• 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!

Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how the right-wing makes connections sometimes, isn't it?
 
Rocketman said:
I think it demonstrates how corrupt that system is and requiring recipients to take drug test for benefits is not over reaching.
Click to expand...

Well, I do agree that it should be fairly easy to exclude those people who do not want to work from those who are just temporarily down on their luck. I think drug testing would be OK provided:

1) Benefits were raised somewhat.

2) The applicant didn't have to pay for the drug test the first time, or ever so long as the tests come back clean. Someone who fails a test will pay for their next test, and future tests until they're clean.

3) There was an exception for light marijuana use.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. The bombers are not accused of dealing or using drugs. They're accused of blowing people up and shooting them. Currently, there does not seem to be any indication that drug use led to their crimes. That is, there's no indication that they were sitting around a shabby basement, freebasing some crystal meth, when suddenly one says to the other "Dude! Like, you know what would be so cosmic and awesome? Check it, like, if we blow some **** up and killed some people, that would be, like, sick, man!"

They appear to have had other concerns.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, I do agree that it should be fairly easy to exclude those people who do not want to work from those who are just temporarily down on their luck. I think drug testing would be OK provided:

1) Benefits were raised somewhat.

2) The applicant didn't have to pay for the drug test the first time, or ever so long as the tests come back clean. Someone who fails a test will pay for their next test, and future tests until they're clean.

3) There was an exception for light marijuana use.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. The bombers are not accused of dealing or using drugs. They're accused of blowing people up and shooting them. Currently, there does not seem to be any indication that drug use led to their crimes. That is, there's no indication that they were sitting around a shabby basement, freebasing some crystal meth, when suddenly one says to the other "Dude! Like, you know what would be so cosmic and awesome? Check it, like, if we blow some **** up and killed some people, that would be, like, sick, man!"

They appear to have had other concerns.
Click to expand...


While I think drug testing recipients in moronic, based on the fact it seems a financial sinkhole, why would you make an exception for marijuana?
 
digsbe said:
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..
Click to expand...

Do you trust government completely?

If the answer is yes, then fine, this proposal should create no problems at all.

On the othe hand, if you do not trust government, then ponder this. That tax break you get will now be called a form of government dependency and you will be subjected to the same scrutiny as a foor stamp recipient. Welcome to the world of "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".

People that are willing to give up the rights of others often find they have given up far more. And defending the rights of others, even when a case could be made that maybe they should not get all the rights that good Americans get, will not likely stop there.

Just as an exercise, consider applying this logic to anyone who ever gets a dime from the government in any way.

How many people would be left with any rights?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
While I think drug testing recipients in moronic, based on the fact it seems a financial sinkhole, why would you make an exception for marijuana?
Click to expand...

For multiple reasons. The three most salient would be:

1) We typically don't test for alcohol consumption, and alcohol is more deranging and degrading to a person's abilities than is marijuana. That said, if we're going to drug test, I think we should be more concerned about heavy alcohol consumption than marijuana use, by a long shot. Heavy alcohol consumption is nearly as bad as cocaine or heroin.

2) People who are poor are under stress. It's a fact of human psychology that people under stress self-medicate. Provided there's no psychological addiction present, that behavior stops when a way out of the stressful situation presents itself. This is why I say the exception should be for light marijuana use. Someone who smoked a joint last friday night because they needed to have a little fun and some escape from reality shouldn't be penalized in my view. On the other hand, someone who smokes every day should not receive welfare.

3) I think marijuana ought to be legal.
 
ashurbanipal said:
For multiple reasons. The three most salient would be:

1) We typically don't test for alcohol consumption, and alcohol is more deranging and degrading to a person's abilities than is marijuana. That said, if we're going to drug test, I think we should be more concerned about heavy alcohol consumption than marijuana use, by a long shot. Heavy alcohol consumption is nearly as bad as cocaine or heroin.
Click to expand...

I don't care about it's damaging effects. What I care about is someone getting well fair benefits buying illegal drugs

2) People who are poor are under stress. It's a fact of human psychology that people under stress self-medicate. Provided there's no psychological addiction present, that behavior stops when a way out of the stressful situation presents itself. This is why I say the exception should be for light marijuana use. Someone who smoked a joint last friday night because they needed to have a little fun and some escape from reality shouldn't be penalized in my view. On the other hand, someone who smokes every day should not receive welfare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they can go for a walk.

3) I think marijuana ought to be legal.
Click to expand...

right, which is likely why the above comes off as one of those pot evangelist ideas.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I don't care about it's damaging effects. What I care about is someone getting well fair benefits buying illegal drugs
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I wouldn't find it acceptable for someone to take their public assistance and buy drugs with it. It's my understanding that drug tests are able to distinguish mild marijuana use from chronic use. If possible, I would like to also distinguish casual use of alcohol from chronic use.

My point is that someone who takes a couple of puffs occasionally, or who has a couple of beers, isn't doing anything that could reasonably be construed as wrong, if they are also asking for public assistance. I know engineers, lawyers, and doctors who smoke pot on Friday night and it doesn't interfere with their ability to show up on Monday morning with their game face on.

Someone who does a lot of either alcohol or pot doesn't need to be given public help, at least not in that way. I think for them, we can put them in rehab and under close supervision, bring them to the point where they have a job, and have them pay back the expense of their rehab. I would treat this as a one-and-done deal. If they fall back on hard times, they're forever cut off. They can go sleep under a bridge.

Dr. Chuckles said:
right, which is likely why the above comes off as one of those pot evangelist ideas.
Click to expand...

I'm not an evangelist. I'm not sure what you mean.
 
Rocketman said:
Feistein and Obama have said that, I guess it is ok then
Click to expand...

Really? Where did Feinstein or Obama say that those that support guns support terrorism? Or is this just more bs rhetoric since you got called on your bs remark.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, I do agree that it should be fairly easy to exclude those people who do not want to work from those who are just temporarily down on their luck. I think drug testing would be OK provided:

1) Benefits were raised somewhat.

2) The applicant didn't have to pay for the drug test the first time, or ever so long as the tests come back clean. Someone who fails a test will pay for their next test, and future tests until they're clean.

3) There was an exception for light marijuana use.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. The bombers are not accused of dealing or using drugs. They're accused of blowing people up and shooting them. Currently, there does not seem to be any indication that drug use led to their crimes. That is, there's no indication that they were sitting around a shabby basement, freebasing some crystal meth, when suddenly one says to the other "Dude! Like, you know what would be so cosmic and awesome? Check it, like, if we blow some **** up and killed some people, that would be, like, sick, man!"

They appear to have had other concerns.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate what you posted I can't agree because I am familiar with two heavy machinery accidents where the operators where high and two people lost their lives.
 
TheNextEra said:
Really? Where did Feinstein or Obama say that those that support guns support terrorism? Or is this just more bs rhetoric since you got called on your bs remark.
Click to expand...

What was the phrase Obama used about the right wing and their guns, it was an asinine statement and Feinstein is clearly trying to ban weapons that she clearly knows nothing about, we get you, shooting from the hip is ok when it is a liberal doing it.
 
Rocketman said:
While I appreciate what you posted I can't agree because I am familiar with two heavy machinery accidents where the operators where high and two people lost their lives.
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between someone who gets stoned at work, and someone who gets stoned on Friday night when they're not working, or expected to work the next day. Someone who gets stoned at work, in my limited experience with such people, is normally a heavy user of marijuana.

Anyway, the real point of my posts here is that I'm not sure what the relevance is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev got public assistance. Unless you think it was public assistance that caused him to want to blow people up, or alternately, that public assistance is given disproportionately often to wannabe bombers, there doesn't seem to be much connection.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think there's a difference between someone who gets stoned at work, and someone who gets stoned on Friday night when they're not working, or expected to work the next day. Someone who gets stoned at work, in my limited experience with such people, is normally a heavy user of marijuana.

Anyway, the real point of my posts here is that I'm not sure what the relevance is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev got public assistance. Unless you think it was public assistance that caused him to want to blow people up, or alternately, that public assistance is given disproportionately often to wannabe bombers, there doesn't seem to be much connection.
Click to expand...

it shows how corrupt and unaccountable that branch of our goverment is. No wonder people are flowing to this country in herds, our free living is much better than anything they have. It is sickening to know that my taxes support this crap.
 
rocketman said:
it shows how corrupt and unaccountable that branch of our goverment is. No wonder people are flowing to this country in herds, our free living is much better than anything they have. It is sickening to know that my taxes support this crap.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to see what kind of regulations you propose that would guarantee, in every case, that a welfare recipient didn't carry out some crime, such as set off a bomb or etc. Keep in mind, he was off welfare by the time he started taking any concrete steps towards blowing people up (presumably, anyway).
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm curious to see what kind of regulations you propose that would guarantee, in every case, that a welfare recipient didn't carry out some crime, such as set off a bomb or etc. Keep in mind, he was off welfare by the time he started taking any concrete steps towards blowing people up (presumably, anyway).
Click to expand...

Excluding Russian Muslims would be a good start, the kid's mother was on a watch list which was very telling.
 
APACHERAT said:
It obvious that they stumbled upon Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security website where they push welfare on to legal aliens, illegal aliens and terrorist.


Obama's Department of Homeland Security promotes welfare to new immigrants in government ‘welcome’ materials
WelcometoUSA.gov | Government Benefits
Click to expand...

It takes a lot of criminals to elect Obama these days:lol:
 
Rocketman said:
It is sickening to know that my taxes support this crap.
Click to expand...

I concur.

Being one of the 53% who actually pays individual income taxes, it pisses me off that the Obama administration was using my money to support terrorist.

I wonder if Attorney General Holder will have his goon squad kicking down my door in the middle of the night and arresting me for financially aiding Terrorist ?
 
Rocketman said:
Excluding Russian Muslims would be a good start, the kid's mother was on a watch list which was very telling.
Click to expand...

That would guarantee, in every case, that a welfare recipient didn't carry out some crime, such as murder, rape, theft, etc.?
 
ashurbanipal said:
That would guarantee, in every case, that a welfare recipient didn't carry out some crime, such as murder, rape, theft, etc.?
Click to expand...

it would be a good start
 
Rocketman said:
it would be a good start
Click to expand...

But it obviously would not do the job. I'm going to wait and see what develops before I decide whether the government (either of the State of Massachussets, or the Federal Government) should reasonably be expected to have figured out what was going to happen. They could not reasonably have been expected to do so while Tsarnaev was receiving assistance from the State of Massachussets. Excluding one particular group would guarantee no public assistance to criminals in that group, but where do we draw the line?

It's not clear to me that these are the sorts of regulations we should be trying to enact.
 
Rocketman said:
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.
Click to expand...

His mother can't come here because she is wanted on some criminal charges.
 
Moot said:
More like conservative terrorism considering how many are on social security and foodstamps that hate the gubbamint.
Click to expand...

At least people on Social Security have worked for it and many have served their country honorably in the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom