Welfare recipients to be drug tested

*shrug* OK by me.

​

 

I always considered McCarthyism as the "thought police". Punishing people for ideas and thoughts. I suppose it can have a broader meaning. Maybe we'll call it neo-McCarthyism?

It wouldn't. Do you agree that there should be a system in place that discourages the use of welfare money for luxuries?

If the end is motivating an individual to work harder so they can stop collecting welfare, I think the means can easily justify the ends. But a drug test isn't a means that will provide that end.

What would you suggest we could do to keep perfectly healthy and able bodied people from abusing the welfare system without affecting people who are using it properly?

 

In my opinion, a more well informed electorate should have sufficient money management skills to pursue Happiness in the manner most conducive to a person's equilibrium seeking tendency.

In my opinion, it is not the use of welfare money for "luxuries" that is the problem, but that means tested welfare is less appropriate for people who are simply unemployed and could just need a job.

Don't you agree that it should be easier to get a job than to buy illicit drugs? If that is not the case, then why not blame our elected representatives to government for that form of "market failure", instead of individuals who do not have any any delegated authority to enact laws or get paid with the Peoples money and decent benefits; while not actually solving our social problems and social dilemmas.

Our War on Poverty has nothing to do with actually providing jobs for people who are naturally unemployed.

I would suggest simply being moral and ethical enough to bear true witness to our own laws; specifically, our Ninth Amendment, a federal doctrine regarding employment at will, and State at-will employment laws in order to provide a more efficient social safety net for those individuals who don't really need more expensive means tested welfare, but would benefit from less costly unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed. It could eliminate the market inefficiency of a natural unemployment rate through market friendly means and be as simple to administer as current minimum wage laws are now.

 

Because the only way politicians could guarantee a job to everyone, is if they were also allowed to make the choices as to what skills a person learned, what work they chose, what wage they accepted, or where they lived. If you want that freedom, you take with it the consequences of your choices. One possible consequence is there is no work for what skills you have, what work you want to do, what wage you would like to receive in the area you choose to live.

 

no in a free market that operated properly, politicians could guarantee jobs to everyone.

the free market in the US is corrupt as it stands.

 

How could they guarantee a job to the man who:

(1) Chose to learn nothing about anatomy.
(2) Chose to work only as a brain surgeon.
(3) Chose to accept only a salary of twice the national budget.
(4) Chose to live in the Alaskan wilderness.

​

 

How would that work in any at-will employment State? In my opinion, it would be better to simply solve for a natural unemployment rate to correct for that inefficiency in the market for labor.

Unemployment compensation is much less expensive than means tested welfare and part of the tax could be paid by anyone who is willing to participate in the market for labor, along with an employer.

Anyone on unemployment could go to school, learn a new vocation, or simply pursue Happiness when they get tired of doing drugs.

 

What would then be the motivation for these people to go back to work, especially once they adjusted their lifestyle to be comfortable with the unemployment pay?

 

The same reason for Capitalism's existence; a private profit motive.

 

You are seriously arguing we should pay people to simply choose not to work and pursue happiness with drugs...? Who pays the bills when all of the population chooses to enjoy that new entitlement?

I no longer believe you seriously believe your own words. I believe you are a sock puppet, a person who posts ridiculously exaggerated positions to erode respect for moderates who espouse less drastic positions. Keep up the good work.

 

That is a false assumption as poor people are not irrational.

The free market does not provide jobs to everyone that is why there are welfare recepients.

Government has a responsiblity to guarantee jobs in this instance and if those jobs require certain skills, government must subsidize training.

​

 

Why is my argument more cogent, concise, and rational than your argument, if what you claim is true.

Did you also miss the composition of the argument? I explained it previously.

Maybe you could pay more attention to an argument you "claim" to care about.

 

Its unfair to subsidize a governor's drug testing company.

 

*shrug* Then use a different company.

 

Why deny and disparage the individual and civil liberties based on income; are we also going to drug test individuals who can afford to purchase tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through, at taxpayer expense? Not being able to afford a yacht or "purchase a tax loophole" to avoid pay taxes on it is no reason to deny and disparage individual and civil liberty under our form of federal government. What happened to all men being created equal regardless of whether or not they can afford a pet yacht to purchase tax loopholes for?

 

I keep trying to make the point that drug tests are completely useless because they it is extremely easy to fake a drug test.

You can get someone else to pee for you.
You can get a prosthetic penis and synthetic urine.
You can skew results by just drinking a lot of water.

Drug tests are a ridiculous waste of money under all circumstances. You would get more realistic results by simply asking the question "Do you use drugs?".

 

Tell him that. Talk about corruption.

 

It's not based on income; it's based on their request for charity.

 

Being wealthy enough to purchase a tax loophole large enough to drive a yacht through could be considered a form of public charity by avoiding that tax, which others cannot afford to avoid; as in the case of a "tax" that is in the form of a drug test which also does not generate revenue to provide for the general welfare and common defense.

 

Tax deductions (loopholes) are not sold.

 

It could depend on what the definition of "sold" is.

 

​

 

I think that the entitlement programs should be eliminated completely, but despite my general stance as a strict constitutionalist, I'm going to change it up a bit and say that welfare recipients should be drug tested, just because I hate seeing my tax dollars go to waste.

 

Drug Testing should have been mandatory years ago, for those that receive Welfare, Medicaid and Food Stamps.

Too many simple minds are just sponging off our Tax Dollars.

FACT​

 

Seeing them drug tested IS seeing your tax dollars go to waste. Drug tests are a waste of time and money.

Give them currency that you can't buy drugs with, like they have done with the electronic EBT cards for food stamps.

At least force them to find someone willing to barter for drugs, which is a lot harder to do when you have the card.