For Puro and Kuzi

dutyje

Something on which we can finally agree:

(supposedly written by a construction worker and forwarded around the internet. That context is, however, irrelevant)

"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay check, I work on a rig site for a Fort McMurray construction project. At any time I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. HOWEVER, what I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Understand - I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt, drink beer and smoke dope. Could you imagine how much money this country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"

gmill880

H_ELL YES !!! That can never be passed into law  though as it reeks of common sense.

PuroFreak

AMEN DUTY!!! I said that back in the "Rant" thread that if they would require drug screenings for everyone on welfare this country would save BILLIONS! Good post!

kuzi16

agree? kinda...


i earn that money. I can spend it however i want. the person giving me that money cant tell me how to spend it. I can buy all the drugs i want with that money.... i just cant USE them. ( the war on drugs is a total different story that i dont wanna get to)

In a way the government is giving them money. once the check is cashed how can a government tell those people how to spend it? Its not my place or anyone elses place to tell you how to spend your money. ...i dont think those people should get money for being lazy, regardless of if they can pass a piss test. disability is different. I dont think the government should be giving money to anyone. the government cant cannot create somehting or give something out without taking first from other. thats the root of the problem, not what the people do with it once they get it.

however, I do see the point. why give money to people if they are gunna blow it on illegal drugs... on the other hand, it will cost far more money to give all those people drug tests that it costs us just giving the money to people. It would be just another layer of costly bureaucratic BS.

phobicsquirrel

kuzi16:

agree? kinda...


i earn that money. I can spend it however i want. the person giving me that money cant tell me how to spend it. I can buy all the drugs i want with that money.... i just cant USE them. ( the war on drugs is a total different story that i dont wanna get to)

In a way the government is giving them money. once the check is cashed how can a government tell those people how to spend it? Its not my place or anyone elses place to tell you how to spend your money. ...i dont think those people should get money for being lazy, regardless of if they can pass a piss test. disability is different. I dont think the government should be giving money to anyone. the government cant cannot create somehting or give something out without taking first from other. thats the root of the problem, not what the people do with it once they get it.

however, I do see the point. why give money to people if they are gunna blow it on illegal drugs... on the other hand, it will cost far more money to give all those people drug tests that it costs us just giving the money to people. It would be just another layer of costly bureaucratic BS.

but wouldn't it be cheaper if they fail the tests that they don't get anymore checks? seems cheaper. btw I think it would be a good idea but it would never work. I'm against welfare checks anyway unless there's a real need for one. I think it should be harder to get on the program and it should be more strictly watched. Turn homeland security into welfare security. lol

Jetmech_63

I agree with the drug test, but it would never work, unless you ran the drug test like the military(i.e there is an observer there to "observe" the urine leaving your body into the cup, its an integrity check). I think you should be, and prove, you are a US Citizen prior to getting benefits.

Luko

I agree with the premise...of course ACLU probably doesn't. I also agree with helping people get back on their feet, to a degree an within sensible limits.

I'd like to know what those who are against welfare programs would do with the millions of people currently receiving benefits. Sure, lots of these people are on drugs, lazy, just a drain on the system, etc. Lots more are single moms with two kids trying to make ends meet, and trying to figure out how they could possibly work and still afford to pay for day care, etc. Rather than making vast, sweeping generalizations - as if every single person on welfare is lazy - lets be honest that some people, despite their best efforts and intentions, can't make it in the current environment and they need a hand. If it isn't the government, it ain't gonna be anybody else, either.

So if you don't think the federal or state government should help a vulnerable segement of our population, let me know what alternatives you have. Or are there none, are they on their own? Society doesn't quite work like it used to. There won't necessarily be a village or a congregation there to help these folks through a rough patch.

kuzi16

phobicsquirrel:

but wouldn't it be cheaper if they fail the tests that they don't get anymore checks? seems cheaper.

its kind of a myth that most poor people use crack (or other drugs). Im sure a surprising few would fail a drug test. even if 50% of them did what would the cost be to the program? this breaks down the program to a case by case program. large government programs cannot handle individuals... just groups.

and the ACLU would have a problem with it.... then again, i sometimes have a problem with THEM.


and what is the cut off point? can people drink? what about weed? ...even for medical uses? I cant drink on the job but i can after work. If they arent working can they drink? and to what point?

j0z3r

phobicsquirrel:

Turn homeland security into welfare security. lol

You want people on welfare to have to take their shoes off before they get a check?

Jetmech_63

Yes, there are people who, despite their best efforts(especially in this economy) fall upon hard times and require government assistance UNTIL they can get back on their feet. Before i joined the Navy i was a cashier and people would come in with their paper food stamps and buy 10 packs of gum, paying for each one with a $1 food stamp, id give them their change and they would buy a pair of 40's with it. They have since gotten better and issued food stamps in credit card format. It's still a flawed system, but what isnt these days. It's usefulness is measured in relation to the recipients integrity. Drug testing IMHO isnt a bad idea, just one that will never take form. Just like mandatory proof of citizenship or work visa to be hired.... good idea, but unlikely to take form. It's left to the employers integrity. If you are unable to work then apply for disability, i have to qualms with that provided it's legit. I guess i'm old school in believing in a strong work ethic, integrity and doing what it take to succeed. Just my .02

j0z3r

Jetmech_63:

I guess i'm old school in believing in a strong work ethic, integrity and doing what it take to succeed. Just my .02

I'm with you there. Unfortunately, integrity and a solid work ethic seem to have fallen by the wayside with a large part of our society, I suppose it's another facet of the "something for nothing" mentality.

Bad Andy

Jetmech_63:

I agree with the drug test, but it would never work, unless you ran the drug test like the military(i.e there is an observer there to "observe" the urine leaving your body into the cup, its an integrity check). I think you should be, and prove, you are a US Citizen prior to getting benefits.

a pecker checker...but that may infringe on 'other' rights. I would guess its voluntary anyway. If you sign up for welfare then you sign a waiver of urine rights.

kuzi16

hmmmm

ive been thinking about this alot. i wanna say more but i have one foot out the door as it is tonight. Maybe ill post some more put together thoughts in a bit.

they are along the lines of :
Im against "a"
Im against "b"
but "a"+"b" = something completely different.

maybe you all can help me with the disconnect on it later.