Should welfare recipients be required to undergo a urine test to receive their checks since the people that are paying the taxes for the welfare are required to do so at work?

Comments

• I totally agreewith that....=) Good idea!

  • Report
  

  by gbradwhid on March 5th, 2012

Comments

Comments

• Hell of an answer! ☺ +5

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Sex ~ The Original Mr. Knowitall on October 2nd, 2009

Comments

Comments

• How do you get to "no fault of there own"?
  
  Life is about choices and consequences of choices. If they were to choose to fail the test, then it is certainly their own fault.

  • Report
  

  by yahoot on October 2nd, 2009

• They exist by forcing, through their government thugs, a productive citizen to work on their behalf. That citizen is morally entitled to determine the circumstances of their charity. What in hell are you talking about? Make them take the test. Make them write a goddamn thank you note.

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• I agree with your answer Britannia. Places of employment are privately owned (with few exceptions) and are therefore entitled to make reasonable determinations for what type of workforce they hire. Drug use directly corresponds to work performance. Welfare on the other hand is a government program based on need...not judgement. Obviously work performance is not an issue. I could demand at gunpoint that a person on the street give me their money, and shoot them if they didn't...but no reasonable person would claim in that situation that they "chose to get shot", and it is therefore their fault.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• There is no such thing as a government program. There are only programs, designed by government to solicite votes, funded by confiscating taxes from producers, often contrary to the values that the producers hold, to the benefit of non producers. The producers are slaves to welfare recipients, unless....unless they have the opportunity to dictate the terms of their forced charity. Only then can they imagine that they are not truely slaves, but at the very least that they have some input into how the spoils that are taken from them are utilized.

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• It would probably be extremely beneficial to society to be able to check a person's credit card statements for liquor store purchases before getting a driver's license renewal, or a person's paystubs to determine if they are financially stable before being allowed to have children. But obviously these are blatant infringements on a person's basic rights, and clear examples of the assumtions on one group determining the liberties of another group. Until the decisions of a welfare recipient become dangerous liabilities for others (if for example their drug addiction causes them to neglect their children)...THEN I would deem it warranted to step in. Short of such examples...they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• It is not a right if in the pursuit of that right, you demand the cooperation of another individual contrary to their will. A right is nothing more than the opportunity to pursue your values without interference. Shame on any one who thinks a right is a legitimate expectation on one person to pay another person's bills.

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• You make a legitimate point....and it appears we are discussing seperate issues. As it currently stands, these programs are privileges given to citizens (who meet eligibility requirements) and are paid for by others...similar to "driving privileges". Also, as it stands, citizens have a "right" to these programs without having to meet unresonable conditions in the same way that I have a "right" to drive without having to dance a jug at the DMV (to prove that I have full use of my legs). Of course neither are inherent constitutional rights. They are "rights of citizenship" in the US currently.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• Of course, since nobody is constitutionally required to pay for anothers bills (just as I am not required to fund highway projects in Boston (a city I do not live in)), it would be absolutely sound (in a constitutional sense) to dismantle programs such as these. You make a point that goes a bit beyond the scope of this question...but a good one nevertheless.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• What happens when those of us who labor to pay the expenses of those who can not meet their own needs, decide not to do it any more? What if we refuse? Who will enforce the rights of the dependent at that moment? How will they enslave us. Can the president, the legislature, or the courts or the Army force us to work on the behalf of those for whom we have no affection or allegiance? I would like to see them try.

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• The fact is that for me to be employed to produce the tax money that funds these programs I have to be subjected to a urine test so why is it unreasonable to expect that those who receive these benefits be subjected to the same standards.

  • Report
  

  by Gone on October 2nd, 2009

• Sure they can. It's called tax evasion. I personally like being able to take the highway to work...even if it means I have to pay for highways on the other side of the country that I don't use. I also don't mind the small percentage of my check that goes to feed people who would otherwise starve. Of the many ridiculous uses of tax dollars...I consider this a rather sound one. I don't feel enslaved by my country however...I feel lucky to be here. I've been to places where people don't have it NEAR as good. Even so, I make use of my 2nd amendment rights...and am prepared for the moment when I feel I am being enslaved.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• Sorry dude. We forgot your question. It is not unreasonable at all. It is not unreasonable that those of us who pay the piper should be able to call any tune we want.

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• I addressed this mandomike. Of course you can still disagree. You are employed by a private employer...who owns their business...and can hire whoever they want. You are not entitled to employemnt there by any law. Walfare recipients are however entitled to this money (according the the law as it is currently written)...if they lack a certain income.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• @ Stepper Welfare recipients are entitled to their money in the same way that slave owners were entitled their profits. What are you talking about?

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• It's the law that I am questioning, you know and I know that welfare is being abused by many,,so why shouldn't we ask for a better standard since we are the ones paying for this?

  • Report
  

  by Gone on October 2nd, 2009

• Better yet, why aren't we asking why we are FORCED to pay it in the first place. Why not make it voluntary?

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• And Rule Bitannia, no it's not inhumane if they are not using drugs then they have nothing to worry about but if they are then they are out of the system because I should not have to fund a drug addict.

  • Report
  

  by Gone on October 2nd, 2009

• I'm talking about the law josie. You are talking about absolute rights. I'm not sure that you understand that I agree with you. I specifically and intentionally said "according to the law the way it is currently written". I understand your argument that nobody is constitutionally required to give any of their property to anybody else. You're right...they aren't. But the question is about theorized requirements to a program already in place...this is what I am responding to. You support abolishing the program. While I think it would be a bad idea for lots of reasons, I will absolutely NOT argue that it is an unjust thing to do. You do NOT have an obligation to support strangers, nor should you be expected to.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• My man...

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• I was actually considering bring up that point josie. I would support a voluntary "buy in" to this program (similar to an insurance policy). If you enroll, and pay into it, you can draw from it should you ever find yourself in dire straights. If you would like to exempt yourself under the condition that you can never change your mind...I would support that you be exempted from paying your statistical portion.

  • Report
  

  by Stepper on October 2nd, 2009

• No argument there...

  • Report
  

  by josie III on October 2nd, 2009

• wow i havnt been on here for a long time ive read most of the comments and to the very first "how do you get to no fault of their own" look at the farmers and buisnesses in califinoria that are struggling or failing to get by through no fault of thier own but a govt bill to protect some flipping fish.

  • Report
  

  by Rule Britannia on October 11th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments