• 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!

98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test

Quite possible. Feel free to look it up.

I never said conservatives were innocent, but I'd rather see my tax dollars spent bombing some third-world nation for oil interests than giving money to an irresponsible person to use irresponsibly. But hey, I'm kooky like that.

I would be willing to wager that "conservatives" don't rack up unnecessary debt as much as liberals. Not that I classify him as such, but the most recent anecdotal evidence would be Bush. Want to compare him to Obama for 2 minutes? I bet I come out on top.

Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.

BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.
 
Boo Radley said:
Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.

Sometimes it's a necessary evil.

BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.

I'm not saying 100% of welfare recipients are using money for drugs. I'm not even saying most are. Maybe they just use money they steal instead.

Honestly though, all I'm saying is that the action of not-necessarily-the-few may indeed be hurting the many. Even if it takes money to do so, I would feel a little better knowing that welfare was spent where the overwhelming majority of the people are on the up-and-up. Then again, I've just always been against using subsidies to impede or negate social Darwinism.
 
You have to love Cons, they have such simple answers to a extremely complex problems.

What would you propose to do instead? Unfortunately, your solution would be the beginning of another story.

Why do you argue so dishonestly? One person makes a remark and rather than address that person you condemn an entire group of people.
 
That sounds strange, and I wouldn't trust a myth like that... Maybe they aren't testing for pot or maybe they are doing other things, like that drink mix that cleans the urine.

No myth. Sorry.
 
Personal privacy... I didn't think you needed it spelled out to you. Random drug tests violate several amendments, most notably the fourth and ninth. But you don't seem to think that matters.

Edit: And fourteenth.

You may refuse.
 
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.

At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.


This will probably cost even more than simply giving them welfare.
 
Quite possible. Feel free to look it up.

I never said conservatives were innocent, but I'd rather see my tax dollars spent bombing some third-world nation for oil interests than giving money to an irresponsible person to use irresponsibly. But hey, I'm kooky like that.

I would be willing to wager that "conservatives" don't rack up unnecessary debt as much as liberals. Not that I classify him as such, but the most recent anecdotal evidence would be Bush. Want to compare him to Obama for 2 minutes? I bet I come out on top.

So rather than feeding the poor you would rather blow up folks outside our country? Nice to see you are an advocate of DEATH! :(
 
Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.

BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.

He does not value humanlife and could care less if folks in this country starve to death or if folks outside this country are all bomed to death. In his own words he is kooky like that. Kook ineed. Heartless too!
 
That's fine. I wouldn't mind a small premium to make sure welfare funds weren't wasted. Plus I would think it might still reduce costs if you withhold funds from people who do not pass or do not agree to testing.

We'd have to implement it to find out, and I'm willing to give it a shot. Besides, you could argue a laundry list of positive externalities (sorry if I had to break out an economics discussion and vocab session, Kali) that could come from those below the poverty not being on drugs, or not being subsidized (sorry again) for this bad behavior.
 
That's fine. I wouldn't mind a small premium to make sure welfare funds weren't wasted. Plus I would think it might still reduce costs if you withhold funds from people who do not pass or do not agree to testing.

We'd have to implement it to find out, and I'm willing to give it a shot. Besides, you could argue a laundry list of positive externalities (sorry if I had to break out an economics discussion and vocab session, Kali) that could come from those below the poverty not being on drugs, or not being subsidized (sorry again) for this bad behavior.

In this particular case, it's blatant corporate welfare. The folks of that state gave $425k to private companies so that they wouldn't have to give $500k to the poor. One of those private companies, by sheer ****ing coincidence, is owned by the Governor of the state.

Me, I do mind the "premium" to ensure that your money isn't "wasted" on one of those damned poors. What, some guy happened to toke up once in the last three weeks and this makes him unworthy of help in his desperate situation?
 
Killing for oil seems kindof evil to me. Not for paying for drugs either. But, not sure I'd support either.

BTW, I think it's a leap to suggest we're paying for drug use. I suspect it is a bit more complicated than that. Just saying.

Yeah, that statement had all kinds of layers of ****ed up going on...

I'd rather spend on education and spend on our own country than bomb another country, and pay to have it rebuilt... lol.
 
Sometimes it's a necessary evil.

Bombing the ME is not going to lower our fuel prices... In fact, anytime there is a crisis in the ME fuel prices rise.
 
You may refuse.

It's not really consent if you're being coerced. If your choice is "consent to this test or we throw you into the street", then no, you really can't refuse.
 
It's not really consent if you're being coerced. If your choice is "consent to this test or we throw you into the street", then no, you really can't refuse.

It's the same choice I have at work. It's been upheld.
 
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.

At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.

So your idea is to institutionalize them. How do you deal with families? Have you decided that poor people can't afford their families and they all get sent to the halfway house where instead of living as a family, they live in a commune? Perhaps I am running away from or with your idea, but that seems contrary to the precept of maintaining and supporting the nuclear family, which is one of the key ideas behind welfare.
 
So, conservatives, what changes are you making to avoid this kind of grotesque mistake in the future? You learned that a huge block of what you thought you knew about poor people was totally, completely, off base. How are you updating your views to reflect this new knowledge? What are you going to do to make it up to the people you wrongly insulted? What other policies have you been supporting that you now see you were wrong about?
 
Last edited:
That's fine. I wouldn't mind a small premium to make sure welfare funds weren't wasted. Plus I would think it might still reduce costs if you withhold funds from people who do not pass or do not agree to testing.

We'd have to implement it to find out, and I'm willing to give it a shot. Besides, you could argue a laundry list of positive externalities (sorry if I had to break out an economics discussion and vocab session, Kali) that could come from those below the poverty not being on drugs, or not being subsidized (sorry again) for this bad behavior.

Do you know that implementing new programs like this will cost a HUGE amount of money just to get it started? I know the current system is not as good as it could be but do you really think this is the time? And cutting off welfare and setting up what is akin to prision tents is not the answer in our GREAT country. Do you really wish for tent cities in every state here? Cause that is what will happen if we try your idea right now.
 
So your idea is to institutionalize them. How do you deal with families? Have you decided that poor people can't afford their families and they all get sent to the halfway house where instead of living as a family, they live in a commune? Perhaps I am running away from or with your idea, but that seems contrary to the precept of maintaining and supporting the nuclear family, which is one of the key ideas behind welfare.

Also do not forget that with Gippers bright idea they may even have to split families up and all kids in these "homes/shelters/TENTS!!" and adults in the other. It is a bad idea. We are not living in a 3rd world country for **** sake! :(
 
Last I checked, a dime bag is waaaayyy cheaper than a college degree, or medical insurance, or any one of the many things that welfare recipients don't have. Besides, do you think it's right to inventory every single expenditure of a welfare recipient? Are they suddenly not allowed to spend money on enjoyment? Must they only purchase the cheaper brands of food, even if they don't taste as good? Must they get the fattier burgers, because they're a little cheaper? So, it's okay for government to be all up in someone else's life, but not yours, because your job pays a living wage, and theirs doesn't...

Last I checked, lack of a college degree doesn't mean you need to be doing drugs. Yes, I do think that if you are going to make the claim to the government that you need money to survive then you should have to waive the right to financial privacy. Beggers can't be choosers. Plain and simple, needs come before wants. If claim you can't afford your needs then that implies you can't afford your wants. Financially speaking, I'm willing to help those who need my help. One of the hidden implications in this statement is that they are doing every honest thing they can to help themselves first. Since addition is associative, if someone is receiving welfare and wasting any money then it is equivalent to wasting the welfare money.
 
This program is a complete waste of money and should be used as an example of something that is truly a waste of taxpayers money.

Spend $178 million to save a few thousand is crazy, but it's typical politics in action.

This is why we can recall the idiots we once thought had a couple of brain sales but their actions betrayed them.
 
Big government when you want it to be.

I'm not getting the connection? I'm simply stating the facts. You have no Constitutional rights to other peoples money.
 
Sometimes it's a necessary evil.

Not sure it is ever neccessary to be evil, but I'm certain it is not neccessary to bomb and kill for oil.


I'm not saying 100% of welfare recipients are using money for drugs. I'm not even saying most are. Maybe they just use money they steal instead.

Honestly though, all I'm saying is that the action of not-necessarily-the-few may indeed be hurting the many. Even if it takes money to do so, I would feel a little better knowing that welfare was spent where the overwhelming majority of the people are on the up-and-up. Then again, I've just always been against using subsidies to impede or negate social Darwinism.

Lot's of people game a system of some sort. Hell, look at corporate welfare. Those folks do a lot of gaming and take far more from our pockets. So, while I won't argue that we should support drug use, I also won't be overly selective in my outrage. In fact, I have more sympathy, if that is the right word, for the lost person at the bottom than I do the capble folks at the top who are fleecing us.
 
This program is a complete waste of money and should be used as an example of something that is truly a waste of taxpayers money.

Spend $178 million to save a few thousand is crazy, but it's typical politics in action.

This is why we can recall the idiots we once thought had a couple of brain sales but their actions betrayed them.

What would you say we do with those people? Do you brush them under the carpet? It is easy to just say that you want to cut a program, especially since you avoid talking about the problem to begin with. Welfare was not created out of thin air, it was (and is?) the best solution we could come up with to a problem in our society! Don't like it, use your head and think of something better!
 
It would be nice to just systematically eliminate welfare and just increase the amount of shelters or halfway houses or whatever you call them. If you're that poor and hungry, you get a small room (maybe to yourself, or if not with a roommate or two), food, maybe some job training or assistance with other things like clothes and what-not. Just essentially limit it to "three hots and a cot". Then you don't have to worry about abuse of the system or direct funds - at least not as much.

At that point, then you can tell who the genuine ones are. I'm sure there are tons of homeless people who would love to have a roof over their heads and a few warm meals anyday. The handout crowd and the addicted, not so much. Sifting achieved.

Workhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A workhouse was a place where those unable to support themselves were offered accommodation and employment. The term was the usual word in England, Wales, and Ireland for the institution more commonly known in Scotland as a poorhouse.[1] Its earliest known use dates from 1631, in an account by the mayor of Abingdon in which he reports that "wee haue erected wthn our borough a workehouse to sett poore people to worke".[2] The workhouse was colloquially known as 'The Spike' as a reference to the spikes used by the inmates to pick oakum,[3] also specifically the casual ward of a workhouse.[4]

Although small numbers of workhouses were established in other European countries, the system was most highly developed in England. Holland, for instance, had three large workhouses for the entire country,[5] whereas the English county of Cheshire alone had 31 by 1777.[


Living conditions after 1847 were governed by the Consolidated General Order, which contained a list of rules covering every aspect of workhouse life including diet, dress, education, discipline, and redress of grievances.[28] Inmates surrendered their own clothes and were required to wear a distinctive uniform. Men were provided with a striped cotton shirt, jacket and trousers, and a cloth cap. For women it was commonly a blue-and-white striped dress worn underneath a smock. Shoes were also provided.[29]

Inmates were free to leave as they wished after giving reasonable notice, generally considered to be three hours, but if a parent discharged him or herself then the children were also discharged, to prevent them from being abandoned.[28] Food and accommodation were provided free of charge, but by entering a workhouse paupers were held to have forfeited responsibility for their families; men and women were segregated and children were separated from their parents.[29] In some cases, like that of Henry Cook in 1814, the Poor Law authorities forced the husband to sell his wife rather than have to maintain her and her child in the Effingham workhouse. She was bought at Croydon market for one shilling; the parish paid for the cost of the journey and a "wedding dinner".[30]

Education was provided for the children, but they were often forcibly apprenticed without the permission or knowledge of their parents.[29] The comic actor Charlie Chaplin, who spent some time with his mother in Lambeth workhouse, records in his autobiography that when he and his half-brother returned to the workhouse after having been sent to a school in Hanwell he was met at the gate by his mother Hannah, dressed in her own clothes. Desperate to see them again she had discharged herself and the children; they spent the day together playing in Kennington Park and visiting a coffee shop, after which she readmitted them all to the workhouse.[31]

There were many well-meaning measures, such as the provision of medical officers and chaplains, but in many ways the treatment in a workhouse was little different from that in a prison, leaving many inmates feeling that they were being punished for the crime of poverty. Some workhouse masters embezzled the money intended for blankets, food and other essential items. Visitors reported rooms full of sick or elderly inmates with threadbare blankets and the windows wide open to the freezing weather.



Perhaps something like this is what you are suggesting
 
Back
Top Bottom