right... male/female) is very picky about who gets CULLED... or when and how the job eventually gets done. I'd choose sterilization over using abortion to erase my mistakes any day... long before I'd drop my load and expect the state to pick up the tab as a way to make a political statement... or as an act of war/terrorism.
edit on 21-6-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....



Wow.

I did.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....


Something wrong...your base premise.

You are assuming that the majority of welfare recipients WANT to be on welfare.

If the base premise is wrong, the solutions derived will be wrong.


Where oh where did THAT assumption come from? Me?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....



Wow.

I did.


instead, tell me why you defend welfare recipients doing drugs on taxpayers' dimes and why you also support welfare recipients to continue populate, clearly displaying that can't take care of the ones they already have.

Afterall, that's all I discussed.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....


Something wrong...your base premise.

You are assuming that the majority of welfare recipients WANT to be on welfare.

If the base premise is wrong, the solutions derived will be wrong.


By the way, did your employer assume that you were a drug addict when they prescreened you with a urinalysis?

Did they violate your Constitutional Rights?

If so, then I'd say you have a major class-action law suit to initiate

edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....


Something wrong...your base premise.

You are assuming that the majority of welfare recipients WANT to be on welfare.

If the base premise is wrong, the solutions derived will be wrong.


By the way, did your employer assume that you were a drug addict when they prescreened you with a urinalysis?

Did they violate your Constitutional Rights?

If so, then I'd say you have a major class-action law suit to initiate

edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)


pre-employment drug screens are something that have long been contested. If your basis is that there is no questioning them, you are so far off it is laughable....



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....


Something wrong...your base premise.

You are assuming that the majority of welfare recipients WANT to be on welfare.

If the base premise is wrong, the solutions derived will be wrong.


By the way, did your employer assume that you were a drug addict when they prescreened you with a urinalysis?

Did they violate your Constitutional Rights?

If so, then I'd say you have a major class-action law suit to initiate

edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)


pre-employment drug screens are something that have long been contested. If your basis is that there is no questioning them, you are so far off it is laughable....


Logically, I'm not.

If your premise is to state that preemployment drug screening is only been 'contested', yet legal, tell me how that compares to prescreening welfare recipients??



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



This, after all should be a wake up call to those abusing the system

*Bold by me.

Are you in support of people that clearly cannot take care of themselves and their children to continue to bring new children into the world that they can' take care of??

* Bold by me.


Why PURPOSELY be a burden on the State and tax payers?



Face it, some people are not able (even if temporarily) to think responsibly for themselves.

We see this when a single mother continues to have child after child, with no stable father(s), and applying for life long assistance....

*Bold by me.

All from your posts.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

instead, tell me why you defend welfare recipients doing drugs on taxpayers' dimes


There is no guarantee that a welfare recipient is spending welfare money on drugs. A drug test does not trace how the money was spent. Why do you advocate the government spending taxpayer dollars to violate its citizens 4th and 5th amendment rights?


and why you also support welfare recipients to continue populate, clearly displaying that can't take care of the ones they already have.


Yet if they're trying to get welfare money they're acquiring money to take care of them. I guess it's not so clear as you had claimed.
What about welfare recipients who have no children? Castrate them too? How about pregnant ones? Mandatory abortion?

It doesn't matter. You're willing to empower government to take care of people you're envious of. You are what's wrong with modern America.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Wow...

try to find something wrong about the content of my ideas, not just name call and bash....


Something wrong...your base premise.

You are assuming that the majority of welfare recipients WANT to be on welfare.

If the base premise is wrong, the solutions derived will be wrong.


By the way, did your employer assume that you were a drug addict when they prescreened you with a urinalysis?

Did they violate your Constitutional Rights?

If so, then I'd say you have a major class-action law suit to initiate

edit on 21-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)


pre-employment drug screens are something that have long been contested. If your basis is that there is no questioning them, you are so far off it is laughable....


Logically, I'm not.

If your premise is to state that preemployment drug screening is only been 'contested', yet legal, tell me how that compares to prescreening welfare recipients??



1)There are plenty of court battles that are contesting pre-employment screening right now.

2)The two are not the same thing. When you get a job, you are performing a duty, in the name of that company, and they are responsible for your actions. If you injure someone on the job, they are responsible. It is a liability issue. There is not such issue when it comes to welfare.

3)A pre-employment drug test is voluntary. You dont have to work at that company. Welfare testing would be mandatory, as some simply cannot survive without the assistance.

edit on 21-6-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Logically, I'm not.

If your premise is to state that preemployment drug screening is only been 'contested', yet legal, tell me how that compares to prescreening welfare recipients??



Employer DT is legal because it involves a contract between two people and is done with consent. Gov't drug testing its citizens in this case is compulsory and expressly violates the individual rights established by the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



This, after all should be a wake up call to those abusing the system

*Bold by me.

Are you in support of people that clearly cannot take care of themselves and their children to continue to bring new children into the world that they can' take care of??

* Bold by me.


Why PURPOSELY be a burden on the State and tax payers?



Face it, some people are not able (even if temporarily) to think responsibly for themselves.

We see this when a single mother continues to have child after child, with no stable father(s), and applying for life long assistance....

*Bold by me.

All from your posts.



It states, "To THOSE WHO continue to abuse the system....did that indicate that everyone is abusing the system?

You are all are reaching at this point.....



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
It states, "To THOSE WHO continue to abuse the system....did that indicate that everyone is abusing the system?

You are all are reaching at this point.....


I'm not the one calling for drug testing and temporary sterlization based on the actions of the minority of recipients.

I'm not the one doing the reaching.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
It states, "To THOSE WHO continue to abuse the system....did that indicate that everyone is abusing the system?

You are all are reaching at this point.....


Abuse of the system is done by people such as yourself who would like to use the police power of government to control people you dislike.

Reaching is justifying such nonsense on the basis of possible drug use.

Absolutely reprehensible.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join