- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then what do you see as welfare benefits? Food stamps?
Food stamps are considered welfare benefits.
Then what do you see as welfare benefits? Food stamps?
Food stamps are considered welfare benefits.
Then we send a bill for their upkeep to all registered Democrats, who would be against this drug testing. That way Republicans who don't believe in buying drugs for addicts don't have to pay.And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?
If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.
This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.
Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.
Pot's the only one that stays with you for weeks, even over a month in some cases.
It seems counterproductive to penalize recreational pot-smokers, while meth-heads, junkies, and coke fiends continue to receive federal or state aid.
:shrug:
Then we send a bill for their upkeep to all registered Democrats, who would be against this drug testing. That way Republicans who don't believe in buying drugs for addicts don't have to pay.
So at least 40 million drug tests then...
So where do you get 40 million? From your sensationalized mind that would include even infants of welfare recipients?
So where do you get 40 million? From your sensationalized mind that would include even infants of welfare recipients?
Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases totaled 40.2 million, up 21 percent from a year earlier and 1.2 percent more than in February, the Department of Agriculture said yesterday in a statement on its website.
Btw, the numbers that I have found range from 3-5 million. Makes sense. Nice try, Pete.
I have read to page 4 and I have the following problems with this.
1. Help only works when people want it and when it is appropriate for them - not all people are the same, not all help works for all people even if they want it.
2. Some of this is introducing a new philosophy which is open to abuse.
e.g. taking away the children of all drug users when in this country it is known that some drug users can still be reasonable parents. Who will be the next group of people to lose their children because they fall into some category?
3. Obviously it will if anything just increase crime as people will still need their fix.
I think if you have a mammoth problem with drug use in the US, possibly a better approach would be to offer help to people who come on welfare and offer that help in a way which they feel good about - for instance harm reduction, (drugs being given under supervision) to counselling to rehab centres. If the intention was to reduce the number of drug addicts, I think this would probably be the more effective way to go about it.
Why do you suppose an unemployed habitual drug user should be allowed to keep his/her kids?And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
More than 40m now use food stamps - The Boston Globe
So 40 million on food stamps, and then all those on unemployment and other welfare programs. Yes there will be some that get one or more of the programs, but it wont take the 40 million number down... So.. yes 40 million plus.
"Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients"
Is it election time already?
And what if they test dirty?
Without assistance, they won't be able to take care of their kids.
Are you going to take their kids away?
Where would you put them all?
If there's one thing our nation won't stand for, it's seeing American children going hungry, homeless, or deprived of necessities.
And we shouldn't stand for it.This isn't Calcutta. We don't want to have to kick dirty, diseased beggar children out of our way when we walk down the street. The idea is obscene. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
.
Nevertheless, we don't have the apparatus in place to remove the children of the poor en masse, even if this were a desirable solution (which i don't believe it is). We don't have anywhere to put them or any way to take care of them.
Not if it is random.Besides, drug testing only ever really catches pot-smokers.
Most other drugs are out of one's system within hours or days.
If drug users cant afford their habit AND provide for their children without government assistance then they are bad parents.
As for the rest. Are you suggesting that we should pay druggies money so they dont become criminals?
Its about time people start taking personal responsibility for their own choices, and stop mooching off of the rest of us because they cant, or are intentionally unwilling to provide for themselves, and arent smart enough to make it on their own.
That is your opinion. Prove it... and focus only on welfare recipients. Tell us how doing this is NOT beneficial.