| Author | Message | ||
     Fahren |
To clarify, Florida has bumped 60 people so far off the dole with this program (4% of a max. of 1,500 tested). All well and good. A lot of fuss for 60 people, yes, and a clear refutation of the gubnor's idea that way more welfare recipients take drugs than regular working folk. But let's forget about criticizing the gubnor of FL over this detail. Let's just be ideologically consistent. One isn't consistent when arguing for another government program, for more government involvement in citizens' lives, if on the other hand you think that government is the problem, and there should therefore be less of it. It just doesn't work that way. Less government means less interference with people's lives, period. To decide it's ok to set up more government if it suits your beliefs and opinions goes against the core tenet of "less government" libertarian thought. It means that if there are already methods and laws in place to punish wrong-doers, then you don't need to set up another government program to single out a specific class (the unemployed poor). Just do something basically for free, such as 2734 suggests, or do a better job policing all drug dealers and users. I'm not trying to argue with anyone that those sixty people should get their benefits back. I'm asking for ideological consistency and follow-through. Beliefs have consequences, and if you believe that there should be less government, then follow through to that logic to the end, and look an unemployed man who has been out on the hunt for months for a job who can't feed his family straight in the eye and tell him you think his welfare check is a bad idea. | ||
| 2734 |
Crackhead- I agree at some point enrollment in rehab is a must. Maybe upon enrollment in rehab suspended welfare benefits could be restored on a tentative basis upon completion of Rehab then the case is under scrutiny (like being on probation) for X amount of time. I know this all costs money folks but we are gonna spend it on these types of people in one form or another so why not use it to bring them in line with a law abiding and productive society? After all isnt that the goal of Welfare anyway? | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
Beliefs have consequences, and if you believe that there should be less government, then follow through to that logic to the end, and look an unemployed man who has been out on the hunt for months for a job who can't feed his family straight in the eye and tell him you think his welfare check is a bad idea. I was recently 'underemployed' myself for about 6 months. It sucks out there. I don't deny that. I never went hungry but had to do without alot. I understand helping the needy. But I would have absolutely NO problem looking that man in the eye and denying his welfare if he popped hot on a piss test. It sucks that his family may go hungry. He should have put his limited resources to better use then chasing his high. Never claimed to be a libertarian tho I'm most assuredly for less government. Notice I said less government not NO government. Let's just be ideologically consistent. One isn't consistent when arguing for another government program, for more government involvement in citizens' lives Except that it's the citizens who are requesting the involvement. The citizens essentially are going to the welfare office and saying "I'm incapable of managing my own life, please help me. Assist me be giving me somebody else's money." They have invited the government into their own life. If part of that involvement includes peeing in a cup, so be it. It's a package deal. As long as the program can run at or near cost I don't see that as an increase in government, simply a shift in government. Still not the ideal. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Isn't singling out of a specific segment of the population (dole recipients) just profiling, like the police stopping brown-skinned individuals on the highway? No. It's no different that a business requiring the exact same of its employees as a condition of employment. Why is that not obvious? >>> Where does one draw the line? When it comes to people being granted free money that is coercively taken from others, there is no line. You want the free money, then bend over and prove that you deserve it. You want to work for company xyz, you will submit to their drug testing requirements and rules on premises. Yes? We're not talking about social security retirement benefits, or VA benefits which were earned. That's a disingenuous point and I think you know it. We're talking about welfare and disability and section 8 housing, food stamps and the like. >>> No, I will say it again, if you think government is the problem, then don't go espousing more government. Get the federal gov't out of the helping people cause we know best business and you might have a point. Being poor ought to be uncomfortable. Being on the dole ought to be uncomfortable. It isn't. Being on the dole has become entrenched within portions of our society as something to which people feel 100% entitled. Wise up!
| ||
| Blake |
>>> A lot of fuss for 60 people, yes, and a clear refutation of the gubnor's idea that way more welfare recipients take drugs than regular working folk. Your conclusion is premature. The true nature of the issue remains to be seen. Come back and show me the statistics after a year or two. | ||
| Blake |
>>> if you believe that there should be less government, then follow through to that logic to the end, and look an unemployed man who has been out on the hunt for months for a job who can't feed his family straight in the eye and tell him you think his welfare check is a bad idea. No #$%ing problem. Where is he? You confuse unemployment insurance with welfare. The ridiculous extension of the insurance by the fed gov't is indeed a bad idea. | ||
| Blake |
I also have priorities, if big gov't bleeding heart types won't allow us to wipe out their big brother nanny-state welfare programs, then my only recourse is to push for strict oversight of such nanny-statism, the overa;l funding for which is MASSIVE, and all coercively TAKEN from productive Americans. Don't pretend that responsible stewardship and oversight of federal gov't redistribution of wealth is akin to wanting big government. It is no such thing. It is merely demanding that we hold big gov't accountable and responsible! (Message edited by Blake on September 06, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Well stated Mortar Man!  | ||
| Buellitup |
"....someone else has already said it best. So if you can't top it, steal from them and go out strong...." -American History X It's no different that a business requiring the exact same of its employees as a condition of employment. So I took off my hat and said imagine that? Huh. Me, workin' for you. Signs, signs, everywhere are signs. -Five Man Electrical Band (cover by Tesla) Come back and show me the statistics after a year or two. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -Rita Mae Brown (falsely attributed to Albert Einstein) | ||
| Billyo |
Drug testing is NOT another program. It is the policing of an existing program. If the government is going to take, at gunpoint, the hard-earned money of one person and give it to another person then that same government should make sure the money is not being used for illegal activities. Again, urinalysis is too easy to cheat. I can only imagine what the outcry over blood sample or hair follicle would be. | ||
| Blake |
Buellitup ... Trollitup. | ||
| Buellinmke |
I remember the story of a man that healed a leper. He could have blamed the leper for the leper's mistakes in life. He could have ignored the leper and gone the other way. This man was different, however. He was willing to help the leper. He cared for his fellow man. The United States of America was founded as by followers of this man that refused to ignore a lowly leper. The government of this country was founded with the intent that all people are created equal. The man that helps the lowly, helps himself and his country. It's sad that so many that post on this board put money above their fellow man. You would rather save your material possessions than assist a brother or sister in need. We're all from the same maker but only some of us get to spend eternity with Him. | ||
| Aesquire |
I have to take a whiz test at work. To get the job, & random, & after ANY accident. Fair enough. I actually pity the guy at the lab since I trigger better than half the tests with my meds. They never bitch, though, since I list them and they just run the checklists off against each other. I do avoid poppy seed muffins. Those Will get you. But I'll convert to Wiccan if they want blood. Take that one to court. No one curses ME!  No, this strikes me as an empire building program for big government. Lots of jobs on taxpayer money. How long, really, should we wait for the cost/benefit analysis to show it's worth while? 2 years? 3? Then there's the morality of the situation. Does asking for help make you a subject, not a citizen? Does an economic downturn make someone lose his rights? Who decides? If I can be turned down for food stamps because I ate a muffin and had a 6-pack the night before I applied..... can a unwed mother be forced to take birth control? Forced abortion to reduce the welfare roles? Sex out of wedlock is still illegal in some places. ( don't make me mock Texas's Dildo laws ) I have to agree with Fahren on this one. (though he picks some bogus examples to try and make his point. ) Libertarian ideals should extend even to welfare folk. Now you want to end the system and replace it with a better one, I'll listen. But I won't give you my hair. | ||
| Blake |
Excellent illustration Joe, but you make two huge mistakes in your logic. You couldn't be more wrong with your analogy Joe. One mistake is in assuming that folks like me who would rather not have the federal gov't as nanny state providing aid and assitance to those in need are not willing to do so on our own. We absolutely are. You see Joe, no gov't forced Jesus to minister to the sick and infirm. He did it of his own free will without any coercion whatsoever. The same is true of charitable Americans who abhor a bloated federal redistributionist nanny-state gov't. Another mistake is that it was exactly the corrupt bureaucracy that Jesus hated and that conspired to have him crucified that you are looking to guilt trip us into supporting. Oops. I thus throw the ball right back at you; why are you so unwilling to help others that you look to pawn the responsibility off on big brother and force others to handle it? You can't be bothered? You don't trust others to be charitable? Another question, with all the VAST amounts of money that such massive fed gov't efforts entail, how do you even begin to accept the inevitable graft, corruption, and fraud? The smaller and more local the scale the better when it comes to charity. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, >>> Libertarian ideals should extend even to welfare folk. That seems incoherent. Libertarian ideals oppose gov't sponsored welfare. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If you take government handouts, you are a subject and shouldn't be treated like a citizen. Don't like the treatment, get off the dole. Receive government welfare benefits, lose right to vote until you are off. It's a conflict of interest. | ||
| Blake |
Joe, I see a third fallacy in your logic. Jesus didn't offer ongoing handouts to anyone. Recall his parable of the barren fig tree? His teachings in fact were all about pulling your own weight so you could help others. He never advocated for anything like what we call welfare, ever. | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, as far as IF there should be an all encompassing welfare state with cradle to grave responsibility to it's subjects...? heck no! I'm pretty much in favor of limiting how much the State can mess with you. Constitution, limited gov. ..I'll take any positive step in that direction. But I think that changing the system to reduce the dole is just going to take time. Pity. We're dang close to the Euro- Social Democracies on the slide to ruin. Since I think we're stuck with the dole, let's keep it cheap to run. Limit how much it takes to administer. (oops! millions of federal workers with torches and pitchforks! ) Or, Ft_ might have it with limiting the franchise. Ft_, Interesting idea. Have to be sure that the transition between Serf and Citizen is easier up than down. Make it a positive social experience. Ever read "Starship Trooper"? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yes. I liked Starship Troopers. Once upon a time, every citizen felt it was their duty as a citizen to defend the United States both through the bearing of arms in military combat and through reading and knowing the Constitution. Now, the average citizen is just "gettin' mine". The one fatal flaw the founders left in the Constitution is the right for the masses to vote themselves largess from the treasury. They falsely believed that people would respect the Constitution as a "written word" document. They NEVER intended the Constitution to be a "living document". That philosophy is destroying and will destroy this nation. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
it is originally why only land owners, owners of capital, and owners of means of production were allowed to vote. because they were paying for the taxes. just wait until they let 'illegal' residents vote - the graffiti is already on the wall. Might as well have Hasselhoff dancing on the Whitehouse lawn - the crash is coming. | ||
| Nobuell |
I have no problem with the drug testing. If the testing catches 60 people and keeps them off of the dole, all the better. As a matter of fact, I was just notified I will be tested tomorrow. We have a random testing policy in our company. It does not exclude any employee. I am the Vice President and I get tested. | ||
| Aesquire |
Is the desired result less money wasted? Or a need to do social engineering? And those 60 drug addled people, will they now turn to theft or prostitution? What will that cost society? I'm assuming that 60 people either didn't know they were to be tested, or did and were unable to control themselves long enough to pass? Is that a safe assumption? While we think on that.... I'm going to go have a Coke, smoke a cig, and take an advil. By 3 different religions, those are all sins. I may have popcorn with salt and butter later. I know at least 2 of those makes my actions an abomination in the eyes of NYC Mayor Bloomberg..... | ||
| Two_seasons |
ACLU Plans Lawsuit Over Welfare Drug Tests http://www.news4jax.com/news/29105590/detail.html | ||
| 2734 |
>>>>>>And those 60 drug addled people, will they now turn to theft or prostitution? What will that cost society?>>>>>>> These types of people are going to do this ANYWAY. Like I posted " We are gonna spend money on these people no matter what" I say if we are gonna spend it then spend it enforcing the policies we already have and dont continue to supply these people with free money. Thats the ONLY way these people will change their lives. They will/cannot do it on their own obviously... | ||
| Sifo |
I took my annual pee test today. It's just the terms of the employment program I'm in. I also get to take a pee test anytime I'm pulled randomly, or whenever some idiot hits my bus. I can choose to not have a pee test ANY time I want! That choice has consequences however. Ironic that I have to take pee tests to earn my money, but others want to confiscate my earnings and give it away to people who don't want to have the same pee test that makes that money available. | ||
| Benm2 |
The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of Federal income tax, the top 5% pay over half of all income taxes. These are known facts. The preliminary Florida data - 4% of a 1500 person sample size. While stomping feet and demanding that the top 5% of earners pay more taxes, how can one simultaneously defend another similarly-sized group (4%) differently? In addition, that 1500 people tested represents what percentage of total Florida welfare recipients? If the 4% number sticks, I'm sure its at least tens of thousands of affected recipients. The earners - those paying their taxes - are not given a choice whether or not to pay. (other than emigration or jail, of course) So as a liberal - you demand that others pay without question, while simultaneously demanding that the recipients receive the benefits no questions asked? I - like most people gainfully employed - live with the fact that at any point I may be subjected to the pee/hair follicle/blood test while EARNING a living. That is IN ADDITION TO monitoring phone usage, limiting access to internet sites, and basic job performance criterea - like not sleeping at my desk. All of these monitoring activities allow me to work for a living. For those on assistance - all they have to do is pass a drug test. Pee in a cup, get a check. This surely would be the simplest job I ever held. If it's not unconstitutional for me to pee in a cup so I can eat, it shouldn't be for the takers either. | ||
| Blake |
I think they ought to institute poop tests. Anyone who can't make a big poop just can't be trusted. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ironic that I have to take pee tests to earn my money, but others want to confiscate my earnings and give it away to people who don't want to have the same pee test that makes that money available. And the people confiscating your earnings don't have to pee either. Blake, I have to disagree. I'm certain that many people we CAN'T trust are full of poop. Look at Congress. I ask again, do you want to save money on a program we both have issues with ( the dole ) OR do you want to do social engineering? I bet you the numbers come out, long term, to cost us more. We're really on the slippery slope here. First, we have a nation of Men not Laws. Since some, like the governor in the article, are not required to follow the same laws as his subjects. They both get taxpayer's money. Second, it's all well and good to say that if you want to get on the dole you must then give up bodily fluids, but where does that stop? Will you have to take a drug test to go to a ball game if the state paid for the stadium? Will the state require a pint of blood ( it's a GOOD CAUSE ) before getting food stamps? ( feel free to note the irony, as some insist the food stamp people should be income taxed, to give them "skin in the game" ) Will the poor be shaved to give "locks of mandatory luv" to the chemo patients? ( it's a GOOD CAUSE ) Will you have to get your lipids tested before buying butter? ( and yes, Mayor Bloomberg, the popcorn was good and buttery and salty. ) After all, tax paid healthcare? Gotta save money, be responsible to the collective. What Will you be required to give...... and why? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI03NcKBZaw&feature =related | ||
| Benm2 |
That's easy. The same pee test should apply to all government jobs. As far as the slipperly slope theory - Looking at where something COULD lead doesn't mean that action is not warranted. For example - if I were to say that electing Michele Bachman is the first step in the US becoming subject to bible-based "shariah law" it would be drawing a wild conclusion about what impact her policies might have on freedom of religion. In private industry - pee in a cup, keep your job. I really don't see why anyone receiving goverment money (as salary or handout) should be excluded. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I ask again, do you want to save money on a program we both have issues with ( the dole ) OR do you want to do social engineering? I'd rather ditch the program, but as long as Progressives keep it in place I want folks held accountable, that's all. I think the leap to imagine taking blood or hair or what have you is one way too far. They can have the pee back once it's been tested if they like. My approach is that it should be uncomfortable to be poor in America, and it should be very difficult to obtain government assistance. One should REALLY need it. My take is that the majority who suck at the gov't tit don't really need it or have behaved irresponsibly, so I would like to see much more stringent requirement in place to make being productive and behaving responsibly a more desirable proposition than gov't provided subsistence. For instance...  |
