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.

 

Georgia Republican Who Wanted Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients Gets DUI

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
regardless of the DUI, the idea of drug testing welfare recipients is still a good one.




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
He is.....or was....on welfare for what it's worth.

He's a useless POS collecting a check from the taxpayers.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo

Once again... Swwwwing, and a Miss.
You should be equally irritated by that. Its still your tax dollars that are funding it.


Yeah, my tax dollars help fund welfare; thus the reason I would not give them an additional $100....I'm already paying into a system that is there for the individual to utilize.



Even then, if i saw a friend on welfare (i have em) and saw them buying illegal drugs with the money (which some do), isnt your response "hey, dont you have more important sht to buy?"


Would that response be limited to illegal substances? What about beer? What about luxury items? Where do we draw that line?

My bottom line opinion is this:

If you qualify for welfare (based upon financial hardship) then you should be able to get it. What people do with that money is up to the individual. Once that money is gone, then too bad for them. If they choose to purchase unnecessary items rather than pay their bills, then they will suffer the consequences of their actions by not having electricity, water, food, shelter, etc. If someone manages to pay their bills/purchase the necessities and has some discretionary money left over, then good for them and their ability to successfully manage a budget; the reward being the ability to purchase unnecessary items.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3dman7
He is.....or was....on welfare for what it's worth.

He's a useless POS collecting a check from the taxpayers.


Then why dont you get the necessary education, win an election, and do a better job yourself.
That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man.
Instead of sitting behind the comfy facade of you ATS blog handle, while dishing out un-insightful criticism when you have no understanding yourself... (It's easy, i know), do something about it.
Are you a contributor or are you a leach?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Yes but law says DUI=Illegal...
Therefore use of legal drug illegally.


The point......... missed. He wasn't promoting the testing of welfare recipients for alcohol. Was he in the wrong to drink and drive? Yes, if convicted. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.


I guess a different way to look at it is, should welfare money be given to people whom are practicing alcoholics..do you want to pay for someone to get all liquored up and drive around?


I don't condemn this guy for getting a DUI. hell, I should have gotten a couple in my youth and was simply lucky enough not to get caught.
I just make sure never to condemn someones lifestyle when my own is less than stellar

Should welfare recipients get drug tested? sure..why not, any person getting public money should be required to follow the law in general..and a penalty should happen if you break the law while recieving money from the taxes, be it a welfare dude, or a politician

In the broader sense is where the hypocracy and irony is at..both welfare dude and politician are equal..recieving money from tax payers and doing illegal crap at the same time.
the drug is legal, that isn't, this is and thats not is really hair splitting.

But again, I don't hate the guy for it, just find the irony amusing overall (karma perhaps).

So, what is the overall argument is is making...should a person on welfare lose funds if they are caught doing drugs, but be fine if they are found selling drugs, or robbing stores, etc...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by TomServo

Once again... Swwwwing, and a Miss.
You should be equally irritated by that. Its still your tax dollars that are funding it.


Yeah, my tax dollars help fund welfare; thus the reason I would not give them an additional $100....I'm already paying into a system that is there for the individual to utilize.



Even then, if i saw a friend on welfare (i have em) and saw them buying illegal drugs with the money (which some do), isnt your response "hey, dont you have more important sht to buy?"


Would that response be limited to illegal substances? What about beer? What about luxury items? Where do we draw that line?

My bottom line opinion is this:

If you qualify for welfare (based upon financial hardship) then you should be able to get it. What people do with that money is up to the individual. Once that money is gone, then too bad for them. I


Gonna stop you here...
I do believe in welfare and assistance...it is sort of a heart and soul issue, however, I think welfare...I hate that term, lets call it assistance...I think assistance is meant to help a person try to climb back up.
Frankly, I would support genetically chipped coupons moreso than just a check..and the coupons going towards housing, utilities, gas, schooling, food, etc..things that are necessary and will be focused on helping them get back on the horse.
Welfare should not be a lifetime occupation. Yes, there are plenty of cases where that simply is the reality (disabled for example, or a felon in a underemployed area that simply can't even get a interview), but overall, assistance should be both a survival thing and a bit of a poke in the bum to stop wallowing in a rut and instead get moving up to eventually pay into the taxes again verses take out.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by TomServo

Once again... Swwwwing, and a Miss.
You should be equally irritated by that. Its still your tax dollars that are funding it.


Yeah, my tax dollars help fund welfare; thus the reason I would not give them an additional $100....I'm already paying into a system that is there for the individual to utilize.



Even then, if i saw a friend on welfare (i have em) and saw them buying illegal drugs with the money (which some do), isnt your response "hey, dont you have more important sht to buy?"


Would that response be limited to illegal substances? What about beer? What about luxury items? Where do we draw that line?

My bottom line opinion is this:

If you qualify for welfare (based upon financial hardship) then you should be able to get it. What people do with that money is up to the individual. Once that money is gone, then too bad for them. If they choose to purchase unnecessary items rather than pay their bills, then they will suffer the consequences of their actions by not having electricity, water, food, shelter, etc. If someone manages to pay their bills/purchase the necessities and has some discretionary money left over, then good for them and their ability to successfully manage a budget; the reward being the ability to purchase unnecessary items.


Where to draw the line? That's another discussion entirely.. But dont you think its pretty safe to rule out illegal substances? The bill wouldnt be pushed if there wasnt an obvious problem.

In response to your 'bottom line', that is actually a federal offense "falsifying documentation". Basically you are lying about other forms of assistance you receive when applying for welfare, in order to qualify. For example, refer to the Judge Judy link i posted in a comment on page 1 of this thread. That episode was actually pulled and used for evidence when convicting that guy for falsifying his welfare application.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 


so...your his brother???...cousin??? next door neighbor???.....or just an idiot?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I totally agree. If you are getting public funds it should be for the right things. Drugs ain't it. I'm ALL for that testing. This just isn't a case of hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo
I dont see your angle with this post. He broke the law and is paying the price. I dont see him asking me to foot his bill. There is the difference. Completely different from the sopa story. He is not on welfare, and he hasnt failed a drug test. I dont remember the welfare screening having anything to do with alcohol anyway...
Invalid point!


The angle that I see is that maybe public servants should be drug tested randomly since they are on OUR payroll.
Private and Government business/institutions are are getting more and more strict about not only drugs, but alcohol and tobacco as well. Our elected officials perhaps should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

And, you bet I hope he gets the same sentence as any other common Joe with a DUI. We'll see I guess.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Good call, and while we are at it any House member, Congressman, Senator, and Potus, just so we know that these knuckle head decisions that they have made, cannot be on account of drugs.


Whoot, Whoot, most sound sense if the above would be included into the bill, that i have seen in a very long time

edit on 17-1-2012 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Paying the price my ass. This is a rich, old , white guy in the south. He'll get a slap on the hand and sent on his way because lord knows good ole' boys can do whatever they want around here.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo
Where to draw the line? That's another discussion entirely.. But dont you think its pretty safe to rule out illegal substances? The bill wouldnt be pushed if there wasnt an obvious problem.


Where to draw the line may be a topic of another discussion, but I truly do believe it to be pertinent to this discussion, as I am of the belief that there is a segment of America that wish to do away with welfare all together. The illegal drug issue is only an issue because it is a way to get the ball rolling (i.e., something most people will support). However, as with anything the government does, illegal drugs use will only be the first of the eventual many disqualifiers that will be legislated and legislated until nobody qualifies anymore; thus, killing the welfare program.


In response to your 'bottom line', that is actually a federal offense "falsifying documentation". Basically you are lying about other forms of assistance you receive when applying for welfare, in order to qualify.


Am I missing something? What part of my "bottom line" included falsifying documentation? What other assistance did I mention?

EDIT:

I suppose that the root of my issue with drug testing welfare recipients is that the number of drug users among that population segment is not significant. Not significant in the sense that the cost of drug testing all recipients far outweighs the savings made by excluding the few drug users. Let's not forget that we, the tax payers, will be footing the bill for those drug tests. Let's also not forget to look at who stands to gain by requiring drug tests.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Muttley2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
regardless of the DUI, the idea of drug testing welfare recipients is still a good one.


It would be, if it could be effective. Drug screen are beaten easily. Especially if it's not random. So this just ends up being an extra waste of tax money. If drug tests were effective there wouldn't be as many drug users.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by TomServo
 


so...your his brother???...cousin??? next door neighbor???.....or just an idiot?


Uhhh... 'Voice of Reason' works for me. I have absolutely no relation to this guy. Im just a regular tax payer with a conscience who is concerned about abusive usage of welfare dollars. The point of all my posts on this thread is that this guy's f-up has nothing to do with the bill he supports. How dumb do you have to be to think this situation is ironic. They are distantly and indirectly related at best... But by no means enough to support an argument.

Btw.... please support you claim rather than allowing your mind to defecate mindless, weak insults into 1-line post.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Disagree strongly.
I am being forced by threat of jail to pay for it so should they be forced to do there requirements to obtain the assistance. They already have to jump through hoops to get assistance so why not add one more hoop as a requirement? And who knows, they person being held hostage to an addiction may potentially get some needed help and break there chains.

Sorry it is my business and I do care and the way things have been handled to date is not doing anything but creating a perpetual unending problem



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by TomServo
 


so...your his brother???...cousin??? next door neighbor???.....or just an idiot?


Uhhh... 'Voice of Reason' works for me. I have absolutely no relation to this guy. Im just a regular tax payer with a conscience who is concerned about abusive usage of welfare dollars. The point of all my posts on this thread is that this guy's f-up has nothing to do with the bill he supports. How dumb do you have to be to think this situation is ironic. They are distantly and indirectly related at best... But by no means enough to support an argument.

Btw.... please support you claim rather than allowing your mind to defecate mindless, weak insults into 1-line post.


it's a little ironic. but you're right it shouldn't affect how people respond to the bill he proposed.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword


You should go join Kip Smith in the drunk tank. Birds of a feather, flock together!


What's that about?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Yeah well least he didn't pull a Ted Kennedy and kill a woman when he was drinking and driving.

I forgot this is a thread to bash the Republicans for doing what the other side does on a daily basis!

Drugs are evil DUI's are evil just when theres and R by their names.

Funny how drug testing is ok when its alcohol but not any other kind typical hypocrisy.
edit on 17-1-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
How is this ironic? It isn't like the politician is on welfare. I'm not really sure what this has to do with drug testing welfare recipients.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join