• 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!

Deal OKs bill requiring drug testing for welfare recipients

Ikari said:
And how much money do you get from the government? What have you obtained that was in some way subsidized through taxpayer dollars? It's pretty ridiculous I think to try to hold this to a group; particularly now in middle of an ongoing recession. This is a deflection topic, nothing more. It’s like a dog and a ball. Dog really wants the ball, but you can “throw” the ball while keeping hold of it and the dog will run off after the imaginary ball. Don’t be the dog. There are far greater issues at stake than welfare recipients doing drugs.
Click to expand...

Zero directly, lots indirectly, but my tax money pays for it. How much in taxes do welfare recipients pay? Oh wait, ZERO.
 
Cephus said:
Obviously I don't think that or I wouldn't have said it in the first place.



We have laws for a reason. If you break the laws, you pay the penalty. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...

Those children should have taken personal responsibility for their parents, huh?
 
Cephus said:
If you don't stay clean, and testing would find out if they did, you lose your benefits. Geez, are you that dense?
Click to expand...

There you go again...
 
Thorgasm said:
Those children should have taken personal responsibility for their parents, huh?
Click to expand...

You apparently have an English comprehension problem.
 
Cephus said:
You apparently have an English comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you be more specific?
 
Thorgasm said:
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you be more specific?
Click to expand...

Kids aren't responsible for their parents. Parents are responsible for their own actions or they lose their kids. How can you possibly confuse the two?
 
Save money and just eliminate welfare.
 
Cephus said:
Zero directly, lots indirectly, but my tax money pays for it. How much in taxes do welfare recipients pay? Oh wait, ZERO.
Click to expand...

Hard to get blood from a stone, yes? But we all get tax breaks. Married people get a few, you get them for having children, for using schools, etc. Subsidizing the cost of raising one's kids through government taxation. In the end, lots of us are subsidized one way or another through the government and the taxpayer. I do not think that we should all be piss tested every time we're using "government" dollars.
 
Cephus said:
Obviously I don't think that or I wouldn't have said it in the first place.

We have laws for a reason. If you break the laws, you pay the penalty. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...
Your avatar is the best one here. It accurately reflects my feeling of needing to do a "face palm" after I finish reading one of your posts.
 
Ikari said:
Hard to get blood from a stone, yes? But we all get tax breaks. Married people get a few, you get them for having children, for using schools, etc. Subsidizing the cost of raising one's kids through government taxation. In the end, lots of us are subsidized one way or another through the government and the taxpayer. I do not think that we should all be piss tested every time we're using "government" dollars.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong. I pay my taxes and taxes, collectively, go to pay for many of the things I use and many, many more than I never do. The government's dollars are the taxpayer's dollars, we fund the government and everything the government does, at least we would if the government would stop living beyond it's means and borrowing from China. The government doesn't send me a check, I send it to them.

However, welfare recipients pay nothing whatsoever, in fact, they get free money just for waking up in the morning. They do nothing to earn it, it is provided at society's discretion and we can attach any strings to it we wish. If we collectively want to require that they dress like clowns all day in order to get that check, we could do it. Society makes the rules and if society decides that we're going to require drug testing to continue getting that government check, then that's the way it is. Welfare recipients can either submit to the will of society or they can stop sticking their hand out.
 
radcen said:
Your avatar is the best one here. It accurately reflects my feeling of needing to do a "face palm" after I finish reading one of your posts.
Click to expand...

Funny, I have the same reaction after reading one of yours. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
Sorry, you're wrong. I pay my taxes and taxes, collectively, go to pay for many of the things I use and many, many more than I never do. The government's dollars are the taxpayer's dollars, we fund the government and everything the government does, at least we would if the government would stop living beyond it's means and borrowing from China. The government doesn't send me a check, I send it to them.

However, welfare recipients pay nothing whatsoever, in fact, they get free money just for waking up in the morning. They do nothing to earn it, it is provided at society's discretion and we can attach any strings to it we wish. If we collectively want to require that they dress like clowns all day in order to get that check, we could do it. Society makes the rules and if society decides that we're going to require drug testing to continue getting that government check, then that's the way it is. Welfare recipients can either submit to the will of society or they can stop sticking their hand out.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We often pay for things which add benefit to aggregated society. Things like Welfare at base provide benefit for the whole. We cannot place arbitrary restrictions because at some point you start to take away the benefits of having the system in the first place. There are always proper restraint to government force. For instance, they cannot require than anyone who accepts welfare give up their exercise to vote. It's not proper. Here, while there could be argument made for drug testing, the process is going to be well more expensive, costing us all more money, and will ultimately do nothing to address any real change necessary to the system. This is deflection and nothing more.
 
Ikari said:
I disagree. We often pay for things which add benefit to aggregated society. Things like Welfare at base provide benefit for the whole. We cannot place arbitrary restrictions because at some point you start to take away the benefits of having the system in the first place. There are always proper restraint to government force. For instance, they cannot require than anyone who accepts welfare give up their exercise to vote. It's not proper. Here, while there could be argument made for drug testing, the process is going to be well more expensive, costing us all more money, and will ultimately do nothing to address any real change necessary to the system. This is deflection and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I don't view welfare, especially as it's set up today, as a social positive. The concept, I suppose, is sound. Keep people eating while they are going through the down times, get them back on their feet and back to work. However, we all know that's just not how the welfare system works today. It's designed to keep people from going back to work, people are penalized for getting jobs and certainly, the welfare system does nothing whatsoever to encourage people to work or get educated. It's just a check, nothing more. I propose drug testing as a part of comprehensive welfare reform designed to get people off their fat, lazy asses and back to work. Welfare ought to be very short-term and hard to live on. It should have tons of requirements. It should be something so awful that nobody ever wants to be on it and anyone who is on it will do just about anything to get off.

Voting is a fundamental right in this country, laid out specifically in our founding documents. Taking drugs don't seem to appear there, sorry. People have no rights to take drugs. Try again.

Drug testing isn't the end-all-be-all of welfare reform, but it is a necessary step. Stop pretending that because we don't take all the steps at the same time, we should throw up our hands and do nothing.
 
Cephus said:
Kids aren't responsible for their parents. Parents are responsible for their own actions or they lose their kids. How can you possibly confuse the two?
Click to expand...

You willfully ignore that the kids lose their parents.
 
Welfare recipients may not pay income tax, but there are plenty of other taxes they pay on a daily bases. These can range from sales taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, taxes hidden in the cost of the production of goods and services, and the list goes on. The notion that anybody... even welfare recipients... pay no taxes is simply naive to the point of foolishness.
 
I can understand the sentiment behind wanting welfare recipients to pass a drug test (though I disagree with it). However, the fact of the matter is that it is a MYTH that many of the people who receive welfare use it on drugs. This was clearly shown by the results of the Florida state law that required drug testing for welfare recipients. Only 2.6 percent of those tested failed the test (an additional 1% failed to take the test for whatever reason). Because Florida reimbursed the $30 fee to take the test to those that passed, the law ended up costing an extra $45K. In the end, it really is a law that might make the Republican base happy, but in the end is fairly useless.

And me personally, I think it is pretty dumb for a positive drug test for marijuana to prohibit anyone from doing anything. It's no big deal.

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests - New York Times
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would rather they lose their parents than grow up in a drug house.
Click to expand...

Alcohol is a drug. Do you contend that most homes in America are drug houses?
 
Thorgasm said:
Alcohol is a drug. Do you contend that most homes in America are drug houses?
Click to expand...

If someone was an alcoholic, absolutely they should lose their kids.

Welfare was intended to help people get back on their feet not be a lifetime multi generational benefit.

By letting kids grow up in a family of alcoholics and drug users we are only setting these kids up for failure.

I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it is. I as a soldier cannot use it without losing my job, why should welfare recipient be treated any differently?
 
Thorgasm said:
Alcohol is a drug. Do you contend that most homes in America are drug houses?
Click to expand...

Nice try but you know full well that I am talking about illegal drugs. But hey, anyone that is a certifide alcoholic can have their children taken away so not sure why you used that example. :shrug:
 
Cephus said:
Obviously I don't think that or I wouldn't have said it in the first place.
Click to expand...
I'm also in favor of putting every single dealer, without exception, to death. Without exception you are in favor of killing all dealers. Since you just denied it I guess that you were saying that its a personal want? So I guess I stand corrected lol.



We have laws for a reason. If you break the laws, you pay the penalty. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...
We do not have laws that permanently take away children for possession of an controlled substance. The laws that you are referring to are in your head. Then you take the kids away and at least they're not raised to repeat the mom's mistakes. Works for me. Such laws would destroy any semblance of liberty in this country. It would be yet another law that would undoubtedly be taken advantage of by the religious right.

I can see it now the state taking away kids because the parents were Atheists and could end up being criminals, because you know how those Atheists have no morals and do drugs (for those that missed it, that was sarcasm). And if you add the two together you end up with North Korea. So no I do not agree with fantasizing about killing all drug dealers or taking away children from their parents. Children should always stay with their parents unless it is a danger to their well being. And there is no evidence that every parent that does drugs is a danger to their children. WHen we start using such standards it would be easy to apply that rational to all things that corrupt the minds of children. Its a door that should not be further opened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom