drug testing people on welfare rant.....

[_b.jaye_]

Depends on how much you like bathwater.

i dont care much for babies... piss, you were right.

[wingFeather]

I'm for IQ testing of voters and will vote in favor of such policies when possible.

That would put the Democrats out of business!

[AZhitman]

I'm going out on a limb and guess Greg's "Darwinist" comment was directed at me. Touche, Greg. That is a great point. I agree that people are very resourceful when they have to be.

But you didn't address the distinction I was trying to make between temporary assistance and instutional welfare. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also, we don't live in the natural world where you can just go kill a deer or grab fruit off a tree. These desparate people will turn to crime to survive and then will cost us more in legal expenses and incarceration costs than keeping them off the streets would.

Actually, it wasn't. But thanks for the props.

Temporary assistance does not requier an extension after 99 weeks.

And I said it before: PAYING people because you're afraid they'll commit a crime? WTF. This is what we've come to?

[AZhitman]

assuming we're to have welfare, should we restrict it to those who aren't caught using drugs?

And you're apparently perpetually and consistently unsatisfied with my answer: Yes.

To pre-emptively respond to your eminent progression of questioning: No. YOU give me a good reason why we shouldn't. I've already shot the hell out of all rational oppositions (constitutionality, cost, etc).

Any further opposition (much like you accurately pointed out in the GZM discussion) is irrational and emotionally-based.

[AppleBonker]

I'm for IQ testing of voters and will vote in favor of such policies when possible.

That would put the Democrats out of business!

Interesting. From this post I can reach one reasonable conclusion. I'll break it down. First, you are one of two things: a democrat, or not a democrat. If...

You are a democrat, you just claimed you have a low IQ which is not a smart move. This would allow me to conclude you are a moron.

or

You are not a democrat. This one gets a bit trickier. It is often accepted (though still argued) that institutions of higher education generally are left-leaning (and they may even be moving more in that direction). Now, one cannot equate those obtaining advanced degrees with a higher IQ, but logically it would seem there is some correlation there. Now, many people also believe that the lowest IQ level folks (the ones you seem to think are the common recipients of financial "handouts") generally vote democratic as well. This would leave the middle chunk of the population voting for candidates who are not democrats. So, the minimum IQ level required to vote would have a large impact on the results. If set to remove the bottom 20% of the intelligence spectrum, it likely would cripple the democrats (as you believe). However, set the bar too high and it would favor the democrats. Since there was no level previously mention, your argument is invalid. Additionally, you provided no data to back any of your statement up, which isn't a smart move.

So, either way I analyze this, my conclusion is this: you are a moron.

Or, could it be that my post you responded to was a joke, and you were replying with a joke (albeit a joke at the expense of one group of people) and I am just continuing down that joking path? Then you would have to decide if you should get your panties in a bunch over this post. It's a conundrum...

[Encryptshun]

Actually, it wasn't. But thanks for the props.

Much respect. But the king needs no props from the likes of me.

And I said it before: PAYING people because you're afraid they'll commit a crime? WTF. This is what we've come to?

Are you in favor of education and vocational programs offered to inmates?

[AZhitman]

I'm for IQ testing of voters and will vote in favor of such policies when possible.

That would put the Democrats out of business!

Take it to the Politics forum.

Better yet, don't. More substance, less bumper-sticker one-liners.

[AZhitman]

Are you in favor of education and vocational programs offered to inmates?

Only if they're self-sustaining.

I'm pretty critical of ANYTHING that represents "something for nothing".

[AppleBonker]

Take it to the Politics forum.

Better yet, don't. More substance, less bumper-sticker one-liners.

C'mon, I was having fun trying to derail.

Back to the topic at hand. I can agree that people using drugs should not be on welfare. My problem is to weed them out you have to test everyone. I don't like the idea of testing people (essentially an accusation that they have to clear their name of) when they have done nothing wrong. If you can weed out the druggies without testing everyone, I'd back it in a heartbeat.

[SullivanRacing06]

Take it to the Politics forum.

Better yet, don't. More substance, less bumper-sticker one-liners.

C'mon, I was having fun trying to derail.

Back to the topic at hand. I can agree that people using drugs should not be on welfare. My problem is to weed them out you have to test everyone. I don't like the idea of testing people (essentially an accusation that they have to clear their name of) when they have done nothing wrong. If you can weed out the druggies without testing everyone, I'd back it in a heartbeat.

its simple, if your on probation they drug test you every time you go in (or randomly if your not on drug offender probation) so how about in order to receive your check you piss into a cup? thats pretty simple, dose not matter if your white, yellow, black, blue or purple everyone gets tested... fair?

[AZhitman]

^ Yes. To clarify my position (and perhaps make it more palatable to the hand-wringing hordes), I would oppose SELECTIVE drug testing of welfare (or student aid) recipients.

All or none. Preferably all.

[SullivanRacing06]

all sounds perfect to me!

[AppleBonker]

I would oppose SELECTIVE drug testing of welfare (or student aid) recipients.

All or none. Preferably all.

Interesting. Mind elaborating on why you would oppose selective testing?

[crazspence]

and just to make a point. 99 weeks is 5 weeks shy of 2 years. and paying welfare people so that they wont commit crimes? no one is paying me not to commit a crime so why should we pay them? even if a welfare check is a small amount to get by but when you add it up over the couse of 2 years, its a s*** load of money. and that times however many people are on welfare = more s*** load of money. if we can even weed out a few of them with the help of a piss test then so be it.

i suggest, if youre caught with drugs (or whatever else deemed not ok) in your system, GFG, say bye bye to your 99 week of welfare, *in apu's voice* "thank you come again" yes im serious about taking away all the welfare for that period. there shouldnt be "well give you money once your clean again 2 weeks later" there should only be, you f*** up, now face the consequences. you can try again in 2 years. and of course regular testing would be needed to maintain your welfare. the moment youre tested positive, say good bye to wellfare and try again next time.

[AZhitman]

I would oppose SELECTIVE drug testing of welfare (or student aid) recipients.

All or none. Preferably all.

Interesting. Mind elaborating on why you would oppose selective testing?

The lack of a valid (and fair) selection method.

[AppleBonker]

I can agree with that as well. But you're ok with invading the privacy of those who have done nothing wrong, and that seems fair? Just clarifying. If that's your opinion, cool. I wont be able to change it. Same as you probably wont be able to change me feeling that method is unfair (I don't like the bad apples ruining it for everyone).

[Encryptshun]

Playing devil's advocate -- if giving up a known list of personal freedoms (including right to privacy) was an understood condition of accepting public assistance, maybe some people would think twice about enrolling in the program?

[AZhitman]

But you're ok with invading the privacy of those who have done nothing wrong, and that seems fair?

Ever get stuck at a DUI checkpoint? Ever wait in line to walk through the scanner at the airport?

You wanna fly / drive / collect welfare, you gotta agree to the inconvenience.


p.s. Encryptshun NAILED it as I was typing this.

[flohtingPoint]

^ Yes. To clarify my position (and perhaps make it more palatable to the hand-wringing hordes), I would oppose SELECTIVE drug testing of welfare (or student aid) recipients.

All or none. Preferably all.

No problem with that at all. We had random drug testing while I was in the military and it helped weed out several slackass Airman who had no business being in the service. I saw the random drug testing on all as a great thing.

[AppleBonker]

Ever get stuck at a DUI checkpoint? Ever wait in line to walk through the scanner at the airport?

You wanna fly / drive / collect welfare, you gotta agree to the inconvenience.

I have never been stopped in a DUI checkpoint or a seatbelt checkpoint, but I do smell what you're laying down. While a DUI checkpoint is, IMO, slightly less invasive I am still not a fan. I also don't fly very often as I find that even more invasive and I generally hate people that aren't me so being crammed in a confined space with them is about as desirable as castrating myself with a rusty spoon. Just because some rights have been taken away doesn't mean more should follow.

Encryptshun NAILED it as I was typing this

http://www.typingmaster.com/

[IBCoupe]

And you're apparently perpetually and consistently unsatisfied with my answer: Yes.

This is the first time I actually caught it.

To pre-emptively respond to your eminent progression of questioning: No. YOU give me a good reason why we shouldn't. I've already shot the hell out of all rational oppositions (constitutionality, cost, etc).

Because it's better not to pass legislation if we don't have to? You want the change; you convince me.

That said, only one of those was one of my arguments. The other one (the reason we have welfare in the first place) has yet to be addressed by you. Welfare is not a means of law enforcement. It is not a means of social regulation. It was intended to be a means to allow mothers to raise their children (something that's harder if you have to be at work). It was when we forgot about that origin that we started to bastardize the program, and allowed ourselves to come up with excuses for why it wasn't "working," when the reason it isn't working is because we're slowly dismantling it.

Any further opposition (much like you accurately pointed out in the GZM discussion) is irrational and emotionally-based.

...Unless that was you trying to address it.

For consistency's sake, let's at least agree, then, if we want to make it harder for folks to stay on welfare, that we're going to stop blaming parents for not being around to raise their kids?

[AZhitman]

Ever get stuck at a DUI checkpoint? Ever wait in line to walk through the scanner at the airport?

You wanna fly / drive / collect welfare, you gotta agree to the inconvenience.

I have never been stopped in a DUI checkpoint or a seatbelt checkpoint, but I do smell what you're laying down. While a DUI checkpoint is, IMO, slightly less invasive I am still not a fan. I also don't fly very often as I find that even more invasive and I generally hate people that aren't me so being crammed in a confined space with them is about as desirable as castrating myself with a rusty spoon. Just because some rights have been taken away doesn't mean more should follow.

EXACTLY.

You CHOOSE not to fly, because you don't like the "costs" associated with it...

Take a big whiff: Don't want someone knowing that you do a little toot-toot on the weekends? Don't apply for welfare.

BAM. Freedoms perfectly intact.

[IBCoupe]

I suppose it wouldn't help to point out a difference between private contracts and public services?

Before you respond: I'm not entirely keen on DUI checkpoints.

[AZhitman]

Because it's better not to pass legislation if we don't have to? You want the change; you convince me.

Tell that to our current administration. It doesn't matter what YOU or I want, all that matters is what THEY think is right.

For consistency's sake, let's at least agree, then, if we want to make it harder for folks to stay on welfare, that we're going to stop blaming parents for not being around to raise their kids?

I can't do that.

Here's why: Aside from the fact that you're getting the fairytale version of why welfare exists (and how it came to be), which we won't be discussing because that wasn't the topic of contention, the original intent of this rant wasn't to "make it harder for folks to stay on welfare". If we wanted that, we'd print all the forms in 12th-grade English.

The goal has been stated repeatedly: To withold public funds from people who use illicit substances.

[Encryptshun]

DUI checkpoints are there to keep the decisions of private individuals from adversely affecting the public. I am pretty far to the left when rights to privacy are concerned, but I don't drink and drive -- therefore I have nothing to hide -- and as a citizen who helps pay for the roads, I have no problem being slightly inconvenienced if it helps keep other citizens safe. Sorry, I know the DUI checkpoint thing is off-topic, but I had to say that.

[IBCoupe]

Tell that to our current administration. It doesn't matter what YOU or I want, all that matters is what THEY think is right.

So you're in favor of that, then?

The goal has been stated repeatedly: To withold public funds from people who use illicit substances.

And once again, why do you want to withhold public funds from people who use illicit substances?

Before you ask me again why I don't want to do what you're proposing, don't assume that I inevitably won't want to. Tell me why we should. Tell me what one has to do with the other, tell me why it's a problem, tell me what the positive result of it will be.

[Dana_15]

And once again, why do you want to withhold public funds from people who use illicit substances?

Before you ask me again why I don't want to do what you're proposing, don't assume that I inevitably won't want to. Tell me why we should. Tell me what one has to do with the other, tell me why it's a problem, tell me what the positive result of it will be.

The public funds (which were at one time partially mine because they came out of my paycheck that I work ridiculous hours for) could be used in a better manner. Maybe some of the taxpayers could see a better return on our tax investment.

Better roads and schools would be a start. I can't even remember the last time a City streetsweeper came down my street....budget cuts.

This might also be an incentive for welfare recipients to get off the drugs or stay on the drugs and get a job, either way its a win-win situation for taxpayers.

[Encryptshun]

IBC, I think I have an answer to your question, but first answer this questing for me: if someone's only source if income is government assistance, and that person is buying drugs, where does the money they are using come from? Also' if testsing positive for drugs can get you fired, why shouldn't it get you "fired" from public assistance?

[IBCoupe]

The public funds (which were at one time partially mine because they came out of my paycheck that I work ridiculous hours for) could be used in a better manner. Maybe some of the taxpayers could see a better return on our tax investment.

Better roads and schools would be a start. I can't even remember the last time a City streetsweeper came down my street....budget cuts.

This might also be an incentive for welfare recipients to get off the drugs or stay on the drugs and get a job, either way its a win-win situation for taxpayers.

Not sure that there's that much to be gained from this sort of system. Those budget cuts are done at a very local level, Dana. Seems unlikely that cuts to the State welfare system on an uncertain level (what do you do if nobody tests positive for drugs on the first day of testing?) would actually provide a noticeable gain anywhere else.

Encryptshun:
1. The public.
2. Because a job is not the same as public assistance. You don't have to do anything to qualify for public assistance (at least, initially - we have requirements in order to keep it) and you qualify for it based on your need for it, whereas you're only employed so long as you provide your services, and your want of a job does not guarantee you a job. It's a different kind of agreement.

[AppleBonker]

Given that most of the people who argue for drug testing would also be the ones to yell that we're turning into a socialist nation, why is it that the answer to the perceived problem of your wealth being redistributed is to strip some of the rights of more people?

Chad, you could also choose to work for an employer that doesn't drug test?