• 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!

Should Drug Tests Be Required to Get Welfare Benefits?

Should drug tests be required to get welfare benefits?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 75.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 25.0%
  • Total voters
    52
DemonMyst said:
So what about the handicapped and those less fortunate?? Do conservatives ever consider them when discussing rights??
Click to expand...
What about them? Not at all sure how your question is related to what I said and the dicussion related to same.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
As to what I did not include, you are completely wrong with everything Constitutional that you quoted. I think you just make stuff up and post it willy-nilly.

Those programs that tend to make folks wards-of-the-state, and which have been so overwhelmingly large, and underfunded, such as Social Security and Medicare, are hugely Democrat born-and-bred.

Don't kid yourself.

Add to it Obamacare.
Click to expand...

"Blah blah blah, I can't prove my point or even cite the Constitution, but I'm going to lie my ass off in order to try to make a partisan point". :roll:
 
deltabtry said:
Seeing is believing and I see it everyday. The people in question don't exactly keep records or answer to the government. That said the burden of proof is on you, prove that it is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you said that the majority of welfare recipients are selling drugs, driving two cars, working under the table, etc. That was YOU not me. Prove your point or admit you're a liar. Those are your choices.
 
Ikari said:
No, you said that the majority of welfare recipients are selling drugs, driving two cars, working under the table, etc. That was YOU not me. Prove your point or admit you're a liar. Those are your choices.
Click to expand...
You can't prove me wrong, but I can do simple searches that prove my points all day long. I posted just two simple google searches I* suppose I could define it even more but why bother , now your turn prove me wrong. Look I know how the game works and I know how they play the system. I see it and deal with it and even acquainted with few recipients, the government is being fleeced at our expense.
welfare reciepent to for a living - Google Search
welfare reciepent to for a living - Google Search
 
DemonMyst said:
If you call living in poverty but working living in privilege then you are seriously mistaken!!

Which happens to be the easiest way to identify a conservative.. They think that if your working your rich and privileged.. Thanks to Bush, there are more people living in poverty than ever!!
Click to expand...

1. Learn the difference between "your" and "you're" if you wish to be taken seriously.

2. You have the "right" to live in poverty if you so choose. It's very easy to live in poverty if that is what you really want. You have no "right" to work though. You have a "right" to apply for a job, and then hope that an employer grants you the "privilege" of exchanging your labor for a paycheck. There is no grey area in this.

3. Working = rich and privileged? What planet are you on? Working at Taco Bell certainly does not qualify as rich, but they should be privileged to have this job if their skill set is most aptly applied to that job. They have no right to that job because they cannot walk into a Taco Bell and demand compensation for their labor when it is not desired. That is what a right is.

4. Blaming Bush for everything, especially stuff like this, ensures that you never even come close to having a legitimate argument for any political discussion.

Seriously, game over. Insert quarter and try again. Try not to come across as 13 years old in the future, too.
 
Ikari said:
We made the decision to have this program, we acted in its creation and offering of it. Just because we made a government program does not mean we can then demand people to abdicate their rights because they choose to engage in it. The choice in the system was already made the minute we decided and acted upon the creation of a welfare state. The welfare state does not remove the restrictions placed upon government.
Click to expand...

What's this "we" stuff?

You mean "they", and you mean "a majority". And the Constitution of THIS particular country was written to protect the minority from the ravages of the majority, and oh, by the way, the Welfare States is a violation of the Constitution. Therefore it's not supposed to be happening regarless.

Whatever, since free handouts isn't a right, since contraints are already in place on their disbursement, drug testing is nothing more than another constraint.

The government requires proof of income level, bank statements, pay slips, unemployment records, what have you. It's clearly just as big a violation of the Fourth Amendment to demand these documnts ("papers") as it is to demand a drug test ("persons"). No more so, no less so.

Yet you accept the one but not the other.

There's some other reason you're objecting, since whatever ever it is isn't logical.
 
winston53660 said:
Sorry I do feel people have a right sit at a lunch counter and be served. And I also feel people do have a right to a job that they can execute.
Click to expand...

1) The only lunch counter any person has a "right" to sit at is the one at the restaurant they own. If they don't own a restaurant then they have no rights to it, and, if they're not buying food, they certainly should expect to be ejected by the police as trespassers.

2) Not one person on the planet has a "right" to a job. A job isn't something a person with skills performs because they have the skills. A job is a task that someone is willing to pay others to do for them, and the choice of the person to do the job is dependent upon the job requirements and the skills of the individual. A man specialized in making three handled family gredunzas can't reasonably expect to continue working when the market drops out and no one is buying gredunzas of any sort any more.

What happens to the hangman when the country ends capital punishment?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What happens to the hangman when the country ends capital punishment?
Click to expand...

He goes to school and trains to do another job.. But in your world, he does nothing because he has no right to anything and will wind up a corpse on your door step..

Thankfully Mayor.. Your are very much alone in your views.. You should move to another nation that shares them.. Like Iran or North Korea.. You have no business in a democracy with those views..
 
DemonMyst said:
He goes to school and trains to do another job..
Click to expand...

In other words, your assertion that a man has a right to do what he's skilled to do was flat out bull****, by your own admission.

Thank you, nothing more is required of you except an apology.
 
DemonMyst said:
So what about the handicapped and those less fortunate?? Do conservatives ever consider them when discussing rights??
Click to expand...
Isn't everybody less fortunate. Is it sufficient that I have more than you (therefore you are less fortunate) for you to want the government to take from me in order to give to you?
Why are rights involved? No one has a right to a substantial proportion of my labor for the rest of my life. That *is* slavery no matter how you dress it up.

Governments tend toward tyranny. Automatically. Governments that believe they should take from one citizen to give to another are already tyrannical. We have, unfortunately, arrived. It is only a matter of time before show trials (already have them in the House and Senate), imprisonment for our thoughts (hate crimes), torture, and murder.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What's this "we" stuff?
Click to expand...

It's our Republic. We as the People have authorized it. We have not revolted over it, we have accepted it. It is current policy and we all have choosen to work within the system to change and alter, thus we all agree to the current incarnation of the program.

Mayor Snorkum said:
And the Constitution of THIS particular country was written to protect the minority from the ravages of the majority, and oh, by the way, the Welfare States is a violation of the Constitution. Therefore it's not supposed to be happening regarless.
Click to expand...

So it goes

Mayor Snorkum said:
Whatever, since free handouts isn't a right, since contraints are already in place on their disbursement, drug testing is nothing more than another constraint.
Click to expand...

The government is still restricted

Mayor Snorkum said:
The government requires proof of income level, bank statements, pay slips, unemployment records, what have you. It's clearly just as big a violation of the Fourth Amendment to demand these documnts ("papers") as it is to demand a drug test ("persons"). No more so, no less so.

Yet you accept the one but not the other.

There's some other reason you're objecting, since whatever ever it is isn't logical.
Click to expand...

It's entirely logical. Welfare is a financial support program designed as a stop gap to allow failing families time to recover and find employment since it's cheaper to float them temporarily than it is to deal with the consequences of increased homelessness and crime. Therefore, the concerns of the system are purely financial. It is thus reasonable for the government to ask about finiancial situations such as property and income in assessing eligibility for a program designed to help those in poor financial situations. That's it. Drug use does not fall under that. If one wanted to make a stupid argument they could say "well they have to buy the drugs and it's an expense then and thus part of their finances", but as I said that would be a stupid argument. As buying and spending trends are not part of the question for welfare availablity. It's a financial program and is concerned with how much money families make and what they own. There is no need to question the individual beyond their financial situation to assess eligibility for welfare.
 
SE102 said:
I never heard of this one in poli sci class.
Click to expand...

That's too bad, they should really be teaching the warnings of the founders. Like this one which is all too true now

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy”
-James Madison
 
Ikari said:
It's our Republic. We as the People have authorized it. We have not revolted over it, we have accepted it. It is current policy and we all have choosen to work within the system to change and alter, thus we all agree to the current incarnation of the program.
Click to expand...

Just in case you missed it, the Constitution does not allow entitlement spending.

Just in case you haven't read it, the phrase "we the people" are the first three words of the Constitution.


There is no need to question the individual beyond their financial situation to assess eligibility for welfare.
Click to expand...

Asking them if they can and do spend money on drugs rather than for food is a legitimate question, and testing them to prove their veracity is no different than demanding bank statements. They're not required to provide bank statements, they're not required to take drug tests.

They have a choice.

What, you never heard of the word "freedom", before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom