What We Believe #3 - Wealth Creation

[Woodruff]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

Yet you guys don't want to drug test EVERYONE that receives government money - only the poor people.

I am for the states deciding if they want to drug test or not.

So you don't believe in the Constitution, then? Because the Constitution says that's unConstitutional. I thought you wanted us to follow the Constitution?

Whether a person in a certain state is poor or rich has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should watch this video because it addresses a lot of preconceptions you carry.

I have no preconceptions on this particular issue as it relates to you, as I am going strictly by what you have posted in these fora. You do not favor drug testing the CEOs of corporations that recieve government money, who are in fact much more likely to be drug users than welfare recipients are. Thus, your only rationale for drug testing welfare recipients is because they are poor.

There have been ruling that it is constitutional, as well as unconstitutional. You are not fully aware of the history of the issue. If it was unconstitutional, as you suggest, then the Supreme Court would be taking it up. The Supreme Court isn't taking it up, which proves your statement is incorrect.

I suggest that it is your ignorance that is showing...The Supreme Court does not just "take up" whatever situation it feels like on a whim. The case must be taken to it.

The states decide. My opinion on the issue is irrelevant. Get that through your head! This issue is about a year old. It's over. It happened. Deal with it.

The states decided that integration was a bad thing too. The states do not, and should not, have complete autonomy.

I should also mention that this "drug testing to save money" policy failed, too. Why is it that you don't want to revisit how it turned out, Phatscotty? Boy, that Governor sure made a boatload of money on it, though. Gosh, I wonder who could have seen that coming? Besides being unconstitutional, it's been a failure.

[Phatscotty]

That's what the Constitution is for Woodruff......

[Woodruff]

That's what the Constitution is for Woodruff......

I know...I teach it. I also don't just like to talk about it when it's convenient to do so and avoid it otherwise.

[PLAYER57832]

Is "redistribution of wealth" a phrase you've ever thought about, or is it something you heard and have been trained to repeat?

I think about it every second Monday Symm....

The rest of us think of it every time we lay down our money to buy things or get our paychecks.

[PLAYER57832]

We don't need some gov't mafia skimming 50% of the money that is supposed to go to help people off the top for themselves and profligate waste.

Except if those people happen to be wealthy, then its "promoting jobs"
(Never mind that the real job creation comes when you actually allow poor people to go out and buy things, thus supporting a lot of local businesses)

[PLAYER57832]

The small government approach would be to remove the welfare.

Explain how that would work, please. I think we are all interested....

[Night Strike]

The small government approach would be to remove the welfare.

Explain how that would work, please. I think we are all interested....

Well, you would cut out all federal welfare programs and allow the states to decide if they want to provide welfare or not (instead of having it mandated on them). Or, you could even turn welfare into a legitimate safety net instead of a perpetual way of life. The government would save a ton of money, would become smaller, and people would find a way to work for themselves instead of living off the government.