This phrase seems strange to me. What do you think the government is supposed to do? Who is running the government if not people?
[PUG] DRUG TEST all college students, unemployment beneficiaries, public school children!!!
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
This phrase seems strange to me. What do you think the government is supposed to do? Who is running the government if not people?
I've been following this discussion but haven't really contributed other than thumbs upping, because there are many people who've said what I think about this already and it'd be a little redundant.
Since I saw it mentioned earlier, I was the one who posted that story about the store clerk getting fired for refusing to sell cigarettes to someone who was using EBT cash benefits. It is amazing to me how a great many people (not referring to on this forum, but in the comments of the article) were quick to defend the clerks actions based on their own initial gut reaction of the "wrongness" of using "government money" to buy something they don't like. And every time it was always something like "why should my taxes pay for your cigarettes!? you loser scum!". As if it were their place to make that judgement call in the first place.
The main thing I find funny about this is that the majority of people who seem to support this sort of thing are the type who claim they want to see less government involvement, but somehow fail to see how this would be giving the government exactly the type of excess involvement they claim to not want.
Since I saw it mentioned earlier, I was the one who posted that story about the store clerk getting fired for refusing to sell cigarettes to someone who was using EBT cash benefits. It is amazing to me how a great many people (not referring to on this forum, but in the comments of the article) were quick to defend the clerks actions based on their own initial gut reaction of the "wrongness" of using "government money" to buy something they don't like. And every time it was always something like "why should my taxes pay for your cigarettes!? you loser scum!". As if it were their place to make that judgement call in the first place.
The main thing I find funny about this is that the majority of people who seem to support this sort of thing are the type who claim they want to see less government involvement, but somehow fail to see how this would be giving the government exactly the type of excess involvement they claim to not want.
I also noticed that, I also noticed that its often Christians who say this, of course not all Christians believe this, but if you are a big time Jesus lover, don't you think you wouldn't be for taking away someones ability to feed them self? Drugs or not? I mean He who is without sin and all that? I dont see how any real christian could be for this kind of thing personally, maybe I dont understand the religion enough. I doubt that though.
Alright, that is a fair question.
First, my apologies for the outburst but it seemed to me that anyone who was opposed to the favored view on this forum was demonized as someone who was hypocritical, uncaring, fearful and trying to segregate others so they can stay on top. This is not the way to dialogue nor is inflamed rhetoric or derision a good way to dicuss a complex topic as this.
Ok, what is governments job? Well, that is an issue that is debated and that is the reason we have various political and ideological parties (Republicans, Democrats, Marxists, Communists, etc...). So, to say what it is would be somewhat naive when great minds cannot even agree completely on the role of goverment.
But, I think everyone could come to a general consensus about some things. First, Government exist to insure the people can live free lives and pursue whatever they want without coercion or intimidation. That is, governments exist to ensure the fair and just application of laws in a non-biased way so that people can live their lives and have opportunity to succeed or do whatever it is they want to do. Secondly, the goverment exists to protect its citizens from all enimies, foriegn and domestic so that we aren't invaded every other month and our women and children carried off as slaves and temple prostitutes (as was done in history). From these two basic things, it is seen that the government exists to provide a safe environment for its citizens to live their lives.
Now, is it the governments job to provide welfare to its citizens? Some would say "yes", some would say "no" and some would say "somewhat". (remember, this is no LAW that stipulates what a government is or is not to do) but the basic function of a government is to provide a safe environment for its citizens so they do not have to worry about someone killing them just so they can take their house or the Mongrols invading and taking aways their wives).
Now, Do I believe in Welfare? Yes, I do. Everyone needs a helping hand now and them to get back on their feet.
Unfortunately, however, the Federal Government does not have the fiscal resources to help everyone - there just is not enough money to go around.
Right now, we have a $16 Trillion dollar debt - $16 Trillion! At the present trajectory and if we do not change anything, we could very well be a bankrupt nation in 20 - 30 years (all of our revenue, alone, would go to paying the interest on our debot ONLY). If this happens, America would have to default on its obligations and then we would plunge into a third-world type country. Do you think it is bad now? Try living in a bankrupt country that would be a former shell of itself. At that point, NO ONE would be helped.
So, why am I for drug testing (and I may be wrong and am willing to change my position - but I am not an evil, hypocritical shame of a Christian because of this position -I, maybe mistakenly, am trying to look at the long term and our perpetual survival so people can be helped for the next 100 - 200 years).
My assumption is this: There are limited funds to go around. I assume 90% of the people on welfare want to work and are not doing drugs and only need temporary help while they are getting back on their feet - I am all for this. The other assumption, maybe incorrectly, is that the other 10% (or 5%) may be chronically unemployed due to their drug addiction and the temporary help that welfare is meant to provide would be perpetual for them and other people who need it would not be able to get it and get the true help they need.
Welfre was never meant to be a life-long pension and was meant to help someone out in hard times (the 90 - 95%). It cannot sustain a life-time of supoorting someone because that would take food from the mouth of someone else who needs it and would benifit by it and get back on their feet (most welfare people WANT to work and only need temporary assistance).
Ok, does that explain my thoughts better? It is basically the fact that their are limited funds available and the desire to get them to the right people who will use the welfare to get back on their feet - not live off of it perpetually because their addication makes tham unemployable.
One last thing, to attack people who disagree and call them disparaging terms or to minimize what they have done in life ("military service is welfare") is wrong. To say people are hypocrites just because they see a problem from a different angle does not make them the devil incarnate - it just means they are looking at it from a different point of veiw - maybe incorrectly - but there are different ways to view things.
Last edited:
That's a political red herring.
So that's why we need to spend large amounts of money trying to catch, what was it, 4% of the population receiving welfare?
So it would obviously be much better for society if they and their families were out in the street and little Timmy has to watch his mom give blowjobs for crack money under a bridge.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Your employer is forced to pay in UI. If they weren't then it's possible you would be paid a higher salary. I couldn't say for sure right away but eventually you would be paid more. That's how it works. I don't look down on anyone who collects UI. The way the tax rate works now sucks IMO but to say alive during a dry spell a business should make adjustments during a peak and take that into consideration to ensure they could cover the higher tax rate should they need to let some people go during a tough time. Anyone that has to close their doors because of the tax rate hired too many people during the boom.
People talk about things they don't know wtf they're talking about all the time just so they have something to bitch about I guess and that goes for everyone. You can't know everything about everything though people like to pretend they do. It's how people are and always have been. I hate facebook. New small business owners bitch about people being on UI because their tax rate goes up, well...sorry maybe you should have thought about that before you hired all those people. It's not like its a new thing. Most of the people that complain about people on UI and say that they pay into it must not look at their stubs very often or do their own taxes.
Last edited:
I agree with everything, except the bolded doesnt seem to fit in with the rest of your commentary. Please clarify.
facebook is filled with people's dumb opinions on everything they know nothing about.
MrDoobie,
Maybe I am wrong with my stance and I am open to change and learn and dialogue is, for me, a good way to learn or sharpen my understanding.
I do not think the Debt is a red herring - maybe the economists are just using fear tactics, that could be a possibility, but even simple math shows us that, at some time, we have to "pay the piper". If intererest rates go up, then more of our federal budget would go just to interest. Google the movie, I.O.USA and watch the 30 minute clip. Although I understand that the truth can be distorted, I think there is some good points in it. The Federal Bedget is just like our personal budget but on a larger scale but the same principles that work or fail for a personal budget also apply to the federal budget.
Maybe we are not really asking the right question. Maybe this is the qeustion: How do we insure the limited funds available get to the right people who would truly be helped by it?
I would love nothing more than the government being able to take care of ALL of us but, of course, where would the revenue come from if all of us where on the dole?
What IS the solution with limited funds?
No MrDoobie, that is not good but we do not have the resources to handle the present welfare needs.
We gave 50 sleeping bags to the homeless on winter and some meals. People ALSO need to help. Give a dollar or two when a beggar asks for it...if everyone does something, we will not solve the problem but we can help.
Also, for the record, most of your soup kitchens or helping pantrys (not all but the majority) were started or founded by religious organizations. One that everyone knows is the Salvation Army. Religious people are not the evil beast people seem hell-bent on protraying us as (although I do admit there are bad religious people just like there are good hedonistic people).
Dont you think its kind of silly to worry about 2.8% of the people on Welfare and claim its about economics when:
1. drug testing increases taxes and debt.
2. kicking people off of welfare just makes them more desperate increasing in crime and a need for police. ergo more taxes and debt.
and my favorite point
3. We waste more money on our bloated military and building weapons than anything else... why not leave the welfare people alone and lets cut our military in half, we could fund everything and then some. We dont need to be out there murdering brown people so we can take their resources. And While you may not like the idea that being in the military is a form of welfare, it pretty much is if we are going by the operational definition of welfare. In the military you are paid, and provided with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, transportation, weapons, etc based on taxes. How is that NOT a form of welfare?
I agree with you about out military being to big - America has become and world empire that maintians is dominance through the excessive abuse of power - no argument from me on that. I would love nothing more than the militaries of the world to disban and then we could probably cure cancer or something with the research money.
Maybe testing is NOT the answer...I am open to alternate ideas, what do we do? It is easy to criticize something but what good solution can we put forward to replace it? I am honestly open...
On the last thing: OMG Billy...seriously? You know, you are a little on the extreme side, you know that, right? : - )
In the military, you work very hard and some of us die for defending your right to be able to have free speech and rant and rave as you do (which, I will try and get used to it and not take it so personal, sorry for the outburst last night!). But, since you are blunt, I will be blunt with you 9not to be mean but to facilitate communication with you, ok?). You are nuts to say serving in the military is welfare - you are working to earn pay (regardless of where the funds come from). Based on your definition, every government employee is on welfare...well, I am not even going to keep goin on this...that thought is delusional! : - )
Yes, I don't usually come on during work but I felt akward for my outburst last night and wanted to see if I had become the INFJ outcast! : - )
I can already see I am a minority among minorities so I better get used to it! : - )
Ok, gotta do some work....sorry to all about my outburst....bye for now.
And with Welfare to work programs you have to work and pay back a large portion of the welfare, why is 1 ok and not the other?
I meant that in response to Billy RE: Welfare and the military.
I didn't think it was an outburst. <3
I'm off today.
But this place can definitely a time vampire!I meant that in response to Billy RE: Welfare and the military.
I didn't think it was an outburst. <3
I'm off today.
Yeah I understand that they are working, they are government workers, they are not only provided food, shelter, clothing, medical care, but jobs as well.. how is that NOT welfare? Where is the individual chutzpah to lace up your boots and build something and contribute production to society instead of living off of its dole? In the same sense, welfare mothers with children are also working... I would say raising children is probably a harder job than anything they do in the military at least in the military you get time off from your job.
How many people actually meet those requirements in Welfare to Work programs? HINT: It's not even half.