• 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!

Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

A lot of people made the same argument as 1069 and friends when Welfare Reform, part of the Contract with America was proffered by Republicans.

Clinton swore he would never sign Welfare Reform, but did, and it was so successful that on the 10th anniversary tried to take full credit for the program.

I see the same thing happening here.

It will be initially be an uncomfortable transition for some, but will lead to more responsibility and better lives for the parents and children on the whole. Society too.

.

In my opinion, welfare is a necessary evil for folks who have had problems, mostly not of their making, but sometimes even OF their own making. Thing is, at least the way that I see it, welfare is not a permanent solution. The goal should be to get off of it. I think there should be more US dollar spent on promoting this, and less on the continuous state of welfare for some people.

And yes, if someone tests positive for drugs while on welfare, I support having their benefits cut and their children removed. If they are choosing to use drugs rather than take care of their family, I can't imagine that they are doing a great job taking care of their kids.
 
In my opinion, welfare is a necessary evil for folks who have had problems, mostly not of their making, but sometimes even OF their own making. Thing is, at least the way that I see it, welfare is not a permanent solution. The goal should be to get off of it. I think there should be more US dollar spent on promoting this, and less on the continuous state of welfare for some people.

And yes, if someone tests positive for drugs while on welfare, I support having their benefits cut and their children removed. If they are choosing to use drugs rather than take care of their family, I can't imagine that they are doing a great job taking care of their kids.

That is the best reasoning for this type of policy.

Most people who are on welfare and using drugs, are already leading their children down the road of perpetual failure.
 
Utter biased legislation.

Why only welfare recipients? Do it for everyone and make people take the consequences of that. Higher taxes for abusers, fines and ultimately prison. That would solve a lot of problems in the US. After all a majority of drug users are not on welfare.
 
Utter biased legislation.

Why only welfare recipients? Do it for everyone and make people take the consequences of that. Higher taxes for abusers, fines and ultimately prison. That would solve a lot of problems in the US. After all a majority of drug users are not on welfare.

No, Pete, this is not what people are discussing. Drug users who are fending for themselves are not of my concern. However, when my tax dollars pay for a drug user's drug. keeping them on welfare, THAT IS my concern.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, welfare is a necessary evil for folks who have had problems, mostly not of their making, but sometimes even OF their own making. Thing is, at least the way that I see it, welfare is not a permanent solution. The goal should be to get off of it. I think there should be more US dollar spent on promoting this, and less on the continuous state of welfare for some people.
I agree, it should be a very thin and porous net, not a hammock.

And yes, if someone tests positive for drugs while on welfare, I support having their benefits cut and their children removed. If they are choosing to use drugs rather than take care of their family, I can't imagine that they are doing a great job taking care of their kids.
Here is a really touchy line, a barrel of worms; Removing children. There are instances it should happen certainly, what they are specifically I can't define legally and won't attempt to. I think it falls into the "I know it when I see it" category, defining it legally is another matter.

I prefer to see less government, and less intrusion into families by government. In the old days friends and family or churches intervened. That's better than the faceless, morgue-like state. You could even say I'd opt for it takes a village approach, but not as defined by Hillary. For her "village" is a coy term for state.

.
 
Utter biased legislation.

Why only welfare recipients? Do it for everyone and make people take the consequences of that. Higher taxes for abusers, fines and ultimately prison. That would solve a lot of problems in the US. After all a majority of drug users are not on welfare.

Come on now Pete, even you have to agree that someone using emergency social services shouldn't also be using drugs.
They are coming to the state saying they don't have enough money to feed/house themselves and then they turn around and buy high priced drugs.
 
No, Pete, this is not what people are discussing. Drug users who are fending for themselves are not of my concern. However, when my tax dollars pay for a drug user's drug. keeping them on welfare, THAT IS my concern.

Yes and ANY drug user, on welfare or not, is using your tax dollars... that is my point.

In fact I would claim that drug users not on welfare are costing you far more than the welfare payments to the druggies on welfare.

You forget that because of their drug use, billions are being used to prop op the Mexican government and other South American governments in their battle against the drug gangs. And domestically you have billions spent on putting people who have been busted for drugs through the system and putting them behind bars. And then there are the billions used on police solely used to fight the drug war. And then you have the medical costs in the long run for those addicts, that ultimately are paid by the US tax payer in one way or another (higher costs on private insurance for example).
 
I agree, it should be a very thin and porous net, not a hammock.

Agreed.

Here is a really touchy line, a barrel of worms; Removing children. There are instances it should happen certainly, what they are specifically I can't define legally and won't attempt to. I think it falls into the "I know it when I see it" category, defining it legally is another matter.

I prefer to see less government, and less intrusion into families by government. In the old days friends and family or churches intervened. That's better than the faceless, morgue-like state. You could even say I'd opt for it takes a village approach, but not as defined by Hillary. For her "village" is a coy term for state.

.

This is where you and I probably differ. I want something standardized, systematic, and efficient. Voluntary scenarios don't work like that. They depend on the altruism of others, which is inconsistent. Government has the best chance at creating something like this, and also has the best chance at having the "bite" to follow through with it.

And I have no problem with children being removed from a situation that is unhealthy for them. One responsibility of government is to promote the positive rearing and growth of children. To me, if someone is using their welfare benefits for drug use, the get their benefits cut. At this point, the children are paying for the mistakes of their parents. This contradicts the government responsibility that I identified, so it behooves the government to remove those children so they are not further harmed.
 
Come on now Pete, even you have to agree that someone using emergency social services shouldn't also be using drugs.
They are coming to the state saying they don't have enough money to feed/house themselves and then they turn around and buy high priced drugs.

Oh I agree, that is not my issue. My issue is it is a targeted politically correct proposal and not one that will solve anything.
 
Yes and ANY drug user, on welfare or not, is using your tax dollars... that is my point.

Irrelevant. We are talking about welfare here. That is the topic.

In fact I would claim that drug users not on welfare are costing you far more than the welfare payments to the druggies on welfare.

Different topic, Pete.

You forget that because of their drug use, billions are being used to prop op the Mexican government and other South American governments in their battle against the drug gangs. And domestically you have billions spent on putting people who have been busted for drugs through the system and putting them behind bars. And then there are the billions used on police solely used to fight the drug war. And then you have the medical costs in the long run for those addicts, that ultimately are paid by the US tax payer in one way or another (higher costs on private insurance for example).

Different topic, Pete.
 
Oh I agree, that is not my issue. My issue is it is a targeted politically correct proposal and not one that will solve anything.

That is your opinion. Prove it... and focus only on welfare recipients. Tell us how doing this is NOT beneficial.
 
Irrelevant. We are talking about welfare here. That is the topic.

Different topic, Pete.

Different topic, Pete.

I disagree, but whatever. I guess it is politically correct to target the weak in the US and let the rest off for doing exactly the same.
 
That is your opinion. Prove it... and focus only on welfare recipients. Tell us how doing this is NOT beneficial.

For one it will increase crime most likely.. cutting them off some income will just force them into more crime to feed their habit. Which will increase the cost for you as a tax payer. go figure.
 
Oh I agree, that is not my issue. My issue is it is a targeted politically correct proposal and not one that will solve anything.

I happen to work with a lot of people who are on food stamps and have their children on free government medical care, when they also drink alcohol heavily(usually during work hours) and smoke weed(again during work hours).
 
I disagree, but whatever. I guess it is politically correct to target the weak in the US and let the rest off for doing exactly the same.

Disagree all you want. Your "politically correct" comments, also, are nothing but your opinion. If you have to use statements like that because you can't focus on the topic, it just proves that they have no merit.
 
For one it will increase crime most likely.. cutting them off some income will just force them into more crime to feed their habit. Which will increase the cost for you as a tax payer. go figure.

No, it will just transfer money from welfare to jail. Further, you are not looking at this issue, globally. There is more to it than just, "ok, you are using... no welfare, no questions, see ya". Hatch's plan calls for the offer of drug rehab. I would combine that with ending the war of drugs, and using the saved monies to subsidize that rehab. Now, if someone refuses... then "see ya". They commit crimes... enjoy jail. However, one major issue surrounding folks NOT going into rehab is cost. This plan repairs that.
 
No, it will just transfer money from welfare to jail. Further, you are not looking at this issue, globally. There is more to it than just, "ok, you are using... no welfare, no questions, see ya". Hatch's plan calls for the offer of drug rehab. I would combine that with ending the war of drugs, and using the saved monies to subsidize that rehab. Now, if someone refuses... then "see ya". They commit crimes... enjoy jail. However, one major issue surrounding folks NOT going into rehab is cost. This plan repairs that.

No matter what it is like putting a band-aid on a cut with a gaping gushing wound beside it. And that is my point and why I find this sort of legislation nothing but the usual politics with no vision what so ever. He is only proposing this because it will get him votes and I would wager that he has ties to some rehab companies too :)
 
No matter what it is like putting a band-aid on a cut with a gaping gushing wound beside it. And that is my point and why I find this sort of legislation nothing but the usual politics with no vision what so ever. He is only proposing this because it will get him votes and I would wager that he has ties to some rehab companies too :)

Ok, so you have nothing to say other than you disagree because the legislation is contradictory to your political position. Gotcha.
 
I happen to work with a lot of people who are on food stamps and have their children on free government medical care, when they also drink alcohol heavily(usually during work hours) and smoke weed(again during work hours).

And? People on food stamps work too. Should they be drug tested? How about people working for GM and other companies bailed out by the US tax payer? Should they all be drug tested? He does not define "welfare benefits" as far as I can see, so it can basically mean everyone in the country since every American receives some sort of "welfare benefit" either directly or indirectly.
 
Ok, so you have nothing to say other than you disagree because the legislation is contradictory to your political position. Gotcha.

No I agree with the legislation, I just find it not going nearly far enough. All he is doing is targeting people who most likely wont vote for him but for his direct opposition.. go figure!
 
No I agree with the legislation, I just find it not going nearly far enough. All he is doing is targeting people who most likely wont vote for him but for his direct opposition.. go figure!

Nothing but a supposition on your part.
 
And? People on food stamps work too. Should they be drug tested? How about people working for GM and other companies bailed out by the US tax payer? Should they all be drug tested? He does not define "welfare benefits" as far as I can see, so it can basically mean everyone in the country since every American receives some sort of "welfare benefit" either directly or indirectly.

No Pete. WELFARE BENEFITS. It was pretty clear what he meant.
 
And? People on food stamps work too. Should they be drug tested? How about people working for GM and other companies bailed out by the US tax payer? Should they all be drug tested? He does not define "welfare benefits" as far as I can see, so it can basically mean everyone in the country since every American receives some sort of "welfare benefit" either directly or indirectly.

Each company can drug test. And yes, why not? They drug test professional athletes.

If a company is paying for medical care, they have that right.
There are private companies that can and do fire people that smoke.
So long as they pay the freight, they have that right.

If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

.
 
Each company can drug test. And yes, why not? They drug test professional athletes.

If a company is paying for medical care, they have that right.
There are private companies that can and do fire people that smoke.
So long as they pay the freight, they have that right.

If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

.

I agree, but what I am pushing for is that if any private company receives any money/grant/tax break from the government that they should be forced to drug test their employees.. that should cover everyone in the US. That is a way to deal with the problem on a national scale instead of putting a band-aid on a small part of the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom