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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
regardless of the DUI, the idea of drug testing welfare recipients is still a good one.
Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by TomServo
so...your his brother???...cousin??? next door neighbor???.....or just an idiot?
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.
Originally posted by The Sword
You should go join Kip Smith in the drunk tank. Birds of a feather, flock together!