• 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!

Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

Welfare should require background checks, random drug screens, and monitoring of recipients in regards to personal activities and the pursuit to find stable income to get off of welfare.
 
Welfare should require background checks, random drug screens, and monitoring of recipients in regards to personal activities and the pursuit to find stable income to get off of welfare.

The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012

Wouldn't've made a difference.
 
Wouldn't've made a difference.

I'm not saying it would in this case. Regardless though, if he was involved in terrorist organizations or researching how to make homemade bombs or communicating with others regarding the attack prior to being cut off we would have found out.
 
This means something I guess? I dunno what the hell is your point?

Everyone with a brain knows that welfare is the biggest fleecing of America and now we learn the we are financially supporting people that are here to do us harm. I am sure that little boy's familly were happy to learn about government supported terrorism.
 
I'm not saying it would in this case. Regardless though, if he was involved in terrorist organizations or researching how to make homemade bombs or communicating with others regarding the attack prior to being cut off we would have found out.

That's probably unconstitutional though.
 
I'm not saying it would in this case. Regardless though, if he was involved in terrorist organizations or researching how to make homemade bombs or communicating with others regarding the attack prior to being cut off we would have found out.

So you're suddenly advocating that let's just say for example a family applies for Food Stamps because they need it, the government should be allowed to check their internet history?

So suddenly a backround check for Welfare will stop terrorism...

But a back round check for firearms won't stop mass killers...

Ah **** it.
 
That's probably unconstitutional though.

I don't think it should be. If someone is on welfare I think they should have virtually no privacy. The government should be able to monitor their online usage, their communications (text, phone, etc), their life habits (drug use, prostitution, drug screens) and active efforts to better themselves.

So you're suddenly advocating that let's just say for example a family applies for Food Stamps because they need it, the government should be allowed to check their internet history?

So suddenly a backround check for Welfare will stop terrorism...

But a back round check for firearms won't stop mass killers...

Ah **** it.


I'm fine with background checks for firearm purchases, I think people who have committed violent crimes shouldn't be allowed to own guns and if such a thing shows up on a background check it should be illegal for someone to sell them a firearm or for the person to register the weapon, but I don't really see how that's relevant to the topic.

If you receive free aid or money from the government the government should be allowed to monitor how you spend that money.
 
Everyone with a brain knows that welfare is the biggest fleecing of America and now we learn the we are financially supporting people that are here to do us harm. I am sure that little boy's familly were happy to learn about government supported terrorism.

I don't really see how this is relevant to welfare or to the bombing.
 
I don't think it should be. If someone is on welfare I think they should have virtually no privacy. The government should be able to monitor their online usage, their communications (text, phone, etc), their life habits (drug use, prostitution, drug screens) and active efforts to better themselves.

To set up a Bureaucracy capable of doing so would cost more than the Welfare itself.

What you're proposing is undoable...

Because you received Federal Aid for college, do you think you should be subjected to such an invasion of privacy?
 
To set up a Bureaucracy capable of doing so would cost more than the Welfare itself.

What you're proposing is undoable...

Because you received Federal Aid for college, do you think you should be subjected to such an invasion of privacy?

I don't necessarily think the cost would be too unbearable considering violators would lose welfare and the system hopefully would not be wasteful and bloated.

And yes, I should be subjected to such an "invasion of privacy" and currently I am. Every year I file FAFSA, I give another government agency my tax info, financial info, enrollment status, living status, marital/family status and many other things. Back when I was an undergrad and considered a dependent under my parents my parents also had to submit info. When I received PELL grant money we had to further submit info like physical copies of W2 forms and whatnot as further verification. I had to do the extended verification every year that I received PELL money and I don't think that was unreasonable.

If I am receiving federal aid for college I think it's completely reasonable for the government to know my financial info, they should be allowed to further force me to verify my info with third parties to ensure that I'm not cheating the system and I'm fine with being audited to ensure that funds go to the appropriate place (in this case, disbursed to the school directly to fund tuition). The school and financial aid offices also had certain responsibilities and regulations to keep their status as an approved institution for receiving aid. If me, or others, are receiving money at no cost I don't think it's unreasonable to be held accountable before the government, taxpayers, and others.

Why should we just give money away? Why shouldn't we enhance measures to prevent taxpayer money via welfare from going towards irresponsible or illegal things? Why can't we ensure that they aren't using illegal drugs? Why not also make sure that the person is actively perusing stable income so that one day they can be off welfare or off it sooner? I don't see any of these things as unreasonable. And if the government is funding a service (like a phone or internet connection) as they payer and as a taxpayer funded benefit I think the government should be allowed access to the users information shared or used on those networks.
 
Last edited:
Everyone with a brain knows that welfare is the biggest fleecing of America and now we learn the we are financially supporting people that are here to do us harm. I am sure that little boy's familly were happy to learn about government supported terrorism.

Wow - use terror for supporting your own agenda much?
 
Everyone with a brain knows that welfare is the biggest fleecing of America and now we learn the we are financially supporting people that are here to do us harm. I am sure that little boy's familly were happy to learn about government supported terrorism.

................What?

Now as a human being I'm sure you have some cognitive skills. So I must ask, do you honestly think that the government was deliberately funding terrorists? From all of your rhetoric it seems that is what you would have us believe .
 
................What?

Now as a human being I'm sure you have some cognitive skills. So I must ask, do you honestly think that the government was deliberately funding terrorists? From all of your rhetoric it seems that is what you would have us believe .

They obviously weren't doing their jobs here, progressives support terrorism, you should be happy
 
No, but it does proves liberals support programs that fund them

Look he also went to a university which is tax payer supported as well, used public transport, all kinds of things. If he had been caught before hand he wouldnt have been receiving these benefits but to damn the whole system because it gave support to an unknown terrorist is silly.
 
They obviously weren't doing their jobs here, progressives support terrorism, you should be happy

You didn't really answer my question, you could have said yes or no.

I don't see how there is any correlation between the receiving of welfare benefits, and the perpetrators becoming terrorists. If they meet requirements then they rightfully received those benefits. The article itself only mention that they received welfare in the beginning of the article then goes on to list the past of the brothers and offers no perspective as to how welfare inspired or caused them to become terrorists. Could you perhaps explain it to me?

Also saying that progressives support terrorism simply because a terrorist received welfare at a few points in his life is an incredibly ignorant statement.
 
Rich people tend to have reasons not to do crap like this, Bin Laden being the exception
 
So you're suddenly advocating that let's just say for example a family applies for Food Stamps because they need it, the government should be allowed to check their internet history?

So suddenly a backround check for Welfare will stop terrorism...

But a back round check for firearms won't stop mass killers...

Ah **** it.

The background check is to ensure that they meet the income requirements right?
 
Welcome to liberal terrorism!

Seriously? It's liberal terrorism because a guy who was receiving welfare went nuts and killed some people?

I'm pretty sure welfare has existed through both conservative and liberal administrations.

So was 9/11 a reflection of conservative terrorism?

The crap some of you people come up with is astounding.
 
Back
Top Bottom