That was not the point was it? The TARP was paid back with our money anyway.
But the drug use of the recipients was the question. I think alcohol and cocaine use in the upper financial classes would shock most people who think the rich are somehow special and better.
We are talking of a huge drug testing bureaucracy that would cost money ,not save it. But hopefully it would bolster the anti poor prejudices of many people. Then it would for them, be worth it.
We absolutely need to drug test politicians and defense lawyers. they are getting government money.
And judges they seem pretty goofy .
But it seems you only believe this about poor people.
These laws are discriminatory and only serve to humiliate poor people. I’m still waiting for someone somewhere to attempt to pass a law requiring anyone receiving government money to submit to a drug test(Pell grants, federally subsidized loans, etc.) I don’t think that is going to happen.
I see it more as a matter that we as a secular society SHOULD, as a matter of obligation, give money to the poor and needy.
But if we agree on the point that there are people who should receive money due to being poor and needy, how does drug use enter into it? Does a person who is poor and uses drugs somehow less in need than a person who is poor and doesn’t use drugs?
Charity should be given out solely on the basis of need, not on the basis of our opinion of the receipient.
Kind of an unusual point of view. I might object to having my money taken for taxes. But if it is taken, I’d prefer to think that it was being given to some poor person rather than spend on a drug test.
You missed the point. Qin acknowledges that his plan might end up costing more than the welfare payments it eliminates. So it’s his program you should be objecting to.
And then what? We’ve already got a shortage of foster families.
Hiring one extra cop for my community might end up saving me a little money by preventing a burglary, or it might end up costing me more than it saves (possibly no one was going to steal from me in any event). I don’t see that I should necessarily object to a plan that may or may not end up costing more; it may prevent enough lawbreakers from getting my money to justify the cost, it may not.
Dickens or Swift?
CMC fnord!
Completely opposed–what few studies exist with alcoholics suggest that penalizing welfare recipients for their addictions costs the state significantly more money in hospital, policing, and jail expenses than simply letting them feed their addictions would. Furthermore, there’s evidence that a roof overhead and a steady source of food helps people fight alcoholism, and I see no reason that wouldn’t generalize to other drugs.
Most welfare recipients are children. Should we test them from birth?
Nah, we just let them go hungry if mommy can’t pass her drug test. Gotta save that money so corporations can amortize their private jets faster, oil companies get those precious subsidies, and Paris Hilton doesn’t have to pay a nickel more in taxes. What are starving children compared to the needs of the wealthy? Come on, this is America- government of the top 1%, by the top 1%, and for the top 1%.
Yes, I do, but I don’t support denying them welfare.
First they came for the drug addicts, but I did not speak because I was not a drug addict..
Maybe because if the person wasn’t using their money to buy drugs they wouldn’t “need” so much federal help.
If your kid had a $200/day cocaine habit, but couldn’t make the electric bill, would you think he was “needy” since he couldn’t pay his utilities? Of course not, you wouldn’t give him a dime. You might pay his electric bill, but you wouldn’t give him cash knowing that he was putting it up his nose.
That’s my opinion. If you fail a drug test, no more cash payments to you. The money goes directly to people providing necessary services.
Again. Does that apply to bankers and politicians? They also take government money, lots of it.
Personal responsibility?
Can you support this statement by showing this is a real problem in our country? Maybe a handful of pot smokers don’t buy food, but that’s not usually the case. Pot smokers are well known for getting the munchies. I’m pretty sure that in general they do not skimp on the groceries. This is more a problem with crackheads and methheads who do not want to eat due to the drug.
When I broke my back and got food stamps for a while, I confess that I did buy some fruit for the purpose of wine making. of course, the rules say you have to buy food, which I did, but they don’t say what you can do with the food after the fact, he he, other than you can’t share it with someone the welfare office doesn’t know about. And since my cat isn’t a person, I felt ok sharing a bit of my food with the cat. They really should allow say 5% of food stamp money to be used for animal food. It’s cheaper than buying raw meat to feed a carnivore.
Don’t complain then if some poor guy with the same philosophy cuts your throat and loots your body. If you owe them no consideration, then they owe you no consideration. And expecting people to just sit in a corner and quietly starve to death is ridiculous.
What about the guy on welfare who grows weed for free and that’s it? What’s the rationale for cutting him off of welfare? Gonna starve his kids just cause he smokes some reefer?
I think the lowest of the low are the damn piss sniffers. I couldn’t look myself in the mirror each morning knowing I was gonna invade some people’s lives in a misguided sense of morality.
Lessee, guy takes a few tokes on the weekend, he gets piss tested and can’t get a job. It’s not necessarily their fault they can’t get a job but sometimes the fault of piss sniffers who want to impose their moral judgment on others and freaking starve them out if they don’t comply.
I’m amazed when “Christians” do this. (Not saying you are a christian, diggerwam)
The idea of teaching addicts that they have a permanently incurable disease is really nothing more than ensuring repeat business for drug treatment centers, who, if they reach their claimed goal, are out of business. (never trust a business who says its goal is to put itself out of business.)
Other approaches have been much more effective, such as an approach that the addiction is a symptom which has underlying causes which can be treated.