• 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 Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court

Peter Grimm said:
Bankers don't get handouts. You could, however, make a case that banks get handouts.

On that, I agree... handouts to banks should not come with no strings attached.
Click to expand...

OK, OK, you win. I agree. Drug testing for the CEO's of banks. :mrgreen:
 
Catawba said:
Who was in charge of the banks that failed?
Click to expand...

The owners of the bank, which would be anyone who owns stock in that bank.

However, if the bank itself is receiving the "handout," then it is the bank itself that should have to do something for it.

I would never authorize a blank check bailout the way Obama did, it is foolish and naive. I would have attached strings to getting the money, so that they would have to prove they are being good corporate citizens.

Kind of like how welfare recipients should get their money with strings attached, to prove they are good public citizens.
 
danarhea said:
OK, OK, you win. I agree. Drug testing for the CEO's of banks. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'd be good with that. Many of them I've thought about and asked myself, "What the hell is that dude smokin'?".

With the test, we'd know.

Maybe derivatives and credit default swaps were the brain-child of Mary Jane herself.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The owners of the bank, which would be anyone who owns stock in that bank.

However, if the bank itself is receiving the "handout," then it is the bank itself that should have to do something for it.

I would never authorize a blank check bailout the way Obama did, it is foolish and naive. I would have attached strings to getting the money, so that they would have to prove they are being good corporate citizens.

Kind of like how welfare recipients should get their money with strings attached, to prove they are good public citizens.
Click to expand...


By your logic there we should drug test all taxpayers because they are the ones that dictate how welfare is provided.

And btw, you would have caused the failure of the world monetary system. Let's first separate investment banks from commercial bank, than I will join you in letting the investment banks fail.
 
Catawba said:
By your logic there we should drug test all taxpayers because they are the ones that dictate how welfare is provided.

And btw, you would have caused the failure of the world monetary system. Let's first separate investment banks from commercial bank, than I will join you in letting the investment banks fail.
Click to expand...

What? That doesn't follow my logic at all. My logic, or my claim, is that if someone receives a free handout, they should expect there to be strings attached.

Also, I wouldn't have allowed the banks to fail, that's not what I said either. I would have given them the money, but with conditions attached. For one thing, they should be required to show us how they are spending our money.
 
Peter Grimm said:
What? That doesn't follow my logic at all. My logic, or my claim, is that if someone receives a free handout, they should expect there to be strings attached.

Also, I wouldn't have allowed the banks to fail, that's not what I said either. I would have given them the money, but with conditions attached. For one thing, they should be required to show us how they are spending our money.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I'm also not clear who said there are no requirements already that have to be met to receive welfare?
 
Peter Grimm said:
If you want other taxpayers to give you money, the least you can do for it is to prove that you're a good citizen by peeing in a cup.
Click to expand...
How does peeing in a cup prove that you are a good citizen?

Face it dude, it's nothing but a scam.
 
Peter Grimm said:
They get paid in return for a service provided.
Click to expand...

Bull****!! They ran those banks into the ground, the government gives the banks hundreds of millions of dollars to stay afloat, and the bank CEO's give themselves a fat bonus on the taxpayers' dime. They are not providing a service. They are committing welfare fraud. Sure, there is no law against it, but it is exactly what they are doing, and none of your weasel words in defending these con artists is going to change that fact.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Bull****!! They ran those banks into the ground, the government gives the banks hundreds of millions of dollars to stay afloat, and the bank CEO's give themselves a fat bonus on the taxpayers' dime. They are not providing a service. They are committing welfare fraud. Sure, there is no law against it, but it is exactly what they are doing, and none of your weasel words in defending these con artists is going to change that fact.
Click to expand...

Whatever your opinion on CEO's, they get paid by the shareholders, not the government. Thus, they are accountable to their shareholders.

Likewise, if welfare recipients get paid by the taxpayers, they should be held accountable by the taxpayers.
 
danarhea said:
And I agree with this decision. There is no evidence to suggest that, because somebody is poor, he or she is automatically a drug addict, anymore than, if someone were a banker, he or she is automatically a crook. :mrgreen: But, seriously, the law was based on stereotyping, and I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with it, honestly. The point of "welfare" is to get you back on your feet and start working again. You can't find many jobs out there who don't drug test these days. Despite whatever rhetoric is spewed from whichever side, anyone who is currently on drugs and unable to stop should not receive welfare, they should be hospitalized and treated.
 
Catawba said:
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I'm also not clear who said there are no requirements already that have to be met to receive welfare?
Click to expand...

The requirements, whatever those might be, should be determined by the ones handing out the cash. If taxpayers of Florida want welfare recipients to pee in a cup, then so be it. There is nothing saying that people HAVE to accept welfare checks. If you don't want to pee in a cup, don't take welfare.
 
Peter Grimm said:
First, I haven't used USPS in years. But even if I had, I would have to pay for stamps. So either way, I'm paying for it if I use it.
Click to expand...

If you receive a letter, you are both using the post office and not paying for it.
 
Texmex said:
If you receive a letter, you are both using the post office and not paying for it.
Click to expand...

I didn't choose to receive the letter. Welfare recipients can choose to avoid peeing in a cup by avoiding collecting welfare. It would be different if we just handed them the money without them asking for it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I didn't choose to receive the letter. Welfare recipients can choose to avoid peeing in a cup by avoiding collecting welfare. It would be different if we just handed them the money without them asking for it.
Click to expand...

But why spend more money on the drug tests than you save from the drug tests? It's literally throwing money away out of spite. And you don't even know that welfare money was spent on drugs if it's positive.
 
Deuce said:
But why spend more money on the drug tests than you save from the drug tests? It's literally throwing money away out of spite. And you don't even know that welfare money was spent on drugs if it's positive.
Click to expand...

Good point. I would fully support the idea of having an unbiased third party contracted out to investigate this. If somebody reliable did a real in-depth cost/benefit analysis and it turned out we're spending more than we're gaining from the program, I'd fully support dropping it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Good point. I would fully support the idea of having an unbiased third party contracted out to investigate this. If somebody reliable did a real in-depth cost/benefit analysis and it turned out we're spending more than we're gaining from the program, I'd fully support dropping it.
Click to expand...

I believe that has been shown pretty obviously...am I missing something?
 
kerussll said:
I believe that has been shown pretty obviously...am I missing something?
Click to expand...

It was shot down by the courts on legal/ethical grounds, not on practical grounds. The courts don't make budgetary decisions for the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom