Drug testing for Welfare payments

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,926
Reaction score
62,759
Location
Ponca City Ok
I see a whole lot of philosophy in the preceding threads.
It started as a nuts and bolts.

I'm still amazed that some think SS and medicare are entitlements.

Both are deducted from my paycheck.

Had either stayed true to the original legislation. We would have cut out most of this discussion.

The government has never met their obligation, and the government has robbed the SS and medicare fund for years.

People, health organizations, etc have raped the SS and medicare systems on the private side.

Its my money and I want it back!!

The original post is, why should people getting welfare from the government teat, not have to go through drug testing like those of us in the private sector to maintain our jobs.

The most stupid reply is "change your job to maintain your freedom"

Ok, I'm going to give up a job that pays REALLY well, and flip burgers so I don't have to be tested and still use drugs? Stupid answer.

Like another poster, I was on the Gov teat, and was drug tested in a combat zone. Why not? The life of the soldier next to me may be the answer.

Drug/alcohol testing of those on welfare may prevent some child abuse if they are sober. They might want to take care of their kids? We constantly have news reports of people drugged/drunk that can't take care of their kids, unknowingly letting the 2 year old wander the street in a soiled diaper, while in their drug/alcohol induced stupor, or leaving their kids in a hot car while going into a bar or strip club.

Going back to commodities as one posted, would really benefit the farm people that produce them if it were actually bought from US producers, and not imported. I suspect a renewal of that program would result in imported commodities.

Back in the day when you went to the office and got your commodities, it contained real cheese, real oatmeal, and lots of healthy food.

The druggies/alkies in that same day sold them to buy drugs/alcohol, so that is not the answer.

What is the answer?

To reply to another poster.....Yes most of us read the whole thread.
 

J.P.

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
11
Location
Tulsa
Drug/alcohol testing of those on welfare may prevent some child abuse if they are sober. They might want to take care of their kids? We constantly have news reports of people drugged/drunk that can't take care of their kids, unknowingly letting the 2 year old wander the street in a soiled diaper, while in their drug/alcohol induced stupor, or leaving their kids in a hot car while going into a bar or strip club.
Unfortunately that's more along the lines of wishful thinking than anything....
Having to concede to a drug test is merely an inconvenient hurdle to an addict and not the life changing line-in-the-sand that some...many...may believe.
 

okie_gunslinger

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
Location
Ada
Despite how we feel about social programs in general, drug testing is an expensive solution to a problem that has been blown out of proportion. Drug abuse by those on welfare isn't anywhere near as bad as some of you would like to believe. The idea that we need to waste thousands of dollars a year going after them is counter productive.

As for social programs as a whole, I would agree that they need to be overhauled, but removing them wholesale would be a bad idea. They lend stability to our country as a whole. Even if it's not in the Constition it's still a good idea to have a social safety net that keeps us from falling into the same depths of poverty and crime that we saw in the Great Depression.
 

dutchwrangler

Sharpshooter
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
0
Location
West OKC
Come on Dutch. Military technology has come a long way in the past couple of hundred years. The founders didn't want a standing army, so we shouldn't either? I wonder if you could persuade the Chinese to give up their army. You're position is pretty much that we should commit suicide , because the founders could not have forseen the contemporary situation. Madness.

You seem to be forgetting one thing as it relates to change when it comes to those issues pertaining to the central government... amend the Constitution.

Instead of politicians constantly attempting to do end runs around the restrictions of the Constitution to justify their socialist programs... just amend the Constitution in the lawful manner to reflect those changes. Go to the States with the proposals and let the States decide on them as per Article V. Oddly enough this article of the Constitution reaffirms that the States are not in subordination to the central government but that it is the other way around.
 

dutchwrangler

Sharpshooter
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
0
Location
West OKC
As for social programs as a whole, I would agree that they need to be overhauled, but removing them wholesale would be a bad idea. They lend stability to our country as a whole. Even if it's not in the Constition it's still a good idea to have a social safety net that keeps us from falling into the same depths of poverty and crime that we saw in the Great Depression.


On the topic of the "Great Depression"...

http://mises.org/daily/3500


Then, if you really want to understand how it all comes into play...

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

If you wish, skip down to Part III, Chapter 7...


F*ck the Constitution? Safety above freedom?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom