Comment

Comment by amanda choate on June 3, 2011 at 12:20pm

Isiro, my point is that the law implies that those who receive our tax dollars should good actors. I say that that thinking must apply to all who receive our dollars. IF you are saying the moral obligation is higher for someone who receives the check as welfare well that doesn't maek sense to me. Because we are saying that our hard earned money deserves to be used by good actors, not malingerers.
We are not saying that malinering is the moral hazard, but drug use. I agree, barely. But what I do agree with is that it is important to know that those monies are spent on good actors.

Comment by FCTP on June 3, 2011 at 12:17pm

I have a niece who is 21 years old and is a drug addict. She has been helped by her family for years and my brother is almost broke from doing all he can to assist her and help her with treatment etc.  She is not willing to help herself.  She and her friends have figured out how to work the system and they are smart at it.  She gets what she wants from government welfare and we know she is using the money for drugs.  We applaud these efforts because she will now have a hard time qualifying for welfare.  These kids know the system well and they know how to work it.  This is a good thing and I know from personal experience.

Comment by Isirio Abelon on June 3, 2011 at 11:53am

Amanda, amen to that, but in the contrary, if you are a drug addict, there is a help, a help to strengthen your life not to depend on someone's money for the rest of your life. The welfare money is intended to someone who are in need until you get on your own two feet. WELFARE means, provision for the indigent, or unemployed. Caprice. Adios.

Comment by tamara stephenson on June 3, 2011 at 8:45am

We could just legalize drugs, and all of this would be a moot point.

Comment by J.R. on June 3, 2011 at 7:30am

Taxpayers should never have to support anyone's drug habit or malingering. If someone is on drugs, the chances of their getting a job are slim and none, or holding a job if they lucked up and got one. I had to pass a drug test and an FBI check to get my job, which I didn't have to worry about in the least. I can't see why a person would object to this unless they were drug users. If they made people on "welfare" pick up their checks, knowing they would be subject to random drug tests with no advance warning, you'd probably see the welfare roles drop. If they're not on drugs, what's the problem?
The fact is, having a dependent society promotes permanent progressivism that is consuming this country, for it guarantees a permanent voting bloc for progressives. Except in severe cases that can be documented as to inability to work or provide community service in order to receive taxpayers' money, there's no reason for anyone to be a career "welfare" recipient. Ronald Reagan had it right, the emphasis and impetus must be oriented toward putting people to work, not faciliting a permanent dependent class.

Comment by amanda choate on June 3, 2011 at 7:15am

A dollar is a dollar. Somehow you place a higher burden upon the person receiving the dollar as a welfare check versus payment for some other means. The implication is this, if you are on welfare and using drugs, then drug use is the cause. I do not disagree. However, with that same logic applies to all.

Comment by Isirio Abelon on June 3, 2011 at 6:33am

Welfare money is supposed to be a temporary support from the government until you get on your feet! not a support for your drug habit.  How can you ever get out from your mess if you can not take care of yourself. However; there is an alternative if you do not agree to be tested for drugs, then just simply deny any supports from the government!!!. I support Gov. Scott.

Comment by John Harvel on June 3, 2011 at 4:40am

I think you should be tested for drugs before you post on this site. Tamara... if you can't pass a drug screen there's not much hope of getting a job or off welfare. Our failed war on drugs policies have nearly all places of employment drug testing. Test all or none? To bad they don't test for stupid.

 

On the other hand, testing welfare recipients will only raise the cost of welfare. What a novel idea... more government mandated bureaucratic involvement in peoples lives. We can go half way around the world and take out a weird beard but we can't take out a few drug cartels. War on drugs? Why is it always a compliance issue that costs the individual. Why in some blind politically correct fashion do we always address the wrong issue, using the wrong methods?

 

Isn't the issue Welfare?...  From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. 

 

It's Friday June 3, 2011 and we have spent almost $20 billion on the war on drugs this year. After four decades, We The People are still supporting the profiteers and bureaucrats who impose their will on the individual. Now, go have a double martini and ponder your fate.

Comment by tamara stephenson on June 2, 2011 at 8:46pm

It sounds to me like the state is punishing the poor for being poor. Punish the children of the poor for their parents' perceived misdeeds. No thanks. Drug test all or none.

Comment by amanda choate on June 2, 2011 at 4:04pm

If we are saying that you must be adjudicated innocent in order to sit on the couch all day, then so must all who feed from the public trough be so adjudicated. It is about a moral society. If you are using my money, then I expect your best effort, and that starts with being drug free. Direect or indirect, there should be moral equivalency. The dollar has no morals, only those to whom it are given are being demanded to prove their innocence.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page