• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

I don't recall the fatcats at Goldman Sachs having to pass a drug test before getting their taxpayer funded "bonuses". Maybe I missed it.

Because that is exactly the same thing. :roll:
 
Because as you say "But, it's my money before they receive it and I say that some of them shouldn't be getting it."

Yeah, but there's actually a return on the money spent on those shipping lanes. How much return is there on welfare drawing crack heads??
 
But for the ones in Florida who get it, they will now be subjected to government intrusion. I thought Conservatives were against that? Why are they now championing it?

We never said zero government intrusion, otherwise we would be a tribal nation. This is minimal intrusion. I suppose driver license renewals are an intrusion as well.

I support drug legalization for practical reasons, however druggies don't have to recieve welfare.
 
You can say that all you want. But the government took it and the government deals it out and the government is limited in the manners which it can act in against our rights and liberties.


The government is limited in the manners in which it can piss away my tax dollars, too. I'm going to vote for the folks who wish to bridle that government waste. This bill is a step in the right direction. Just end all entitlements and there won't be any problems with violating one's liberties.
 
But for the ones in Florida who get it, they will now be subjected to government intrusion. I thought Conservatives were against that? Why are they now championing it?

If they don't like it, they can get off welfare and go get a ****ing job.
 
Drugs are illegal at this time. If you have evidence that I could be using drugs, you could call for a reasonable search of my person to find out. If you do not have that reasonable suspicion, then the search becomes unreasonable. Of which We the People have the right to secure against.

Pleasure cruises are leagal, too, but I don't want my tax money spent on them.

$69 Million of CA Welfare Money Spent Aboard Cruise Ships, Hawaii and Vegas Hotels - Truth is Treason
 
I don't recall the fatcats at Goldman Sachs having to pass a drug test before getting their taxpayer funded "bonuses". Maybe I missed it.

I don't recall the welfare class having to pay back their welfare money, either. Should that be the new direction of welfare in this country? Make welfare payments an actual loan that has to be paid back? I'm cool with that.
 
In some ways, this would have seemed a no-brainer. While it got some political challenges, it seems headed for Constitutional muster as well.



I would like to think that this shoul dbe common-sense policy nationwide for anyone on any government assistance, to include those getting a government paycheck of any sort.

Constitutional claims or not, I think this one hard to oppose politically. Of course, I am for the legalization of all drugs, with conditions, but would still want drug testing mandated regardless.

Hmmm I like the idea if it works and in theory.
I like the if you are clean you dont have to pay for it but them who does and how much will that cost extra since im guessing 90+% arent on drugs

How often will be the testing? and what is the form?

Is this gonna catch people that smoke weed every now and then and not atch the meth, coke, herion and oxy heads?

Once tested positive are they given the option of help? where does the funding for help come from.

Just saying theres a ton of questions to be sorted out.
 
Hmmm I like the idea if it works and in theory.
I like the if you are clean you dont have to pay for it but them who does and how much will that cost extra since im guessing 90+% arent on drugs

How often will be the testing? and what is the form?

Is this gonna catch people that smoke weed every now and then and not atch the meth, coke, herion and oxy heads?

Once tested positive are they given the option of help? where does the funding for help come from.

Just saying theres a ton of questions to be sorted out.

Anything like this is going to have to shake out a bit. As I noted in a buried post, Kentucky has something like this as well. States with Republican Governors will share notes.

I am still shocked at how the Obamabots try to fight this. I would tell them not to worry. They can still buy those votes with a fifth of Ripple on election day.
 
Anything like this is going to have to shake out a bit. As I noted in a buried post, Kentucky has something like this as well. States with Republican Governors will share notes.

I am still shocked at how the Obamabots try to fight this. I would tell them not to worry. They can still buy those votes with a fifth of Ripple on election day.

Well partasin nonsense aside, id fight it also if these questions cant get answered and I was voting on it. Like I said I love it in premise but that doesnt mean its right, logical or actually works yet.

I love the idea of stoning rapist to death while they are naked, covered in honey, bees and fire ants BUT that doesnt make it right ;)
 
Well partasin nonsense aside, id fight it also if these questions cant get answered and I was voting on it. Like I said I love it in premise but that doesnt mean its right, logical or actually works yet.

I love the idea of stoning rapist to death while they are naked, covered in honey, bees and fire ants BUT that doesnt make it right ;)

Centrist ... "puhleeeeze !!!!" I would enjoy a reasoned discussion, but your analogy is someone pissing in a cup, verses the stoning-ants-honey thing.

If you need to make such an absurd analogy, please pause before hitting the "post" button, and grab a Bud Lite before you try again :2razz:.
 
You are mistaken. Conservatives are for spending wisely. Conservatives are for government wisely. Conservatives are for accountability wisely.

Do you see the common distinction ? :)

Libertarians are for less government. Conservatives are for lower taxes, but more government control of our lives. That is the distinction.
 
Centrist ... "puhleeeeze !!!!" I would enjoy a reasoned discussion, but your analogy is someone pissing in a cup, verses the stoning-ants-honey thing.

If you need to make such an absurd analogy, please pause before hitting the "post" button, and grab a Bud Lite before you try again :2razz:.

the example was purely for humor and how that wasnt blantly obvious to you Ill never knowlol

anyway my post still stands , in theory this seems great but without those questions answered I could vote either way given the chance with the small article it seems to have more problems than solutions but all the questions i have might already be answered, article doesnt say and I do not know.
 
Libertarians are for less government. Conservatives are for lower taxes, but more government control of our lives. That is the distinction.

Because you say so just don't cut it. What you said is just plain BS. Try again.
 
the example was purely for humor and how that wasnt blantly obvious to you Ill never knowlol

anyway my post still stands , in theory this seems great but without those questions answered I could vote either way given the chance with the small article it seems to have more problems than solutions but all the questions i have might already be answered, article doesnt say and I do not know.

With any government program, we can look at the intent, and then await to see how the unintended consequences work out.

That your example was meant to be absurd, in humor, etc ... it was also the only example you gave. Like I said ... Bud Lite maybe.

I am a firm believer that before you can gauge the effectivelness of any program, you have to set it on the strongest possible foundation, then go up from there. Not subsidizing crack heads is integral to any good foundation. Its better for taxpayers. Its better for those who have a crack-head in their link of dependency. And it even puts the pressure on the crack head to be accountable. That makes it not only a win .. but all in spades.

For anyone here to suggest that I have to subsidize a crack head, for even the most convoluted reason, is left-wing liberal willy-nilly nonsense. We have self-poroclaimed Libertarians here who apparently haven't a clue about being a Libertarian. I don't give a **** what anyone sticks in their bodies using their money (so long as they endanger no one else). But I'll be god-damned if they will do it with my money.

Can't be more simple.
 
Are you seriously going to argue that Libertarians aren't for less government?

Try again. You stated the Conservatives are for more Government control of your life. You are highly confused. Conservatives are for me having more control of what I earn. And that you have better control of what you earn too :)
 
Try again. You stated the Conservatives are for more Government control of your life. You are highly confused. Conservatives are for me having more control of what I earn. And that you have better control of what you earn too :)

Oh! So, you're actually trying to say that conservatives don't want the government to have more control of our lives because they're for lower taxes. No, they aren't so much for control of our money as they are for control of other things.

Libertarians would allow the individual to decide on which chemicals are bad, who they should marry, and whether to carry a fetus to term. Conservatives position on those issues are quite different, aren't they?
 
With any government program, we can look at the intent, and then await to see how the unintended consequences work out.

That your example was meant to be absurd, in humor, etc ... it was also the only example you gave. Like I said ... Bud Lite maybe.

I am a firm believer that before you can gauge the effectivelness of any program, you have to set it on the strongest possible foundation, then go up from there. Not subsidizing crack heads is integral to any good foundation. Its better for taxpayers. Its better for those who have a crack-head in their link of dependency. And it even puts the pressure on the crack head to be accountable. That makes it not only a win .. but all in spades.

For anyone here to suggest that I have to subsidize a crack head, for even the most convoluted reason, is left-wing liberal willy-nilly nonsense. We have self-poroclaimed Libertarians here who apparently haven't a clue about being a Libertarian. I don't give a **** what anyone sticks in their bodies using their money (so long as they endanger no one else). But I'll be god-damned if they will do it with my money.

Can't be more simple.

LMAO
did you simply just talk like that and think it was that simple?
While again I agree with you in premise the fact remains that you just painted that story biasly with your own partisan brush and not with the brush of reality.

1.) why even mention libertarians, liberals or left wing willy nilly nonsense? this weakens your argument it doesnt strengthen in to anybody objective.

2.) do I agree that "Not subsidizing crack heads is integral to any good foundation." of course but acting like this is all its going to do is dishonesty. Will it do this? it absolutely might and that would be AWESOME.

it could also only catch people that smoke weed and miss all the hard core drug attics
it could also good triple costs since 90+% of these recipients arent on drugs.
it could also could make those 90% fill discriminated against or feel their rights are being violated.
It could also increase crime and domestic disputes
it could also flood the child services system
it could also gives us MORE dependents instead of less.

again Im not saying its going to do any of this for sure or that its good or bad even, just saying these things arent any more less likely to happen in any great margin with out more facts that we do not have.

Sorry, like i said in theory Im all for this but I wont act like its gonna be all sunshine and rainbows and its certainly not "simple" by any stretch of the imagination.

I hope it works and works well and I hope if its broken it can be easily fixed to make it work.
 
Ma'am, you in my humble opinion are different than most Americans. You have chosen to serve your country. The vast majority of Americans have not. Most Americans won't make that sacrifice, wouldn't raise their right hands and couldn't pass the security clearance. You are not like most Americans. You represent the very best this country has to offer. Many chose to wave the flag, but you have chosen to carry it and to serve under it. You have a taste for freedom that the protected will never know.

You had to be vetted to serve and you must be vetted to continue to serve. Your Congressman and women and their staff do NOT take the drug tests you are required to take.

People who now require public assistance do not require a security clearance. They do not serve in the ARMED Forces. They cannot be deployed. They will not be asked to die for their nation. You volunteered. They didn't. You're responsible to a nation. They are trying to stay healthy and alive.

So we have people who haven't done jack for America demanding that veterans in dire straits shut the hell up and stop asking for assistance. There's something wrong with that.

Rant on.

That would be the fault of the gov't for criminalizing every damn thing short of ****ting in a toilet.

65 million adults in this country have a criminal background. 25% of the adult population. The gov't is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

I'm definitely glad this lady served and is serving and I'm proud as hell of her, but she is no different than anyone else. She hasn't been caught, that's all. I read somewhere that by the age of 25 or something every adult has committed at least one felony offense, but of course not nearly that many are caught. And since someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, these people, that are doing very bad things and getting away with it, find their ways into sensitive positions in our gov't and other companies.

So be it. That's all. Not trying to derail the thread. But I would be willing to bet my life that this woman you so admire has committed multiple misdemeanor crimes in her life, if not a felony or two. (considering that a felony nowadays is more likely to be nonviolent in nature than violent, that's a safe bet.) In fact, 3 misdemeanors is a felony. Speak not of her as some perfect human being that can pass a background check, speak of her as a woman who has chosen to serve for her country. That I admire about her. But, in no way, is she perfect. Everyone is a sinner. Some have been caught, some have not. The stats on the crimes that people get away with in this country are astronomical.

But, again, everything is a crime now, so even felons don't bother me anymore. You steal an Ipad? You're a felon. My GAWD. How is that a felony offense? Take someone's gun rights away because they run off with a pocket PC? Really? Yea, this country is super ****ed up.

I judge no one, as long as no one judges me.

Ok, rant off.
 
Yeah, here's your choice. Live on the street, or submit to constant government monitoring. Whoooooo, free!

Since they don't have a right to someone else's money, they get to see the strings attached.

Gee, "beggars can't be choosers", can't anything be MORE apropos than that, given the topic?
 
I wonder when this country is going to wake up to the fact that a significant portion of the population is chemical dependent, that the so called "war on drugs" isn't working, and that the steps we've taken to remedy the situation have made things worse?

No one wants to be drug tested, why? Because it is such a chore to pee in a cup? Or because so many of us would fail?

So many of THEM, not "us".

And, if someone is being robbed at gunpoin to satisfy the guilty urges of leftists who can't donate their own money to real charities, but the robbery victim does have an opportunity to put conditions on how his stolen money is spent, why shouldn't the victims demand hat only people who are serious about improving their lives, ie, by not being stupid enough to take drugs, legal or otherwise. If they're getting money because they claim they can't afford food, then it's not unrealistic to test their veracity.
 
Or we could be intelligent about this. Not eveyone on welfare is there because they aren't looking for a job; particularly now with high unemployment and an unresponsive government. So the reason they're on welfare is they have a job and more times than not can't find one. So submit, or get tossed onto the street where it will now become even harder to get a job than before. Your Catch 22 is pretty unreasonable. The choice you want people to have is to live on the streets or accept unreasonable government force against them. As I said, not much of a choice. Pretty stupid when you think about it.

this is all very nice and all totally irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong with telling people who prioritize drugs over food shouldn't be going to their neighbors and asking for money for food. And there's nothing wrong with demanding people who ask for food submit to a simple test, because we all know how honest everyone is when the government is handing out free money someone else worked for.
 
Back
Top Bottom