Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 But the proposed change is talking about unemployment too -- which, while run by the government, gets funding from companies and employees. Since you had to have had a job to claim unemployment, they're going to try taking money away that you'd already paid into the system. In addition - drug testing isn't free, so where is that money going to come from?Seems bogus to me. From the millions they'll save by not sending a welfare checks to someone on drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 From the millions they'll save by not sending a welfare check to someone on drugs. touche sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 So you want to build huge buildings to house over 7% of the countries population? And how do you propse to transport those people to these huge buildings? And where are we getting the money to babysit all of the children of these people? If they report to the centers, some are dispatched to watch the kids, while others are sent out to clean the streets, paint and maintain parks and public use areas, hell, teach them how to repair some of the crumbling infrastructures that are in disprepair from years of neglect and we have a "free " localized workforce. Think back to the WPA of the 30s, An example would be the parks in the Niagara Falls area (Devils hole, Whirlpool Park ) were built by WPA workers. Each day they were given tools and a sandwich, work 5 days, get your welfare check, when it was all done, we had state parks for the cost of materials. The workers had a sense of ownership and accomplishment in participating in a project that they were proud of and they earned their assistance checks rather than just waited for it like they were entitled to it. Today, we have a society that feels entitled to have money dropped in their pocket, "its their right" fck em, get up, work , get check, simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 touche sir But I'm with you, I'm not sure if it's a good idea but something that needs to be explored. What if someone just happens to try a little blow or some weed at a party. There are people like that. Would it be fair to that person to lose their check due to a little indescretion? I guess you could request a retest after a specific perion of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 If they report to the centers, some are dispatched to watch the kids, while others are sent out to clean the streets, paint and maintain parks and public use areas, hell, teach them how to repair some of the crumbling infrastructures that are in disprepair from years of neglect and we have a "free " localized workforce. Think back to the WPA of the 30s, An example would be the parks in the Niagara Falls area (Devils hole, Whirlpool Park ) were built by WPA workers. Each day they were given tools and a sandwich, work 5 days, get your welfare check, when it was all done, we had state parks for the cost of materials. The workers had a sense of ownership and accomplishment in participating in a project that they were proud of and they earned their assistance checks rather than just waited for it like they were entitled to it. Today, we have a society that feels entitled to have money dropped in their pocket, "its their right" fck em, get up, work , get check, simple as that. the problem will be when Fox News starts scaring people by calling this (the new hot button) "socialism". that being said, i completely agree. my friends and i hike parts of the appalachian trail regularly, and we have been talking about the work force that built it and bringing that workforce back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 But I'm with you, I'm not sure if it's a good idea but something that needs to be explored. What if someone just happens to try a little blow or some weed at a party. There are people like that. Would it be fair to that person to lose their check due to a little indescretion? I guess you could request a retest after a specific perion of time. yeah, there is definitely some grey area there. for as much as i dont want the government intruding into people's lives, i think that if you are going to say to the government "i dont feel like contributing to society, i want you and society to support me" then you have to give up some rights... i dont know... that opens up the all-men-created-equal, undeniable-rights debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 the problem will be when Fox News starts scaring people by calling this (the new hot button) "socialism". that being said, i completely agree. my friends and i hike parts of the appalachian trail regularly, and we have been talking about the work force that built it and bringing that workforce back. I recall a documentary where they talked to some old timers about the WPA and the people that participated in it. Most said it was the best thing that ever happened to them and many went on to become successful. As someone pointed out, it would be painted as a form of socialism, especially if the "guaranteed welfare benefits" were tied to such a program. But what the hell, sometimes you look into the past and can see a solution, just takes balls to put it into play again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 The problem of handing other people's hard earned money over to bums who use the money for drugs. While it might be a good idea in theory, I highly doubt the cost/benefit would ever justify it. Not only would they spend far more implementing such a program than they would save by cutting off drug users, they probably never would cut off the drug users in the first place because there would be endless appeals and lawsuits and other b.s. I was able to deduce so much. I guess my point was, are DRUGS the biggest misappropriation of welfare? And if yes, is it only the illegal ones we don't want them buying? Are people on welfare also not allowed to drink alcohol/smoke cigarettes/drink caffeine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 I was able to deduce so much. I guess my point was, are DRUGS the biggest misappropriation of welfare? And if yes, is it only the illegal ones we don't want them buying? Are people on welfare also not allowed to drink alcohol/smoke cigarettes/drink caffeine? its not so much "drugs" as it is "illegal wares", imo every penny anyone getting govt assistance spends on drugs, is the government directly funding gangs, drug cartels, etc. (as opposed to the briefcases of money the CIA delivers them ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 its not so much "drugs" as it is "illegal wares", imo every penny anyone getting govt assistance spends on drugs, is the government directly funding gangs, drug cartels, etc. (as opposed to the briefcases of money the CIA delivers them ) Oh, I'm well aware of that. But your first argument ISN'T an argument given the reality of your paranthetical toss away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 How come we didn't think of this sooner? http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=10...LARSDCCLM_UNEWS I'm not a big fan of drug testing when it comes to office jobs (I guess for obvious reasons), but if you are taking money from the government, you should have to follow it's rules. Not sure I'm completely sold on it, but it makes sense... Why would you say it is not ok for someone who tests positive not to take gov't money but the same does not hold true for your employer? Seems contradictory to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 Why would you say it is not ok for someone who tests positive not to take gov't money but the same does not hold true for your employer? Seems contradictory to me. except that in the employee-employer relationship, both sides are getting something out of the deal. my work doesnt just give me free money. they are purchasing a service from me. so after that service is over, im free to do what i want as long as it doesnt interfere with providing that service. now, if i am contributing nothing to anything, and expect something for nothing, then i should be subject to whatever guidelines that benefactor wants to impose. its all about contributing or trying to get off easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 They can drug test everybody who gets tax payer money, as long as that includes all politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 They can drug test everybody who gets tax payer money, as long as that includes all politicians. Actually, I'd prefer if all the politicans were on drugs. They might do less damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts