D.T.W.A.

[Symmetry]

To be fair, NightStrike, your general position seems to be that welfare is ludicrous, so it would seem that you should also be saying that the idea of drug tests for beneficiaries of welfare should also be ludicrous. Have I misunderstood your general position on welfare?

It would also seem that recipients of welfare wouldn't be asked to pay back all the money they received up until they tested positive for drugs under the system you're proposing, which would seem pretty similar to at least one of the reasons you suggest for not testing bankers- that the money wouldn't be given back.

How about this then- any and all bankers working for a corporation that can be considered too big to fail (or would be elligible for future bailouts) should be tested for drugs. That way we can let them fail next time. In the mean time, corporations that employ such drug users can simply have tax rebates and credits withdrawn.

I'm not sure I'm really deflecting from the topic at hand, just applying it equally as a principle. To be fair, earlier in the thread these measures were accused of hypocritically attacking the poorer members of society. I'm simply suggesting methods by which these principals and arguments could be applied equally without accusations of hypocrisy.

How about we just let them fail, whether or not they do drugs? I'm all for letting bad businesses fail and good businesses succeed. Our country should do more of that.

You seem to have removed a fair bit of my post in order to reply. It wasn't so long. Does that mean you accept the points I made? Or that you just didn't want to acknowledge them?

But anyway- have we got to the core of your argument? Shed of all the hypocritical claims that you're concerned about the impact of drugs on the poor and federal money going to drug dealers?

Look NightStrike- just level with us. If you don't want federal money going to support poor people via welfare, just say so. Don't clothe it in ridiculous claims that you're worried about the impact of drugs on society, or that government money might go towards illegal enterprises. If you're not willing to demand the same of the wealthy, you will look like a hypocrite.

I'm perfectly aware that you don't want to see government bail outs of banks and businesses. But it is a fact of life, and it's likely to happen again. Other posters have pointed out areas of federal spending where government money goes towards individuals or even small corporations for support.

You have not advocated that any of those recipients receive drug tests. It honestly seems to me that you want a particular group of recipients of federal money to undergo a massively different test of worth from any other group. That would seem to be a double standard.

What I suspect, and I may well be wrong, is that while you dislike any form of federal intervention, you hold a particular dislike for welfare recipients and would like to see them undergo trials and tests that you would never advocate so strongly for for other groups.

[Phatscotty]

Why should we want to know if someone has drugs in their system when they apply for welfare?
Why should we not care at all if someone has drugs in their system when they apply for welfare?

[Night Strike]

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide welfare to the poor and should not provide bailouts to failed businesses. When was welfare established? In the 1930s. Our country survived 150 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free money? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

[Iliad]

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide welfare to the poor and should not provide bailouts to failed businesses. When was welfare established? In the 1930s. Our country survived 150 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free money? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

So your decree is that if the nation existed with a policy, that policy is inherently good.

America existed for a long time without people falling on the government for things like safety standards for products, for work enviroments, without government intruding into private businesses and decreeing the minimum age of workers, or setting a minimum wage, or all that socialistic nonsense about providing education to the public. Worst of all, it's how the government declared that people cannot make honest private deals and trade other people.

Because according to NightStrike, if the nation existed with a policy, that policy could not have been oppressive.

[BigBallinStalin]

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

Are you referring to me? How is my position oppressing the poor? How is finding ways to get people OFF of drugs oppressing them? Drugs oppress people. Welfare keeps people dependent. Finding ways to get people off drugs and then ultimately off welfare benefits them. It in no way oppresses them. What oppresses them is the belief that they can't help themselves and have to rely on the government for everything.

Alcoholism is very harmful to society and is very detrimental towards benefiting oneself enough to raise them from dependency on welfare checks.


Why not cut off welfare benefits if a welfare recipient averages more than 5 beers a day?

[Night Strike]

His position is: oppress the poor, less taxation, more laws.

Does anyone else see a problem with his logic?

Less taxation and more laws are polar opposites. You can't have both.

Are you referring to me? How is my position oppressing the poor? How is finding ways to get people OFF of drugs oppressing them? Drugs oppress people. Welfare keeps people dependent. Finding ways to get people off drugs and then ultimately off welfare benefits them. It in no way oppresses them. What oppresses them is the belief that they can't help themselves and have to rely on the government for everything.

Alcoholism is very harmful to society and is very detrimental towards benefiting oneself enough to raise them from dependency on welfare checks.


Why not cut off welfare benefits if a welfare recipient averages more than 5 beers a day?

Because unfortunately consuming alcohol is not against the law. Doing drugs is.

[natty dread]

Seriosuly though, for the people who are voting no, what qualifications should there be for welfare, if any? What disqualifies?

None at all. Everyone should receive it.

Because unfortunately consuming alcohol is not against the law. Doing drugs is.

Here is Night Strike's argument in a nut shell:

Drugs are bad because they're illegal.
Drugs are illegal because they're bad.

(repeat x ∞)

Also, I find it INFINITELY funny that the person who is all about "getting the guvmint off our backs" on every other thread is saying Alcohol is "UNFORTUNATELY LEGAL". In other words, the person who's all about "the guvmint butting off and letting us do what we please" wants the government to MAKE ALCOHOL ILLEGAL.

Hypocrite much?

[Symmetry]

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide welfare to the poor and should not provide bailouts to failed businesses. When was welfare established? In the 1930s. Our country survived 150 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free money? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

I think we already know your opinions on this, and you're quite right that you're repeating things you've already said. This is repetitive rhetoric. Even the questions you ask are rhetorical.

I'm asking you to level with me on the drug tests point. It's really not about drug tests, and that's been increasingly clear as you've evaded questions, repeated the same old answers as if we didn't understand your position by now, and selectively edited out points of posts that suggest hypocrisy.

It's taken a lot of pages of posting to chase you down to this. When you argue in favour of drug testing for welfare recipients as if it's out of concern for whatever variety of things when really what you're thinking is that welfare itself is wrong, you're being a hypocrite. You believe one thing and say another.

You're not in favour of welfare recipients having drug tests because you think it's a good policy towards drug users, but rather as a means to reduce the number of welfare recipients in the hope that at some point it reaches zero.

Confronted with the idea that that drug use policy might be applied to other recipients of federal money, you've been massively evasive and keep repeating the same set of points in different forms as if you're actually replying to anything another poster has written.

We get it, NS, we know that you don't like money from the federal gov going to anyone- the poor or bankers. That's not why we think you're a hypocrite. You're a hypocrite for demanding that different standards be applied to the poor who receive federal money while claiming to be against it all equally.

[Night Strike]

So I'm a hypocrite for believing that the government should not provide welfare yet believe that the welfare that is provided should come with strings attached to it?? It's called putting effective limits on the program. You have to first start putting limits on programs before you can completely remove them because our country has become so dependent upon the government for everything. If we can stop giving welfare money to people who use drugs, then we start getting some people off of welfare (both saving money and stop feeding their addictions). Why do you support limitless access to free money? That money has to come from somewhere, so if we have to have the program, I want as few dollars spent on it as possible. If a twenty dollar urine test can save one thousand dollars per month (or however much recipients get), then it's obviously a huge pay off. Even if only a small percentage of welfare recipients use drugs. And not only does our country improve fiscally, but that person also has the chance to improve himself because his drug money will be cut off.

You can't compare this scenario to companies that received bailouts because the money went to a business that cannot be drug tested. A person on welfare can be. Are you going to test every single employee and shareholder that received the bailout? And even if you did, where would the money savings come from? The bailouts were (supposedly/hopefully) a one-time spending, not a monthly check from the government that is still being sent. I have never once advocated that a person who tests positive has to pay the past money back: they just lose the ability to get future money for a set amount of time (if not forever). So trying to apply this to companies is a false argument, which is why it's not relevant to this discussion.

[Night Strike]

Also, I find it INFINITELY funny that the person who is all about "getting the guvmint off our backs" on every other thread is saying Alcohol is "UNFORTUNATELY LEGAL". In other words, the person who's all about "the guvmint butting off and letting us do what we please" wants the government to MAKE ALCOHOL ILLEGAL.

Hypocrite much?

And I find it infinitely funny that someone who continually cries that women should have limitless access to abortions believes that everyone must also be forced into a government health care plan instead of making their own medical decisions. Yet that position isn't hypocritical?



And I believe it's unfortunate that alcohol is around because it destroys people and families. In many people, it contributes to violence, depression, early death, and violent murders via drunk driving. The government's roll is to protect innocent lives, and I believe alcohol contributes to harm to many innocent individuals. But I know it's not going away (unless society somehow becomes wiser), so I would never push for laws against its consumption. I just do my part by not being around people who are drunk and it will never be allowed in the place I live, and I will most likely never frequent a house where it is present. I despise the smell of it and what it does to people (making them stupider than they already are), so I choose to have no part of it in my life. I wish more people would choose to do the same, but I know they won't.

[natty dread]

And I find it infinitely funny that someone who continually cries that women should have limitless access to abortions believes that everyone must also be forced into a government health care plan instead of making their own medical decisions.

You're being stupid.

Frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck if you want to keep paying insurance companies to f*ck you over. I already live in a country with universal healthcare, and I do get to make my own medical decisions. How about that.

[natty dread]

So I'm a hypocrite for believing that the government should not provide welfare

Yes.

You want to demolish modern society and go back to caveman times where each cave fends the dinosaurs off for themselves. That's fine, but the rest of us don't.

It's called putting effective limits on the program. You have to first start putting limits on programs before you can completely remove them because our country has become so dependent upon the government for everything.

Face it, in the modern world you are dependent on the society around you.

150 years ago, people may not have needed social security or welfare or such, but times are different now. If you simply cut off all money from the poor and unemployed, they're not going to be able to survive. This will be detrimental to the society as a whole.

If we can stop giving welfare money to people who use drugs, then we start getting some people off of welfare (both saving money and stop feeding their addictions).

No, silly. Then you'll get:

a) a huge amount of drug addicts turning to crime to support their habits, and diseases spreading because people can't pay for housing, food, etc.
b) people who simply smoke some weed now and then turning to drug addicts and ending up as the people in part (a)
c) you'll end up paying more money due to the long-term effects of (a) and (b)

Why do you support limitless access to free money? That money has to come from somewhere

Because there are not enough jobs for everyone, and there never can be. The ones without jobs need some money to survive, and that money has to come from somewhere. The government can just as well distribute the money, so at least everyone has to pitch in equally to pay for it.

so if we have to have the program, I want as few dollars spent on it as possible.

Ok, so basically you're favoring cutting spending by saying "let's cut the money of Group A so we only have to pay Group B". How about if Group A = black people and Group B = white people? Is it still ok in your view?

If a twenty dollar urine test can save one thousand dollars per month (or however much recipients get), then it's obviously a huge pay off.

Yay, more of the childishly naive over-simplified rhetoric we've come to expect from Nightstrike.

In actuality, cutting off the welfare from people who can't pass a drug test will be more expensive in the long run.

Also, have you considered that false positives are common in drug tests. Taking cough medicine, or a million other things, can cause a false positive in drug tests. What do you do when someone loses his only source of income due to a false positive in a drug test?

Also, you can easily cheat on drug tests. There are websites selling realistic looking prosthetic penises that have a container for urine, which can be used to give someone else's urine in a drug test. Effectively, the smart drug users, the ones who're really "playing" the system, won't get caught.

You can't compare this scenario to companies that received bailouts because the money went to a business that cannot be drug tested

OH HOW CONVENIENT.

And yes, that's hypocritical, no matter how you try to twist it.

business that cannot be drug tested. A person on welfare can be

So, you attack the weaker group because you know you don't stand a chance against the stronger. You're a typical schoolyard bully.

[BigBallinStalin]

You can't compare this scenario to companies that received bailouts because the money went to a business that cannot be drug tested. A person on welfare can be. Are you going to test every single employee and shareholder that received the bailout? And even if you did, where would the money savings come from? The bailouts were (supposedly/hopefully) a one-time spending, not a monthly check from the government that is still being sent. I have never once advocated that a person who tests positive has to pay the past money back: they just lose the ability to get future money for a set amount of time (if not forever). So trying to apply this to companies is a false argument, which is why it's not relevant to this discussion.

Test random top- and middle- managers and test the owners (the owners of significant portions of shares). They make nearly all of the big decisions. Problem solved.

If they test positive, then halt the flow of government money, which isn't just bailouts. There's plenty to cut to them, and that company becomes blacklisted, so future government funds won't be provided (which would also be another benefit).



It bears repeating the question: Why test for drugs? Does consuming a few illegal drugs make someone an unproductive person? A bad person? Etc.

Your argument that certain groups of people must be tested for consuming illicit drugs because those drugs are illegal fails to address the issue of whether or not being held to the standards of a drug test makes someone a better person (financially). You need to show that consuming enough drugs, which will test positive for a test (i.e. a very, very small amount of consuming an illegal substance), inevitably leads to an unproductive life--a life which can't escape poverty, a life on which money is wasted.



((Besides, if you really wanted to lift people from poverty, or help people with serious drug problems, then you should advocate legalizing drugs, so that the prices drop significantly and the quality--namely, safety/purity--increases significantly.))

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, I find it INFINITELY funny that the person who is all about "getting the guvmint off our backs" on every other thread is saying Alcohol is "UNFORTUNATELY LEGAL". In other words, the person who's all about "the guvmint butting off and letting us do what we please" wants the government to MAKE ALCOHOL ILLEGAL.

Hypocrite much?

And I find it infinitely funny that someone who continually cries that women should have limitless access to abortions believes that everyone must also be forced into a government health care plan instead of making their own medical decisions. Yet that position isn't hypocritical?



And I believe it's unfortunate that alcohol is around because it destroys people and families. In many people, it contributes to violence, depression, early death, and violent murders via drunk driving. The government's roll is to protect innocent lives, and I believe alcohol contributes to harm to many innocent individuals. But I know it's not going away (unless society somehow becomes wiser), so I would never push for laws against its consumption. I just do my part by not being around people who are drunk and it will never be allowed in the place I live, and I will most likely never frequent a house where it is present. I despise the smell of it and what it does to people (making them stupider than they already are), so I choose to have no part of it in my life. I wish more people would choose to do the same, but I know they won't.

let me finish that for you:

"..., but I know they won't; however, if they consume illegal drugs, then I will contradict my earlier standpoints (e.g. "I know it's not going away..., so I would never push for laws against its consumption) by boldly declaring that those who do illegal drugs and receive welfare must be tested, in order to 1) curb their consumption of illegal drugs, which would somehow lift them from poverty--ignoring other significant factors other than drug consumption, and because 2) drugs are illegal. <folds harms>

_________________________________________________________________________________________

As you stated earlier, certain poor people should be tested for drugs because drugs are illegal. So, why not administer random drug tests for all American citizens? At some point, every citizen relies on state-provided services, and since you don't want people's money to be used on problems caused by drugs (like drug-related or drug-influenced crimes), then why let those who contribute to the drug problem go scot free? They should be tested! Because drugs are illegal! And because taxes shouldn't be spent on the off-chance of supporting the consumption of illegal drugs!!

In other words, why only drug test welfare recipients? Medicaid (which partly is welfare), unemployment insurance, and actual welfare accounted for about 16.8% of the 2007 US budget. Why not drug test recipients of Medicare and/or Social Security, which is 36.7% of the 2007 US budget? We can't have that tax money being spent on illegal drugs, now can we?

[GreecePwns]

So the logic is, if America survived without something for a long time, it's better we not have it at all.

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide freedom to the slaves and should not provide equal rights to African-Americans in the 60s. When were Civil Rights established? In the 1960s. Our country survived 180 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free voting? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

Night Strike is totally down with this based on this logic.

[Iliad]

So the logic is, if America survived without something for a long time, it's better we not have it at all.

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide freedom to the slaves and should not provide equal rights to African-Americans in the 60s. When were Civil Rights established? In the 1960s. Our country survived 180 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free voting? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

Night Strike is totally down with this based on this logic.

I've already mentioned that, but that was promptly ignored.

[BigBallinStalin]

So the logic is, if America survived without something for a long time, it's better we not have it at all.

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide freedom to the slaves and should not provide equal rights to African-Americans in the 60s. When were Civil Rights established? In the 1960s. Our country survived 180 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free voting? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

Night Strike is totally down with this based on this logic.

I've already mentioned that, but that was promptly ignored.

If we started a thread on Things That Night Strike Ignores, how many pages could we gather?

[natty dread]

If we started a thread on Things That Night Strike Ignores, how many pages could we gather?

It's a trick question - no matter how many pages we'd gather, Night Strike would ignore them all.

[GreecePwns]

In other words, infinity

[Night Strike]

FYI: I ignore parts of posts because they're inane and irrelevant to the topic actually being discussed.

So I'm a hypocrite for believing that the government should not provide welfare

Yes.

You want to demolish modern society and go back to caveman times where each cave fends the dinosaurs off for themselves. That's fine, but the rest of us don't.

I didn't know the US consisted of a bunch of cavemen in the 1920s. In fact, weren't those times called the "Roaring 20s" because of the drastic increases in the economy and standards of living? I'm glad we can debate facts and not hyperbole.

It's called putting effective limits on the program. You have to first start putting limits on programs before you can completely remove them because our country has become so dependent upon the government for everything.

Face it, in the modern world you are dependent on the society around you.

150 years ago, people may not have needed social security or welfare or such, but times are different now. If you simply cut off all money from the poor and unemployed, they're not going to be able to survive. This will be detrimental to the society as a whole.

Times are different now because people have been trained to think that the government's job is to provide everything for them. Get rid of that false line of thinking and there won't be a need for social security or welfare. Remember, when Social Security passed (and maybe welfare, I don't remember), the Supreme Court was going to rule it as unconstitutional but bowed to political pressures. Just because someone can push it politically, even through the courts, doesn't automatically mean it's how our country should be run. And more so, why are you even interested in how our country runs our own domestic programs? You don't reside in America, so why don't you butt out?

Why do you support limitless access to free money? That money has to come from somewhere

Because there are not enough jobs for everyone, and there never can be. The ones without jobs need some money to survive, and that money has to come from somewhere. The government can just as well distribute the money, so at least everyone has to pitch in equally to pay for it.

Then let those people get the money from friends and charities. Or even make money on their own by starting their own businesses. Limitless welfare causes people to lose their creativity to earn money or develop products. If you want a safety net for people, although them to collect money for up to 6 months (or some other arbitrary length of time). But there is absolutely no reason we should keep paying them money for life.

so if we have to have the program, I want as few dollars spent on it as possible.

Ok, so basically you're favoring cutting spending by saying "let's cut the money of Group A so we only have to pay Group B". How about if Group A = black people and Group B = white people? Is it still ok in your view?

Figures race would become involved, because that's the only issue that can be brought up by the left. So in essence, you're equating someone's race with the willful choice of doing drugs. Yep, really honest debate there.

Also, have you considered that false positives are common in drug tests. Taking cough medicine, or a million other things, can cause a false positive in drug tests. What do you do when someone loses his only source of income due to a false positive in a drug test?

Run two tests on each positive result. Require a 2nd test 1 week after the 1st test if there is a positive. Institute a warning 1 month and then cut off funds the 2nd month if test positive again. Just because there is the occasional false positive doesn't mean you throw out the whole system.

Also, you can easily cheat on drug tests. There are websites selling realistic looking prosthetic penises that have a container for urine, which can be used to give someone else's urine in a drug test. Effectively, the smart drug users, the ones who're really "playing" the system, won't get caught.

Then if those people get caught, you institute stiff penalties on them, including jail time and a lifetime ban from receiving welfare. If people who test positive become clean, I'm ok with them returning to getting welfare money (as long as they're still looking for jobs). But if they cheat the system, they should be banned for life.

You can't compare this scenario to companies that received bailouts because the money went to a business that cannot be drug tested

OH HOW CONVENIENT.

And yes, that's hypocritical, no matter how you try to twist it.

business that cannot be drug tested. A person on welfare can be

So, you attack the weaker group because you know you don't stand a chance against the stronger. You're a typical schoolyard bully.

You sure do enjoy comparing apples to oranges in order to call me a hypocrite.

So the logic is, if America survived without something for a long time, it's better we not have it at all.

I need to level with you? I've already posted that the federal government should not provide freedom to the slaves and should not provide equal rights to African-Americans in the 60s. When were Civil Rights established? In the 1960s. Our country survived 180 years without it, yet now we're being oppressive when we say that the government should not be handing out free voting? It's sad how far our people have fallen to believe that we must rely on the government for everything we need.

Night Strike is totally down with this based on this logic.

So now welfare is a right? And I really don't appreciate you turning my comments about welfare into something bigotted.

[GreecePwns]

Now that you might be in an answering mood...

I'm just following your logic. We didn't have bans on slavery when we were formed and survived around 100 years without that, so why should the federal government step in? We didn't have civil rights laws when we were formed and survived around 180 year without that, so why should the federal government step in? It is totally within the bounds of your logic.

Why shouldn't the people running a corporation receiving government money be forced to take drug tests? What, again, is stopping the government from asking for the money to be paid back immediately should one of them test positive and further banning the corporation and the directors individually from receiving future government funds? Nothing.

Furthermore, why are you opposed to natty's idea of redirecting the money spend on the war on drugs and the jails required to house everyone holding a dimebag toward a citizen salary, which you falsely labeled as a tax and spend policy, and favor the war on drugs, a much bigger and actual tax and spend policy?

Furthermore, why do you deem any questioning of your hypocritical beliefs as inane or unrelated to the topic?

Furthermore, where did I say welfare is a right? Does arguing for welfare mean I think it is a right?

Furthermore, you posted a chart saying welfare spending has increased. Why do you ignore inflation? Why do you ignore the number of people unemployed during different time periods?

[natty dread]

Times are different now because people have been trained to think

Trained by whom? By what methods?

that the government's job is to provide everything for them.

Means for basic survival = everything?

Get rid of that false line of thinking and there won't be a need for social security or welfare.

Go tell that to the unemployed guy who has to support a family of 5. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear that he won't need any welfare money as long as he just adopts your way of thinking.

Remember, when Social Security passed (and maybe welfare, I don't remember), the Supreme Court was going to rule it as unconstitutional but bowed to political pressures. Just because someone can push it politically, even through the courts, doesn't automatically mean it's how our country should be run.

If you say so.

And more so, why are you even interested in how our country runs our own domestic programs? You don't reside in America, so why don't you butt out?

Well, you got me there. I guess I just enjoy arguing with idiots.

Then let those people get the money from friends and charities.

You know that is not going to work. Some people have no friends, and charities can't help everyone who needs help - and some times, don't even want to.

Or even make money on their own by starting their own businesses.

If it was that easy, don't you think they would be doing it already? You think people who are on welfare are there because they're just too damn lazy to work or start a business?

Limitless welfare causes people to lose their creativity to earn money or develop products.

Based on whose assessment? Yours?

Again, it seems you think that if you simply stop paying money to the unemployed etc. they will be forced to "stop being lazy" and get jobs like the rest. Did you already forget what I said: there are not enough jobs for everyone and never will be?

If you want a safety net for people, although them to collect money for up to 6 months (or some other arbitrary length of time). But there is absolutely no reason we should keep paying them money for life.

Yes there is. Allowing those people to go without money causes more harm to society in the long run: people turning to crime, catching & spreading disease, the negative impact on economy when those people no longer have any money to spend.

Figures race would become involved, because that's the only issue that can be brought up by the left.

Figures you would miss the point of what I wrote entirely and get stuck on the race comparison, because that's the only way Night Strike knows to act like.

(notice how I'm not depraving you of your humanity by generalizing you into one broad category such as "right" or "left" here?)

So in essence, you're equating someone's race with the willful choice of doing drugs. Yep, really honest debate there.

I'm saying that arbitrarily cutting off one group in favour of another is not the proper way to cut expenses.

Anyway, you're one to speak of "honest debate".

Then if those people get caught, you institute stiff penalties on them, including jail time and a lifetime ban from receiving welfare.

Man, you must be fun at parties.

If people who test positive become clean, I'm ok with them returning to getting welfare money (as long as they're still looking for jobs). But if they cheat the system, they should be banned for life.

Jesus said you should forgive 77 times.

:roll: You sure do enjoy comparing apples to oranges in order to call me a hypocrite.

What I enjoy has nothing to do with calling you a hypocrite.

[GreecePwns]

After reading your last post, why do you want to impose ideological purity on a people?

[oss spy]

If you can afford drugs you obviously don't need welfare...if you buy drugs with welfare you obviously aren't using welfare for what it was meant for. In fact, we should just do away with welfare and make people work for it. Change the name to "workfare" and have them work on roads, construction, etc. instead of letting them bum out and be a drag on society. I hate having to pay for some kid who was too lazy in high school or college and now I'm supporting them and their bad habits.

[PLAYER57832]

FYI: I ignore parts of posts because they're inane and irrelevant to the topic actually being discussed.

So I'm a hypocrite for believing that the government should not provide welfare

Yes.

You want to demolish modern society and go back to caveman times where each cave fends the dinosaurs off for themselves. That's fine, but the rest of us don't.

I didn't know the US consisted of a bunch of cavemen in the 1920s. In fact, weren't those times called the "Roaring 20s" because of the drastic increases in the economy and standards of living? I'm glad we can debate facts and not hyperbole.

Not really. There was some of that, there was also rampant crime, intense labor union battles, people dying from unregulated factory products and production, plus abuse of the land that led to the dustbowl, which (just in case you don't realize) happened to have a LOT to do with the depression.

It's called putting effective limits on the program. You have to first start putting limits on programs before you can completely remove them because our country has become so dependent upon the government for everything.

Face it, in the modern world you are dependent on the society around you.

150 years ago, people may not have needed social security or welfare or such, but times are different now. If you simply cut off all money from the poor and unemployed, they're not going to be able to survive. This will be detrimental to the society as a whole.

Times are different now because people have been trained to think that the government's job is to provide everything for them.

Where do you GET these ideas? We don't expect the government to "take care of us" we expect the government to act as a sheild against the big guys who we cannot possibly fight on our own. AND, we would love to see the same kind of strict "responsibility" you seem to think applies only to individuals applied to those big corporations.

Every dime you save on things you buy because these companies offered "cheaper" products is money off the backs of workers who are not paid decently, health costs that other taxpayers have to pay, pollution not cleaned up, etc. Those are the reasons our economy is in the tank, not some illusionary "trickel down" garbage. Yes, I know full well Mr Reagan made that his catch phrase. I also know he was smart enough to see it as baloney.. and he did not intend it to continue long term.

Get rid of that false line of thinking and there won't be a need for social security or welfare. Remember, when Social Security passed (and maybe welfare, I don't remember), the Supreme Court was going to rule it as unconstitutional but bowed to political pressures. Just because someone can push it politically, even through the courts, doesn't automatically mean it's how our country should be run.

I see, people wanting something in a Democracy and getting it is a pretty strange concept .

You know why no one has old style pensions any longer? Because they were too expensive. Because companies had to invest well enough to gaurantee a sustained income for retirees. Those big corporations could not do it, but you seem to think every minimum wage worker ought to do so. Social security is there for a reason. It is not the "failure" you want to proclaim. Bigwigs are now fighting against it because they see one more area they can profit from. Its not because losing social security will help america. Help a few pockets, but at the cost of the rest of us.

And more so, why are you even interested in how our country runs our own domestic programs? You don't reside in America, so why don't you butt out?

Well, I live here. In fact, I can trace my ancestry back to the mayflower and to native Americans across many lines. So... try again. (oh, yeah.. my husband is a member of sons of the Revolution, so the whole family has been here quite a while!)

Why do you support limitless access to free money? That money has to come from somewhere

Because there are not enough jobs for everyone, and there never can be. The ones without jobs need some money to survive, and that money has to come from somewhere. The government can just as well distribute the money, so at least everyone has to pitch in equally to pay for it.

Then let those people get the money from friends and charities. Or even make money on their own by starting their own businesses.

LOL.. "friends and charities"... as if that were not already happening. Fact is, they are not sufficient. Also, poor people don't tend to live in the same places as those with money. They may work for those with money, but they are not generally considered "friends".

Also, ever look at the duplication of effort in big city charities? For all you dismiss anything to do with the government as "inefficient", truth is it often works and pretty well. THAT is the real reason conservatives hate it.. because it does work and therefore means people are just a tad less willing to take jobs that are actual detriments to their health, that truly don't pay enough for someone to eat.. never mind have a house and clothes. Think I am "imagining"... yeah.. all the way to sweat shops, and all the way back to those "wonderful 1920's" to which you previously referred.

(oh, and while on THAT subject.. don't forget the huge masses of resources we stole or all but stole from other nations to help build that prosperity. Other countries are no longer so stupid as to allow that to happen.... yet another of the real reasons those days are long gone!)

Limitless welfare causes people to lose their creativity to earn money or develop products.

"unlimited welfare?" where on Earth do you get the idea that welfare isn't limited and restricted?

If you want a safety net for people, although them to collect money for up to 6 months (or some other arbitrary length of time). But there is absolutely no reason we should keep paying them money for life.

Welfare is for people who lack the skills to get jobs. You know.. the ones who went to schools you refused to pay for, the ones who were just plain idiots for other reasons,etc. These are not the ones who can just go out and get a job. Do they deserve welfare? Probably not, but that is besides the point. We pay welfare because it is CHEAPER. Get off your knee-jerk reactions and look at the results if we did not have welfare. You think these people are just going to go off and crreate jobs of their own? A very few, those who would anyway (make no mistake, welfare is no walk in the park, despite what some conservatives want to claim.. and note, I do NOT know that because I have ever been on welfare. I know it because I deal with people who are!). MOST have the "option" of crime.

Know what is TRULY STUPID about your conservative "plan". The very things they want to cut first are the job training programs, teen pregnancy education programs and other things that move people up and out of welfare.

so if we have to have the program, I want as few dollars spent on it as possible.

Ok, so basically you're favoring cutting spending by saying "let's cut the money of Group A so we only have to pay Group B". How about if Group A = black people and Group B = white people? Is it still ok in your view?

Figures race would become involved, because that's the only issue that can be brought up by the left. So in essence, you're equating someone's race with the willful choice of doing drugs. Yep, really honest debate there.

Then explain. Becuase the quote above pretty much sounds like that is what you believe.

Also, have you considered that false positives are common in drug tests. Taking cough medicine, or a million other things, can cause a false positive in drug tests. What do you do when someone loses his only source of income due to a false positive in a drug test?

Run two tests on each positive result. Require a 2nd test 1 week after the 1st test if there is a positive. Institute a warning 1 month and then cut off funds the 2nd month if test positive again. Just because there is the occasional false positive doesn't mean you throw out the whole system.

Try this on for size: The cost will be extreme, for almost no benefit! The cost of the tests will in no way, shape or form be paid for by reductions in welfare payments. These tests are expensive, there are not that many illegal drug users on welfare (a fair number are on LEGAL drugs do to heavy disabilities) and welfare payments are not that high. (data provided earlier in the thread.. not that you bothered to acknowledge it).

Also, you can easily cheat on drug tests. There are websites selling realistic looking prosthetic penises that have a container for urine, which can be used to give someone else's urine in a drug test. Effectively, the smart drug users, the ones who're really "playing" the system, won't get caught.

Then if those people get caught, you institute stiff penalties on them, including jail time and a lifetime ban from receiving welfare. If people who test positive become clean, I'm ok with them returning to getting welfare money (as long as they're still looking for jobs). But if they cheat the system, they should be banned for life.

Nice, knee jerk conservative reaction. However, care to think about the REAL impact of this? Try MORE CRIME. That is the reason we have welfare. It saves us money in the long run.. and short run!

You can't compare this scenario to companies that received bailouts because the money went to a business that cannot be drug tested

OH HOW CONVENIENT.

And yes, that's hypocritical, no matter how you try to twist it.

business that cannot be drug tested. A person on welfare can be

So, you attack the weaker group because you know you don't stand a chance against the stronger. You're a typical schoolyard bully.

You sure do enjoy comparing apples to oranges in order to call me a hypocrite.

Then explain why a banker getting several million into his own pocket is "OK", but giving a poor person rent, food stamps and a couple hundred in cash is not?