Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

My thoughts on "public assistance" or Welfare.

kimberkid
Just require a random Urine test

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.

In order to get that paycheck.. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass.
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

*I didn't write this, someone sent this to me in an email ... but I agree with it completely.
0

Comments

16 comments

Date Votes
  • RustyBones
    thats about as simple as it gets! +1
    0
  • spanielsells
    I'm not really understanding why you're so defensive in your initial post. There's NOTHING morally or ethically wrong with demanding a urine test in exchange for public assistance.

    We The People have a right to know that if we are paying your way, that we are not paying your way to engage in illicit activities. Otherwise, we are contributing to the problem and not helping society, which is the entire point of welfare.
    0
  • big geno
    i seen on tv where in cols ohio 53% of head of households were held by single black women on welfare wonder if thats true
    0
  • gruntled
    Of course if they fail the test then they can get disability checks from Socialist Security.
    0
  • Rockatansky
    This has been discussed on other forums thoroughly, and a lot of people said almost simultaneously that the following: "What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.", should also read: "What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to and by the people who don't have to pass a urine test."

    I still disagree and am convinced that nobody has a right to redistribute my income as THEY see it fit. I earn it, therefore I'll give it away how I see it fit.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Can I please have some more of it ??

    Dammit, I said "PLEASE".

    Doug
    0
  • Endlss
    Guess who will oppose this ?
    yep
    sharpton.jpg
    0
  • jwb267
    i agree

    quote:Originally posted by kimberkid

    Just require a random Urine test

    Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.
    I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.

    In order to get that paycheck.. I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

    What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

    Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass.
    Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

    *I didn't write this, someone sent this to me in an email ... but I agree with it completely.
    0
  • Nighthawk
    I dont know much about the welfare system, but I think the ones who actually draw a check draw it for their children. You cant punish the children for the actions of their parents. I feel it is necessary to have a welfare program, but their should be limits as to how long one can draw, or even give them a job washing County/State vehicles while their on the program. Just my 2 cents!
    0
  • 11BravoCrunchie
    Something else should be a 0 Tolerance clause towards alcohol. If they are getting government funds to sustain themselves, then they shouldn't have enough money to go out and drink. Get caught drinking, loose your "income"...plain and simple.
    0
  • Ray Boone
    The problem with your idea is that it's just one more chair that is being rearranged on the Titanic. The whole idea is wrong. First of all, drugs should be legal- with no penalties for their use. If someone wants to smoke Opium or mainline Heroin, or snort Cocaine or do what ever is done with "Meth" (not familiar with it- could that be short for methamphetimine?) then I say fine, but don't expect those that are affected to do nothing about it. Drive a truck, get drunk, wreck the truck, suffer the consequences. It's the individuals choice.

    So the first part of the proposal is not valid- there should be no reason for drug testing, because someone's performance of a job should be the basis for his continued employment.

    The other part of the proposal is the redistribution of wealth. The systems used of late have all been based on the premise called deprivation. That means, if someone was poor or disabled or was a one parent family, then they deserved some funding from the state. The problem with this is that it rewarded people for becoming eligible. So you have single girls being rewarded for becoming pregnant or for husbands to desert their families.

    The solution would be one that does not reward someone for being deprived. One such solution is the Negative Income Tax. In it, every adult Citizen of the US would be sent a monthly check of a determined amount. This amount is paid whether or not the person works, whether or not they are married, whether or not they have kids, etc.

    How could the US afford this? Easy. If the amount paid each month is set at an amount, the equivalent of a minimum wage job and the tax structure were set so that one's taxes were about 1/2 the amount of a min wage job, so that when he earned 2x the min wage job then people that earned less than 2x min wage would get slightly more in their payment from the govt than they paid in taxes. Those that made more than 2x min wage job would pay more in taxes than they received in their monthly check.

    Several agencies could be abolished. There would be no need for the various entitlement programs. Immigration could have the quotas removed because no immigrants would be eligible for goverment funding until they had been here long enough and committed enough to become citizens. Since the immigrants would only need to show that they were fit to enter, there would be no pressure for massive illegal immigration, so that problem would go away.

    Why has this not been done? simple- ther are too many people from elected officials to civil service employees to drug dealers that gain their livelihood from the present system to allow it to go away.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Ray -

    I agree.

    Your post has a distinctly Libertarian slant.

    Nuttin wrong with that, as long as you agree with me.

    D.
    0
  • kimberkid
    quote:Originally posted by Ray B
    If someone wants to smoke Opium or mainline Heroin, or snort Cocaine or do what ever is done with "Meth" (not familiar with it- could that be short for methamphetimine?) then I say fine, but don't expect those that are affected to do nothing about it. Drive a truck, get drunk, wreck the truck, suffer the consequences. It's the individuals choice.

    So addict dies in the crash ... or has nothing of value to "take" ... or is injured to where he can't make restituition. What happens to the choice of the occupants of the other car/truck or group of people walking down the sidewalk when this truck runs over them? They just suffer the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? They are just "out" of the income they could have earned and the life they could have lived?

    Sorry, your "plan" is so full of holes I really don't know where else to start.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Same consequences as alcohol abuse.

    Doug
    0
  • shooter4
    Ditto what Doug said!
    0
  • Ray Boone
    Kid- You are misinterpreting what I wrote. By unregulated I didn't imply that someone could endanger the lives of others without consequences- just that there were no barriers to the acquisition of presently illegal chemicals. If someone chooses to use the chemicals then operate machinery, motor vehicles, etc in a state of mind not conducive to safety, then the person should be prevented so by law enforcement. There are plenty of laws on the books and they are vigorously enforced, but the laws are those that involve behavior- that is risking the safety of others, not in the private use of some chemical.

    The present system, that is, the war on drugs, and the present system, reward those that promote deprivation, is the system that is full of holes, and as a matter of fact, is so full of holes that the boat is approaching the point of no return for sinking.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity