I don't know if we've had a thread about this before, but the debate on this is going pretty bonkers. Some say it's unconstitutional, some say "I don't want my tax dollars to help druggies!". The drug testing has been banned in Florida in the mean-time because it may indeed be unconstitutional. What do you guys think?
I thought it was blocked in Florida because the guy who wanted it did so because he owned the company that would carry out the tests.
Doing things at the behest of documentation that's older than Bruce Forsyth in places puzzles me. Do it because it's right.
Nah, he circumvented any potential ethics violations by transferring his stake in the company to his wife's trust fund. Done like a true weasel.
There shouldn't be drug testing for welfare recipients. But there also shouldn't be welfare. Simply having welfare gives people incentive to be unproductive and makes them dependent on it. Socialism is wrong. Forcing the public to fund other people's expenses is wrong, whatever it is used for. The welfare recipients get this money from the taxpayer, who is forced to pay this. If they don't want to, they are put in prison. Who says it's wrong to not want to have your money stolen from you for someone else's use? There would still be many charities and churches looking out for people who are in need. And the difference between them and welfare is that they are willingly helping the needy, which leads to better and more efficient help. The government doesn't do this. It just relocates wealth that was stolen from the public. When there isn't a system that people can manipulate and/or become dependent on, the whole country is better off. When a country strives for wealth equality, the country will be more equal, but it won't be very wealthy as a whole, because the bottom tier knows they don't have to be productive to survive. This leads to less production as a nation and the wealthy subsidizing the poor to stay poor. When a country strives for wealth accumulation, the country won't be equal, but the bottom tier will be a lot more wealthy because there will be more production going on, which translates to more jobs, higher wages, and an overall healthier economy. It forces everyone to be productive. The people that aren't productive are still cared for by the generous and caring. It's not a "let the poor or weak die" scenario like people try to spin it. Do you know why this documentation was drafted? It was made by people trying to escape the monarchy and tyranny of the British Empire. This is why they had a revolution. If this country still wants to be free, this documentation is about as "right" as it gets. The concept of freedom and safety from government doesn't change over time. The reason our country is so messed up now is because we aren't following the law anymore. The Constitution is being used as a suggestion instead of the law. When we ignore the knowledge of our founders, we're heading straight for the thing that they fought against.
answering the original question: Drug testing for welfare is bullshit considering weed is often times helps people with any variety of conditions and like shrooms are completely harmless (Though I'm not sure shrooms even show up on test.) So to test for marijuana is completely absurd. And on the notion that we shouldn't have welfare, I totally disagree. Having welfare doesn't eliminate the need or want of poor families to properly feed and house their children. I doesn't eliminate the want to strive to be better then mediocre. Speaking from experience, I don't make a whole ton of money. I've often thought about going on food stamps so when I'm not always worried about my car, or my rent, or my debt. I can take of that. There by putting me in a better position to maybe go back to school, get a better job and get off the food stamps, or what have you. I think most Americans are like me in that they want the best quality of life as possible. I think this idea that socialism will create mediocrity is plain silly. And on your point that using tax payer money for welfare is wrong, it seems to me (and maybe I'm generalizing here) but republicans don't seem to want to give up a little piece of their pie, be it through taxes or charity. They just expect everyone to have a job even though there are none. They just expect everybody to have healthcare even though they can't afford it. I Personally I think this country would benefit from a mixed economy and a little socialism.
This is without dignifying the first chunk of post there too with much of a response, because I don't want to get banned just yet, and as someone with relatives who are unable to work, relatives who have been screwed out of work for various reasons in the past, and who could not wait to get off benefits themselves once I was on them, it makes me very fucking angry. I'll leave it to someone else. Welfare =/= socialism either, but at this point I expect that from you. Of course I know. I'm talking about how people put their reverence for the document above all else. How is it infallible and right in and of itself? Why is it that whenever you engage an American on an issue it's not too unlikely that their first response will be "its unconstitutional!" and not an actual rational intuitive argument? It's the exact same principle as when Christians say something is bad just because the Bible says. I'm not criticising the constitution, I am criticising this attitude. You're welcome to your country, by the way. You'd think a couple of centuries would give people a chance to lighten up.
Just say that you don't give shit about poor people and I'll be satisfied. Relying on churches and charities to care for the poor? Even you know that's bull shit.
A welfare state is one attribute of a socialist nation. I'm not saying everyone who is on welfare is lazy or that they are justifiably poor or that they even take advantage of the system. But when there is a system that can be taken advantage of, it inevitably happens. Just look at our government being run by corporatism, for example. The Constitution is the "go to" move because it protects individual liberties, which restricts the government's power over the people. It is a safety against government having power over the people instead of the other way around. Everything about its original draft was rational. Simply saying something is unconstitutional is rational. If you want to separately pick out why it's unconstitutional and why the constitution is being rational about that particular subject, you can also do that. It just takes longer. Relating that to Christians and the bible is the wrong way of thinking. Edit: Relying on stolen public funds to "help" the poor is less bullshit? How? Is it better for the economy? No. Better for the poor? Better than receiving no stolen money. But better than having a free market that gives them jobs or having people willfully care for them? No. If you explain your reasoning we can debate about this more efficiently.
Question-why have we not been testing for drugs before putting people on welfare? Travis-You're generally right. I do not want my money taken out of my paycheck for peoples welfare and screwing me over. However I will and have (got on next week i think) do service projects and donate money to help the poor/other causes. Why? Because its my choice. Pidgeon-imma pretend that first post was sarcastically making funn of the cliche hippie Dean-you're not black, you can't say the N word lololol. I do love how everyone jumps on my penile when I post an unoffensive, clever, guess they were just jealous video but the mods have yet to say a word about that one.
First of all you can stop using "taxing" and "stealing" interchangeably. Anyways, I do not personally believe the purpose of welfare is to help the economy. It's to help the people. What would happen to the 40 million people who receive food stamps if we got rid of welfare? It would be chaos. I will never understand why so many people think that capitalism and welfare can't co-exist. If we hike taxes on those that can EASILY AFFORD IT, I believe that it is possible.
@handyman: lol its cool, I pretend everything you say is a satirical take on the average American redneck
What the hell was that for? You're on 2 points, lets not make it 3. Consider this a warning, do NOT do that again.
We can't really end welfare in the state our economy is in. But welfare also drags down our economy with the taxes it eats up. If we ever get out of this depression, then we need to look at ways to keep our economy productive instead of unproductive. Welfare destroys capitalism. It's pretty much the exact opposite of capitalism. That's why they can't coexist. They are conflicting systems. And I keep interchanging stealing and taxes because people need to realize this in order to understand liberty better. When you are forced to pay money, with the consequence of having a gun put to your head and kidnapping, that is stealing. It is against your will. You have no choice or else you'll be punished.