OT: Drug Testing

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

Florida is the first state that will require drug testing when applying for welfare, effective July 1st! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test the people who work for their money but not those who don't? (per Denver Post today-CO should be next-but who's paying for all this medical maryjane?)


http://www.newser.com/story/119958/florida-to-drug-test-welfare-recipients-under-new-law-signed-by-rick-scott.html

Governor Rick Scott signed a law this week requiring Floridians to submit urine, blood, or hair samples for drug testing before they could receive any cash aid from the state. Those testing positive will be banned from receiving aid for six months, though they can secure assistance for their children by designating someone else—who must also pass a drug test—to collect the money, the Miami Herald reports.



http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2011/06/02/florida-begins-drug-testing-welfare-recipients.htm

Florida has become the latest state to begin drug screening on adults applying for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction."

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-01/news/29627456_1_aclu-objects-welfare-recipients-rick-scott

If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

[Swedish Extrovert]

I really don't see anything wrong with requiring drug tests for things like collecting welfare and unemployment.

[CBF1]

Most of the work I do in SoCal not only requires a 10 panel drug screening but also a Department of Justice (DOJ) background check. I am all for this... If they ever passed a law like this, and enforced it in California, people would start rioting and getting down on the "Man"

[BroncoMan4ever]

good. if you have money for drugs you have disposable income and shouldn't get jack **** from the government. alcohol testing should be done as well

[Boomhauer]

http://www.wholesaledetox.com/images/products/quick-fix-plus-synthetic-ur.jpg
Some come with a chemical heat
pad to maintain it at body temp,
but if not, you'll need to buy and
rubberband a chemical toe warmer
to it = 100*F. Hand warmers run
too hot and will not pass = 115*F
http://images-en.busytrade.com/173412900/Toe-Warmer.jpg

[alkemical]

I'd like to see this expanded and anyone in FL that recieves state money (old people, students, etc etc) should be piss tested.

If you're investing in your fellow citizens, you should demand everyone's using the $ right.

[Drek]

I'd like to see this expanded and anyone in FL that recieves state money (old people, students, etc etc) should be piss tested.

If you're investing in your fellow citizens, you should demand everyone's using the $ right.

We should also start breathalyzer tests and on-site drug testing when entering a highway. After all, its a state funded roadway and who knows what you're using the state's generosity for.

[Los Broncos]

Most of the work I do in SoCal not only requires a 10 panel drug screening but also a Department of Justice (DOJ) background check. I am all for this... If they ever passed a law like this, and enforced it in California, people would start rioting and getting down on the "Man"

No doubt, just think of all the potheads on unemployment.

They would burn this place to the ground if it ever passes here.

[Los Broncos]

We should also start breathalyzer tests and on-site drug testing when entering a highway. After all, its a state funded roadway and who knows what you're using the state's generosity for.

Hilarious!

[oubronco]

It's about time this got started

[Pony Boy]

We should also start breathalyzer tests and on-site drug testing when entering a highway. After all, its a state funded roadway and who knows what you're using the state's generosity for.

I live on a popular boating lake in my area and on Saturday and Sunday evenings from 5pm to about midnight they block all roads leaving the lake and runs DUI checks on all vehicles. The locals hate it because we have to pass through them every time you go anywhere for any reason. I don't mind but what pisses me off it's it not about safety but it's all about generating revenue. What's really a hassle is on the lake they will issue you a DUI in a boat the same as vehicle so you need a designated driver to go wake boarding.

[jhns]

We should also start breathalyzer tests and on-site drug testing when entering a highway. After all, its a state funded roadway and who knows what you're using the state's generosity for.

Actually, the drivers pay for the roads. The people getting welfare are not paying for that welfare, which also makes alkemicals response dumb.

[AK Broncomaniac]

good. if you have money for drugs you have disposable income and shouldn't get jack **** from the government. alcohol testing should be done as well

I agree... I don't want my tax dollars paying for their drugs when I have a hard enough time making my mortgage payment.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Why do people complain about mortgage payments? I never got that. You knew what you were getting into when you took out the loan... that's what caused this whole economic mess - people buying houses they couldn't afford.

[AK Broncomaniac]

Why do people complain about mortgage payments? I never got that. You knew what you were getting into when you took out the loan... that's what caused this whole economic mess - people buying houses they couldn't afford.

I make my mortgage payment just fine, thank you... it's just a figure of speech. :)

[AK Broncomaniac]

I make my mortgage payment just fine, thank you... it's just a figure of speech. :)

Maybe you're just bored and trying to piss people off. I have agreed with you,smurf,from the beginning! I am not a big pro-welfare fan anyway. I was just implying that I would like to see my tax dollars spent more constructively,

[Pony Boy]

Why do people complain about mortgage payments? I never got that. You knew what you were getting into when you took out the loan... that's what caused this whole economic mess - people buying houses they couldn't afford.

I think they should drug test you before they approve your mortgage loan, especially if the Feds are going to bailout the lenders....... it's a slippery slope ;D

[Ray_Lewis'_Victim]

Rick Scott has a significant financial stake in the companies performing the drug tests. Clear conflict of interest.

[Swedish Extrovert]

I'd like to see this expanded and anyone in FL that recieves state money (old people, students, etc etc) should be piss tested.

If you're investing in your fellow citizens, you should demand everyone's using the $ right.

I'm all about cutting old people entitlements, but if they are retired, and as long as students are making the grade, this seems like useless big brother stuff to me.

[snowspot66]

How much is this going to cost?

[Swedish Extrovert]

Likewise, I would apply the same thing to the corporate world... if they're getting the job done, it isn't the government's responsibility to make sure they aren't hitting a bong every once and a while.

However, I do support OP... if someone doesn't want to contribute to the economic system, that's fine... just don't ask the government to help your lifestyle.

[ICON]

Pork Barrel Spending - The Absurd

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Total: $ 45,980,000

1. $1.9 million for a water taxi to Pleasure Beach, Conn.

2. $3.8 million for an urban art trail in Rochester, N.Y.

3. $3.1 million for upgrades to an 88-year-old canal boat museum in New York

4. $3 million for bicycle racks in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown area

5. $1.5 million for a streetscape project around a Detroit casino

6. $578,000 to fight homelessness in Union, N.Y., a town that reportedly has no homeless people

7. $550,000 for a skateboard park in Pawtucket, R.I.

8. $500,000 for fish food for Missouri fish farmers

9. $400,000 to renovate a vacant building in Jal, N.M.

10. $380,350 to encourage West Virginia landowners to grow ginseng and shiitake mushrooms

11. $90,000 for a shared kitchen for food service entrepreneurs

I don't care about what some crack head does for 12 mounts.

[Swedish Extrovert]

How much is this going to cost?

Piss tests are expensive... also, in order for it to be effective, they'd have to employ meatgazers.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Okay, so I just looked up Rick Scott... he made all his money in pharmaceuticals - doesn't this seem a little fishy that he would expand drug testing?

[Swedish Extrovert]

Pork Barrel Spending - The Absurd
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Total: $ 45,980,000
1. $1.9 million for a water taxi to Pleasure Beach, Conn.

2. $3.8 million for an urban art trail in Rochester, N.Y.

3. $3.1 million for upgrades to an 88-year-old canal boat museum in New York

4. $3 million for bicycle racks in Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown area

5. $1.5 million for a streetscape project around a Detroit casino

6. $578,000 to fight homelessness in Union, N.Y., a town that reportedly has no homeless people

7. $550,000 for a skateboard park in Pawtucket, R.I.

8. $500,000 for fish food for Missouri fish farmers

9. $400,000 to renovate a vacant building in Jal, N.M.

10. $380,350 to encourage West Virginia landowners to grow ginseng and shiitake mushrooms

11. $90,000 for a shared kitchen for food service entrepreneurs

I don't care about what some crack head does for 12 mounts.

Some of those are important... such as the study of Cows and greenhouse gas emissions. I'm as fiscally conservative as anybody in terms of ideology, but I'm not too concerned about pork barrel spending - it's minuscule compared to entitlement spending and some very important scientific advancements have been made due to pork.

[ICON]

How about we drug test and Breathalyzer those Tax-Cuts-To-The-Rich people? When (not if) they test positive, we take their tax cuts away. Seems to me this would generate a lot more money.

[ICON]

How much is this going to cost?Sounds funny to me. First off it looks like an attempt to further alienate, degrade and dehumanize people who need public assistance, more fodder for the class war and demonetization of the little guy. Wonder who benefits from that.

Second, if any one gets sent to jail behind these drug tests, I can’t help but believe they will be sent to private jails, and if there are no private jails there yet, the contracts and licenses for private jails are being issued as we speak. Which leads me to guesstimate that any monies saved from welfare, will be more than cancelled out all to the ultimate expense of the tax payer.

[snowspot66]

Some of those are important... such as the study of Cows and greenhouse gas emissions. I'm as fiscally conservative as anybody in terms of ideology, but I'm not too concerned about pork barrel spending - it's minuscule compared to entitlement spending and some very important scientific advancements have been made due to pork.

I can actually see legitimate value in at least half of that list. Some of the ones that seem most absurd are the animal studies but if you look deeper they often study animals that have a large impact on their environment. Like the prairie dog/wood chuck studies. They are a keystone species and as such there are a lot of studies devoted to them. Very interesting stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species

[Swedish Extrovert]

I can actually see legitimate value in at least half of that list.

Me too.

[snowspot66]

Sounds funny to me. First off it looks like an attempt to further alienate, degrade and dehumanize people who need public assistance, more fodder for the class war and demonetization of the little guy. Wonder who benefits from that.

Second, if any one gets sent to jail behind these drug tests, I can’t help but believe they will be sent to private jails, and if there are no private jails there yet, the contracts and licenses for private jails are being issued as we speak. Which leads me to guesstimate that any monies saved from welfare, will be more than cancelled out all to the ultimate expense of the tax payer.

Then there's the whole issue of managing that many tests, a system to challenge results, false positives, etc etc. Are we ready to deny an old lady her social security or a mother with children her food stamps because she ate a poppy seed bagel and had a false positive?

It sounds like a disaster in the making when you get down to the logistics.

[ant1999e]

Some of you people are ridiculous.

[AK Broncomaniac]

Some of you people are ridiculous.

Perhaps the majority... that's why the off-season posts are so entertaining! LOL

[Tombstone RJ]

I think it's a "fair" law. That is, anyone who knows my politcal opinion knows I'm about less government, however the government I do favor is one with "common sense" laws, and this is one of those laws. It's about enabling an addictive system/lifestyle or forcing some change for the betterment of all of society.

[snowspot66]

I think it's a "fair" law. That is, anyone who knows my politcal opinion knows I'm about less government, however the government I do favor is one with "common sense" laws, and this is one of those laws. It's about enabling an addictive system/lifestyle or forcing some change for the betterment of all of society.

If this is being pushed solely for monetary reasons I think we'll find very little common sense in this law. I expect costs incurred through testing and potential prison sentences to be far greater than denying benefits. If it's being pushed as a way to reform an issue (drugs in this case) then it will have to be evaluated later. My opinion is this will probably cause bigger problems than the ones that already exist.

[Tombstone RJ]

If this is being pushed solely for monetary reasons I think we'll find very little common sense in this law. If it's being pushed as a way to reform an issue (drugs in this case) then it will have to be evaluated later. My opinion is this will probably cause bigger problems than the ones that already exist.

let's see what happens first, let the results speak and if it sucks, remove it... yah know, democracy style!! :thumbsup:

[snowspot66]

let's see what happens first, let the results speak and if it sucks, remove it... yah know, democracy style!! :thumbsup:

That would be ideal and I would be all for it except for one thing. Politicians can't repeal it without appearing "soft on crime" and all that jazz. Michigan passed a law that called for automatic jail time for repeat drug offenders. Everybody loved the law and I'm pretty sure it still exists today. Prison populations exploded, costs went through the roof, and the problem wasn't even scratched. But the law stays in place regardless of no positive returns because to repeal it would appear "soft on crime" at election time. The man who sponsored the bill calls it one of his biggest regrets.

[Tombstone RJ]

That would be ideal and I would be all for it except for one thing. Politicians can't repeal it without appearing "soft on crime" and all that jazz. Michigan passed a law that called for automatic jail time for repeat drug offenders. Everybody loved the law and I'm pretty sure it still exists today. Prison populations exploded, costs went through the roof, and the problem wasn't even scratched. But the law stays in place regardless of no positive returns because to repeal it would appear "soft on crime" at election time. The man who sponsored the bill calls it one of his biggest regrets.

dude, get real, the law you mention is not related to this situation, no one's going to jail here brosef, they just can't receive monies for drugs and alcohol and such... it's so strange that some defend this as an oppressive law when in reality it's a 'I'm not gonna pay for your party 24/7 360' type oh law... we have so many... where's the harm in this... hmmm....

[ICON]

dude, get real, the law you mention is not related to this situation, no one's going to jail here brosef, they just can't receive monies for drugs and alcohol and such... it's so strange that some defend this as an oppressive law when in reality it's a 'I'm not gonna pay for your party 24/7 360' type oh law... we have so many... where's the harm in this... hmmm....

Public out cry the first time a murder, rape or child abuse happens from a welfare person who fails the drug test but is not thrown in jail will make not jailing people politically impossible.

[snowspot66]

dude, get real, the law you mention is not related to this situation, no one's going to jail here brosef, they just can't receive monies for drugs and alcohol and such... it's so strange that some defend this as an oppressive law when in reality it's a 'I'm not gonna pay for your party 24/7 360' type oh law... we have so many... where's the harm in this... hmmm....

They are related to the point I was trying to make. This law is going to cost far more money than it ever saves by denying benefits and once it is in place it will be damn near impossible to repeal. People on drugs aren't going to quit because they lost access to their welfare check. They'll get the money elsewhere and we all know that won't be a productive addition to society.

This law is about punishing people not helping them. You want to tie benefits to some required standard? Have it tied to mandatory rehab. That might actually benefit somebody. The law as is won't benefit anybody. Especially tax payers.

[ICON]

A friend of mine is on medicaid. She has been disabled since birth with cerebral palsy. She is in a wheel chair and cannot work. If her medicaid were revoked for any reason, she would be most likely be dead and suffer excruciating pain in the process. If marijuana were able to relieve any of her discomfort, I would make every effort to acquire it for her.

[Tombstone RJ]

They are related to the point I was trying to make. This law is going to cost far more money than it ever saves by denying benefits and once it is in place it will be damn near impossible to repeal. People on drugs aren't going to quit because they lost access to their welfare check. They'll get the money elsewhere and we all know that won't be a productive addition to society.

This law is about punishing people not helping them. You want to tie benefits to some required standard? Have it tied to mandatory rehab. That might actually benefit somebody. The law as is won't benefit anybody. Especially tax payers.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, I think the law will save the tax payer's money because I think it will force more people to work, yes, the addicts will flush themselves into the toilet sooner or later, but many abled people will instead, yah know, find a job. and work.

[ChrisToker]

Rick Scott has a significant financial stake in the companies performing the drug tests. Clear conflict of interest.

The revolving doors of politics. Aint it a biscuit. Did you know pretty much all 'elected' officials are taking part in this? Any one in the FDA worked for Monsanto, any one that worked for Monsanto goes on to FDA. How else would they get all the GMO's to pass swiftly w/out propper testing. Same goes for Treasury departmen. If you are part of treasury department you came from Goldman Sachs and vise versa. PPL still wonder why US is going bankrupt.

[ICON]

next up 11 Million unemployment will be tested for drugs.

[snowspot66]

Public out cry the first time a murder, rape or child abuse happens from a welfare person who fails the drug test but is not thrown in jail will make not jailing people politically impossible.

It almost becomes inevitable that they HAVE to be jailed. By revoking welfare for a failed drug test the government is admitting, on paper, that it is aware this person is a drug user and is breaking the law. If those people are not jailed and one of them goes on to hurt somebody shortly after losing their welfare checks you can bet there will be a huge lawsuit and an over emotional public fueling the flames.

[SouthStndJunkie]

What happens when all these addicts don't get their welfare money and then get really desperate for the next fix and start rolling people?

Most of these folks aren't going to get jobs to make up for the lost money, they will commit crimes.

In theory, I like the idea, but there will be repercussions that may be a lot worse than anticipated.

[Tombstone RJ]

It almost becomes inevitable that they HAVE to be jailed. By revoking welfare for a failed drug test the government is admitting, on paper, that it is aware this person is a drug user and is breaking the law. If those people are not jailed and one of them goes on to hurt somebody shortly after losing their welfare checks you can bet there will be a huge lawsuit and an over emotional public fueling the flames.

whatever, if you test positive for an illegal substance the state simply refuses to give you a check, the test is absolutely private, and the government has to write legislation to enforce it's privacy. It cannot be held against you in any future arrest. period.

this is how it should be done...

[ICON]

whatever, if you test positive for an illegal substance the state simply refuses to give you a check, the test is absolutely private, and the government has to write legislation to enforce it's privacy. It cannot be held against you in any future arrest. period.

this is how it should be done...You still on that trust the government to do the right thing vibe ...nice

[Tombstone RJ]

You still on that trust the government to do the right thing vibe ...nice

not really, but I believe we have a friggen pleathera of lawyers just itching for a fight...

[ICON]

not really, but I believe we have a friggen pleathera of lawyers just itching for a fight...

I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.

In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.

And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.

What’s in it for government?

How can government – and government workers – benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?

On what grounds can the government say to the people, “You need more government. Give us more tax money.”

Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources – acquired through their own labours – in order to fund ‘more government’.

However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other – some force that induces ‘disharmony’ within the population – an increase in crime, say – then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society’s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.

And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.

Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way.

Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply call ‘disharmony’ – societal disharmony; such as crime....

And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will, create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.

"They" just want more money! Well as for me... I'd rather give more money to the crack heads on Welfare then any more dang money for wall street.

[ICON]

live in poverty and deprivation, … be troublesome in school, … have more difficulty getting along with others, … have more health problems, … suffer from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, … run away from home, … get sexual diseases, … become teenage parents, … offend against the law, … smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, … play truant from school, … be excluded from school, … behave violently, … give up on education at an early age, … make poor adjustments to adulthood, … attain little in the way of qualifications, … experience unemployment, … have low incomes, … be on welfare, … experience homelessness, … go to jail, … suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems, … engage only in casual relationships, … have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.




But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes and power.

After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social consequences of drug addiction – and, of course, the victims themselves could clearly do with a bit of extra help.

And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers, more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses, social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners! – and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in all of these areas.

And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.

And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers, judges and bureaucrats who are part of the system itself; together with all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with this.

[Tombstone RJ]

I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.

In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.

And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.

What’s in it for government?

How can government – and government workers – benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?

On what grounds can the government say to the people, “You need more government. Give us more tax money.”

Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources – acquired through their own labours – in order to fund ‘more government’.

However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other – some force that induces ‘disharmony’ within the population – an increase in crime, say – then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society’s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.

And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.

Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way.

Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply call ‘disharmony’ – societal disharmony; such as crime....

And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will, create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.

"They" just want more money! Well as for me... I'd rather give more money to the crack heads on Welfare then any more dang money for wall street.

but I agree with this law brosef... governments benefit from lazy people, disenfranchised people (drug addicts, for example) and people who really don't care. they don't care about stopping their addiction, or their drug use, or drinking or whatever. again, the dregs of society will eventually flush themselves out while the people who want to work will work.

[ICON]

but I agree with this law brosef... governments benefit from lazy people, disenfranchised people (drug addicts, for example) and people who really don't care. they don't care about stopping their addiction, or their drug use, or drinking or whatever. again, the dregs of society will eventually flush themselves out while the people who want to work will work.

The new kid on the block has the muscle power, the organizational power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.

And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power to serve himself.

Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years – or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.

These governments just grows and grows and grows – not only in terms of size, but also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into every aspect of people’s lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing, stipulating, coercing – always to an ever-greater extent.

But who can stop them?

There is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top of government and at the top of government departments are malicious – coldly, callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.

[Tombstone RJ]

The new kid on the block has the muscle power, the organizational power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.

And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power to serve himself.

Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years – or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.

These governments just grows and grows and grows – not only in terms of size, but also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into every aspect of people’s lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing, stipulating, coercing – always to an ever-greater extent.

But who can stop them?

There is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top of government and at the top of government departments are malicious – coldly, callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.

not sure what you are ramblin on about here. we agree less gov is good, we strongly disaggree on the type of gov in charge I guess...

[ICON]

not sure what you are ramblin on about here. we agree less gov is good, we strongly disaggree on the type of gov in charge I guess...<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hYIC0eZYEtI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ICON]

By now, everybody's supposed to know that when it comes to survival - staying alive - you know, you have to be... you can't be too picky and choosy about the company you're going to keep. You know? Sometimes you have to cooperate with some kind of unsavory people: people you don't like, people you don't trust, people you don't respect. The kind of people you might not even invite into your own home. So, for that reason, tonight I'm announcing my intention to cooperate with the United States government. :wave:

[Tombstone RJ]

:wave:

:bs:

[gunns]

Sounds funny to me. First off it looks like an attempt to further alienate, degrade and dehumanize people who need public assistance, more fodder for the class war and demonetization of the little guy. Wonder who benefits from that.

Second, if any one gets sent to jail behind these drug tests, I can’t help but believe they will be sent to private jails, and if there are no private jails there yet, the contracts and licenses for private jails are being issued as we speak. Which leads me to guesstimate that any monies saved from welfare, will be more than cancelled out all to the ultimate expense of the tax payer.

Well you can get over it. Class war? I get drug tested. Most people I know get drug tested at their job. A low estimate of 50% receiving welfare are frauding the system and I do mean low. They do not needit. Besides it's so low you have to wonder how someone collecting $576.00 a month can pay their rent of $700.00. Because they are 1) working under the table 2) Daddy IS in the home and working 3) They are selling drugs they are often buying with welfare monies. Plus, when the media talks about receiving welfare, they are referring to Tanf, not food stamps or medicaid. No one is going to jail. It's a breach of confidentiality to turn them in. Save your tears for something worthwhile. I love this, it's about damn time.

One thing, if the welfare offices closed their doors today not one person would starve to death or be any worse off.

[sirhcyennek81]

The revolving doors of politics. Aint it a biscuit. Did you know pretty much all 'elected' officials are taking part in this? Any one in the FDA worked for Monsanto, any one that worked for Monsanto goes on to FDA. How else would they get all the GMO's to pass swiftly w/out propper testing. Same goes for Treasury departmen. If you are part of treasury department you came from Goldman Sachs and vise versa. PPL still wonder why US is going bankrupt.


...Hmm...


:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

What happens when all these addicts don't get their welfare money and then get really desperate for the next fix and start rolling people?

Most of these folks aren't going to get jobs to make up for the lost money, they will commit crimes.

In theory, I like the idea, but there will be repercussions that may be a lot worse than anticipated.


That is the argument? If we revoke their welfare they will become criminals? Really? Considering what welfare is and the expense of their habits (if they have one) they are probably already doing illegal ****...

:Broncos:

[SouthStndJunkie]

That is the argument? If we revoke their welfare they will become criminals? Really? Considering what welfare is and the expense of their habits (if they have one) they are probably already doing illegal ****...

:Broncos:

It's not 'the' argument, I'm simply trying to bring up possible side effects of the new law.

You make desperate people even more desperate and there will be consequences....it's a matter of if they are positive or negative.

[ICON]

Well you can get over it. Class war? I get drug tested. Most people I know get drug tested at their job. A low estimate of 50% receiving welfare are frauding the system and I do mean low. They do not needit. Besides it's so low you have to wonder how someone collecting $576.00 a month can pay their rent of $700.00. Because they are 1) working under the table 2) Daddy IS in the home and working 3) They are selling drugs they are often buying with welfare monies. Plus, when the media talks about receiving welfare, they are referring to Tanf, not food stamps or medicaid. No one is going to jail. It's a breach of confidentiality to turn them in. Save your tears for something worthwhile. I love this, it's about damn time.




One thing, if the welfare offices closed their doors today not one person would starve to death or be any worse off.

I discount your opinions when you assume so much.


Some assumptions are based on facts, reason, and experience, and others are based on super-stition, hunches, emotions, and misinformation. "Try walking a mile in there shoes before you make guesses about them."

[ICON]

Well you can get over it. Class war? I get drug tested. Most people I know get drug tested at their job. A low estimate of 50% receiving welfare are frauding the system and I do mean low. They do not needit. Besides it's so low you have to wonder how someone collecting $576.00 a month can pay their rent of $700.00. Because they are 1) working under the table 2) Daddy IS in the home and working 3) They are selling drugs they are often buying with welfare monies. Plus, when the media talks about receiving welfare, they are referring to Tanf, not food stamps or medicaid. No one is going to jail. It's a breach of confidentiality to turn them in. Save your tears for something worthwhile. I love this, it's about damn time.

One thing, if the welfare offices closed their doors today not one person would starve to death or be any worse off.

The question is: is breaking up the system the solution, or does it create more problems. Getting people out of their passive, welfare dependent, state is hard - takes government money I guess. However, without the safety net things would be a LOT worse for a LOT of children and adults.

Although I see the problems with welfare, I don't know what the best solution is. Although we may be "created equal" according to the constitution, we certainly are not born with equal means, intelligence or talents. I don't think that it would be right for a wealthy nation to simply allow people to die because of lack of food and shelter.

We don't have to look very far to see what happens when the welfare safety net is pulled away. Look at countries where there is no welfare provision. Look at the shanty towns, the crime, the prostitution, starvation, infant and child death rates, look at death rates in general. Yes, there are always generous people who will try and help but the majority of people are just getting by. They don't have spare money to give away or so little that it's a drop in the ocean.

Are we prepared to allow people from babies to the elderly die from the consequences of poverty? How will we live with our consciences if this happens and all because we begrudge the tax we pay to prevent it?

Is this a civilised society or is it dog eat dog?

[Cocaine Bronco 420]

Good thing blow only stays in your system for two days.

[alkemical]

Good thing blow only stays in your system for two days.

Party over here!