Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

All irrelevant anyways, as there was no evidence of a crime being committed and no probable cause for a search.

So now your back to the whole "search and seizure" argument. Well, when you can't argue the facts, you have to change the discussion. OK - but I already addressed it and you didn't have a rebuttal. So once again - where is the evidence of a crime being committed or the probable cause that allows the government to require drug screening in all of its applicants for employment?

Have you come up with an answer for that one yet?

Fourth Amendment rights are a wonderful thing.

We agree on that.

Shame that so many people want to throw them away.

No - its a shame people want to think their "right" to use illegal drugs and then defraud the government of the money paid by those of us that work is ok. It's not. So try again.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Have you come up with an answer for that one yet?

I don't think I need to explain the difference between making a claim on the social insurance policy that you have bought and paid for with your tax dollars and a job application. Again, when are you submitting your specimen, because I guarantee you that you're receiving some benefit from public tax dollars. Fair is fair, right?

its a shame people want to think their "right" to use illegal drugs and then defraud the government of the money paid by those of us that work is ok.

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I see the right's attempt to associate all welfare recipients with lazy minorities who are out to steal the white man's treasure is working.

File an amicus curiae brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with your "scientifically" derived statistics. Let me know how that goes. But again...Fourth Amendment. Bang the Constitution drum all day long until it involves poor people and single mothers. Then it's just "Screw 'em". Sad.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't think I need to explain the difference between making a claim on the social insurance policy that you have bought and paid for with your tax dollars and a job application.

Anytime you make a claim on an insurance policy, you must be able to prove that you meet the requirements of the said policy. If you don't think so, go try and collect on a life insurance policy when the person its for is still alive....

The very first sentence in this thread you wrote:

First off, the Fourth Amendment says the government can't search you without probable cause.

Yet I have proved that is not the case - you can - by application - consent to a search. It doesn't matter what the application is for - if you are aware that such a search is part of the process, and you choose to engage in the process, you are choosing to CONSENT to the process - including the screening.

Again, when are you submitting your specimen, because I guarantee you that you're receiving some benefit from public tax dollars. Fair is fair, right?

I have been drug tested numerous times over the year. I don't have a problem with it. Gee - I wonder if that might be because I don't use drugs - whereas the ones who want a benefit simply want it given with no questions asked.

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I see the right's attempt to associate all welfare recipients with lazy minorities who are out to steal the white man's treasure is working.

Christ, Mookie - where do you get off basically calling everyone who favors drug screening a racist over this? That is simply uncalled for. No one in this discussion - except for you - has brought race up as even a component. To do so simply to denigrate those who hold a different view - I thought better of you. Considering whites actually make up more recipients than any other race, it also makes the claim demonstrably false. Still, who cares about facts when you can yell "RACIST", huh?

File an amicus curiae brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with your "scientifically" derived statistics. Let me know how that goes. But again...Fourth Amendment.

Time will tell - but we both know this will go to a higher court, so what the lower courts rule is not the final arbiter.

Bang the Constitution drum all day long until it involves poor people and single mothers. Then it's just "Screw 'em". Sad.

First of all - as a single dad of 2 who has had to struggle - I take a bit of offense when people try to make it all about the "poor and single mothers". We all have our own road to go through - and just because they are poor (and I have been too - and I ain't rich now either) or female with kids doesn't make em "special". The mere fact that gender even comes up just speaks to how screwy the situation is. What about us single dad's? Apparently - you only want to apply standards to "protected classes". How is that for "fair"?

As for the Constitution drum, the only reason you can make it about the "poor and single mothers" is because its a social program in which they are the primary recipient. Guess what - I am pretty consistent - I'd be ok with testing old people on Medicare for drugs too - because if they got cash to buy pot (and they don't have a Dr.'s prescription) - they don't need me paying for their health care. Oh - and while we are doing "testing" - lets means test people on Medicare. After all - welfare recipients are means tested, why shouldn't we do the same to "old" people?

Or maybe just to assuage whatever guilt or angst you may have over racial issues, would it simply make you feel better if we only means tested (and for welfare - drug tested) Caucasians?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Take away the mod cons and you could be talking about ancient rome, royalist and repulican france, imperial china or victorian britain.


The cycle of poverty didn't end with poor laws deportations or imprisonment either, all the "get tough" measures on the "****less wastrels" have made no impact at all over the centuries.
What you are suggesting is a re-run of useless approach which has failed hundreds or thousands of times already and has never shown even the slightest hint of working.
Makes for good populist headlines though doesn't it.

edit to add. silly ******** filter doesn't understand english, the word is **** not ****

I'm not disagreeing with you that any approach which is designed merely to restrict the impact upon the taxpayer is likely to fail as well.

My point is simple: when we take the misery out of poverty, we remove the primary motivation for self-sufficiency.

Now I'm not suggesting letting people starve in the streets. What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.

As for the rest, Haplo seems to be doing fine.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - you bring up a really good point - and one that I think leads to a discussion of real reforms for those who are on welfare.

I don't know of anyone that wants people to stay poor. I sure don't. But again, identifying those with drug problems so they can get help - helps them. Evil thing that. Then again, when it comes to "real" reforms - I am all for ACTIVE work requirement for welfare. Sure, I get some people can't find a job - McDonalds and the like can only absorb so many people. But there are a lot of charities and community groups that would love to have people resources for say.... 16 hours a week.

Habitat for Humanity is an example. 2 full WORK days a week - and the welfare recipient could be learning an "on the job" trade by helping to build a house for someone else in need. Soup Kitchens always need helpers - both in and out of the kitchen. I could probably list 100 groups that could use the people resources to help the community. Just 2 days a week....

But of course - that would never get off the ground. Too much backlash for expecting people to be part of their own solution. And on the McDonalds note - it amazes me when welfare recipients say they wouldn't take a job at a fast food place because they won't make enough. Welfare would still pay them if they worked unless they made too much - and if they actually DID work - and did a good job - they would have an increased earning potential. But instead many choose to sit with their hand out - and then get mad when their "right" to welfare gets looked at.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Aramike - you bring up a really good point - and one that I think leads to a discussion of real reforms for those who are on welfare.

I don't know of anyone that wants people to stay poor. I sure don't. But again, identifying those with drug problems so they can get help - helps them. Evil thing that. Then again, when it comes to "real" reforms - I am all for ACTIVE work requirement for welfare. Sure, I get some people can't find a job - McDonalds and the like can only absorb so many people. But there are a lot of charities and community groups that would love to have people resources for say.... 16 hours a week.

Habitat for Humanity is an example. 2 full WORK days a week - and the welfare recipient could be learning an "on the job" trade by helping to build a house for someone else in need. Soup Kitchens always need helpers - both in and out of the kitchen. I could probably list 100 groups that could use the people resources to help the community. Just 2 days a week....

But of course - that would never get off the ground. Too much backlash for expecting people to be part of their own solution. And on the McDonalds note - it amazes me when welfare recipients say they wouldn't take a job at a fast food place because they won't make enough. Welfare would still pay them if they worked unless they made too much - and if they actually DID work - and did a good job - they would have an increased earning potential. But instead many choose to sit with their hand out - and then get mad when their "right" to welfare gets looked at.

I agree with you 100%. Part of the problem is the excuse crowd - there are people out there who don't believe that any of the poor are responsible for their fiscal state. As soon as you start requiring them to work to receive benefits, you'll hear the lines about who's going to watch the kids, etc.

It is a sad state of affairs when, through our own rhetoric, we paint ourselves into a corner where a person on welfare is compelled to remain on welfare because that person is not able to do anything BUT be on welfare.

Haplo raises a point which leads to how populist knee jerk "get tough" on welfare ideas can soon run into self defeating problems.
Cameron in Britain has this workfare thing, it basicly means big business can get free labour instead of employing workers, people who do voluntary or charity work find themselves classed as employed and will lose their benefits unless they give up the charity work and instead become an unpaid shelf stacker at Walmart.
It is a good example of measures managing to target the people it is not aimed at and missing the people it is aimed at. With a "bonus" result of actually reducing the availability of jobs the lazy could be introduced to

What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.

I know, but the usual result is that it hits the needy not the lazy and runs up an ever increasing price tag for ever diminishing returns.
A repeating problem which comes up all the time is that introducing more stringent criteria tends to hit genuine claimants of welfare harder as the welfare fiddlers know how to work round the system.
There must be a workable solution out there somewhere, but what it is I havn't a clue.
However what I do know is that repeating the latest incarnation of the already failed "get tough" measures is pretty much guaranteed to fail.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wolferz...

Welfare - whether corporate or individual - is money taken from the working citizen and given to someone else. Your right about that. And your right its abused either way. The thing is, its government's fault for creating a system that is so ripe for abuse - and you have to start somewhere. The reason you start with drug users vs "big corp" is simple - big corp actually does something useful in society.

Business employs people, welfare drug users? Not so much.

Any questions?

If we dig down to the bare bones we find that money is nothing more than a fantasy construct. Is there anything of value that actually backs it anymore? The answer is no. It's just Fiat money. Figures stored in a computer. The digits that are removed from your pay go for only one thing... paying the interest on the money that the government borrows to pay its' bills and run its' programs. Basically it's a big Ponzi scheme with an artificial deficit thrown in to create talking points for politicians to create fear among the populace.
Eventually it will collapse on itself.
My suggestion would be... give the poor their welfare fiat but not with a noose attached to it. If the poor are poor because they chose substance abuse, they need more than the pittance doled out by their state welfare office. Requiring a drug test to get aid smacks of tyranny where you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence and that isn't right by any stretch of the imagination. This will lead to further erosion of peoples' rights to self determination.
The real abusers of these programs don't spend that money on drugs to sell or imbibe. They do blatantly stupid things like a couple I saw in Michigan doing their grocery shopping in a convenience store. Loaded a cart, paid for it with food stamps and went to the parking lot and loaded everything into a new Cadillac. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over

As for the corporate welfare queens, sure they do something constructive with the money... like paying their stock holders huge dividends and paying their CEO's huge salaries and bonuses. Is that where you want your money going? To make the rich a little richer?
If Welfare is such a thorn in the side, just do away with it altogether. Grind the poor into the mud or make them slaves by tossing them into the workhouse again. I certainly hope that you never find yourself a down on your luck victim of a financial catastrophe.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

If we dig down to the bare bones we find that money is nothing more than a fantasy construct. Is there anything of value that actually backs it anymore? The answer is no. It's just Fiat money. Figures stored in a computer. The digits that are removed from your pay go for only one thing... paying the interest on the money that the government borrows to pay its' bills and run its' programs. Basically it's a big Ponzi scheme with an artificial deficit thrown in to create talking points for politicians to create fear among the populace.
Eventually it will collapse on itself.

I mostly agree so far.

My suggestion would be... give the poor their welfare fiat but not with a noose attached to it.

A drug test is hardly a noose. Drugs themselves often turn into one, however.

If the poor are poor because they chose substance abuse, they need more than the pittance doled out by their state welfare office.

No, if the poor are poor because they choose substance abuse, they don't need ANYTHING from the state welfare office. They need to either get clean and get their life together, or at least free up welfare resources to those who do not CHOOSE to live in continual poverty. In other words - if they choose drugs - they don't need welfare.

Requiring a drug test to get aid smacks of tyranny where you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence and that isn't right by any stretch of the imagination.

Again - as I pointed out to Mookie - welfare is a CHOICE - so if they choose to "get aid" - they are consenting to a drug test.

This will lead to further erosion of peoples' rights to self determination.

Look - let's say your running low on food. You ask me for help, so I bring over some cans of green beans and some boxes of mac and cheese. You turn it down because you wanted streak. In fact, you sue me for not doing it "your way". Well sorry ole boy, you ask for help, you take it the way its offered, not how you want it. Nobody MADE you ask for help - so you either want it or you don't. There is a difference between self determination and telling others they have to support you while you go do drugs.

The real abusers of these programs don't spend that money on drugs to sell or imbibe. They do blatantly stupid things like a couple I saw in Michigan doing their grocery shopping in a convenience store. Loaded a cart, paid for it with food stamps and went to the parking lot and loaded everything into a new Cadillac. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over

So someone on welfare should not be allowed to own a caddy, but they should be allowed to go smoke some crack or do some meth..... Sorry - that logic just does NOT fly....

As for the corporate welfare queens, sure they do something constructive with the money... like paying their stock holders huge dividends and paying their CEO's huge salaries and bonuses.

Yes, none of that money actually goes into stuff like developing new technology or paying salaries to regular people, huh? Yes, the rich make money - and they do so RISKING their money. But that money they risk - employs people - who when successful create a profit that partially gets returned to the investor.

Is that where you want your money going?

Employing people... yes I do want my money going there.

To make the rich a little richer?

Or poorer? Like those who invested in things like Wesabe or Petite Palate, or a company I worked for - Living.com which sold furniture online. But you don't have a problem with the rich loosing money do you? They probably deserve to do so, right? Only thing is - when they did - I did too - because I lost my job when the company went bankrupt. You want to pretend that the "rich get richer" in a vacuum - and they don't.

If Welfare is such a thorn in the side, just do away with it altogether. Grind the poor into the mud or make them slaves by tossing them into the workhouse again. I certainly hope that you never find yourself a down on your luck victim of a financial catastrophe.

I have been there. I was forced into a situation where I knew I couldn't keep my head up. I had to ask for help from a local charity so that I could feed my two kids. The good Lord blessed me and gave me an IT contract that same week - and though I was offered the help, I was able to then say "no thank you". The help went to someone else, whom I hope truly needed them. Reforms such as drug testing - only helps to make sure that welfare resources go to those who truly need them - not those who want to eat off welfare (or trade their welfare "funds") so they can buy drugs.

Welfare (of all types) is a thorn. Ultimately, its not right that government takes from one person via compulsory taxation just to give it to someone else via welfare. The thing is - when the thorn is abused, it makes it a much larger thorn.

Welfare (of all types) is a thorn. Ultimately, its not right that government takes from one person via compulsory taxation just to give it to someone else via welfare.

What would Jesus say about that?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What would Jesus say about that?

It's not Jesus, but:

Originally Posted by Acts 4:32-35 (KJV)

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

good un Razark
Now to hit the other angle a square blow, what did jesus say about paying the evil gumbmint the taxes?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by razark

It's not Jesus, but:

More importantly, its not the government. There is a significant difference between charity and welfare. The references and text you list are not mandatory actions required by government, but the giving out of love.

More importantly, its not the government. There is a significant difference between charity and welfare. The references and text you list are not mandatory actions required by government, but the giving out of love.

But so it is written, giveth unto the government the money they ask for so they can go forth and do governmenty things.
After all ceasar can't bring deliveries of bread to the poor if people don't render unto him that which is his.
Scripture eh, a source for all seasons.

[razark]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

More importantly, its not the government. There is a significant difference between charity and welfare. The references and text you list are not mandatory actions required by government, but the giving out of love.

Love? What happens to Ananias and Sapphira when they fail to live by the communist rules?