Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by razark

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

They were struck dead - but not because they did not give. They were struck dead for LYING about the sale price of their estate - claiming to give it all when in fact they did not.

Acts 5: 4-10 (Emphasis added)

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

A simple reading of the text would have shown you better - unless of course you are out to merely argue for arguments sake. That would explain you quoting tribesman and bringing up the Bible instead of arguing the points.

[Aramike]

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.

I would be inclined to agree, accept that I don't see how drug testing would hit the most needy, unless of course they were using drugs, in which case there's a whole different case for change.

[Wolferz]

Some of you seem to be assuming that welfare provides enough money to actually support a drug habit. Illicit drugs are a tad expensive and a welfare check doesn't come close to paying that bill. Or nearly any other bill to boot.
So, do the next best thing to get the leeches burned off the backside of your tax money. Make a blanket accusation that all welfare recipients use drugs therefore make them pay for a drug test to get their measly $200.00 a month and laugh at them while they shiver and starve in the dark. Then order them to stop smoking the crack, pot or whatever else they're blowing your tax money on before lending them a hand.
Continue with your delusion of a smaller tax bill if all the leeches were burned off tomorrow. It ain't gonna happen.
And we wonder why our prisons are overflowing. Incarceration begins to look very inviting to a starving, freezing man or woman with no bed. Can you say offsetting remedy that costs twice as much?

[Aramike]

Some of you seem to be assuming that welfare provides enough money to actually support a drug habit. Illicit drugs are a tad expensive and a welfare check doesn't come close to paying that bill. Or nearly any other bill to boot.

No, but welfare DOES provide enough money to free up other money for other things, such as drugs. Went you have rent assistance, food assistance, utility assistance, a monthly check, MORE food money for "healthy" food, medical assistance, "Obamaphone", etc, it's amazing how much spare change is found.

One only has to head to an inner city supermarket to watch people selling their food stamp cards at a discount for cash - right at the front door of the store. This happens DAILY. I have a sneaking suspicion that the guy doing so with his new Nikes and iPhone isn't simply trying to pay a bill.

Personally, I would put recipients on an accountability program, requiring them to show where the benefits are going. Even if you're looking for a job, if you're not working I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't have the time to itemize your spending and learn the value of money and budgeting.

@haplos comment.

A simple reading of the text would have shown you better - unless of course you are out to merely argue for arguments sake. That would explain you quoting tribesman and bringing up the Bible instead of arguing the points.

If someone brings their religion into the topic the literature of that religion is naturally brought into the topic.
I see your problem with that though as your scripture doesn't support your views.

@ Aramike

I would be inclined to agree, accept that I don't see how drug testing would hit the most needy, unless of course they were using drugs, in which case there's a whole different case for change.

I know, that was a general comment about how the usual populist approaches to a solution pan out.
However on the drugs issue, how does the new system differentiate between abuse of illegal drugs and illegal abuse of legal drugs?
Is there to be a medical panel to screen every applicants medical history and ongoing condition to ensure that the hillbilly heroin or mummys little helpers they got on script is for a genuine medical need rather than as a recreational feel good or an addiction?
Increasing costs again isn't it.

Personally, I would put recipients on an accountability program, requiring them to show where the benefits are going. Even if you're looking for a job, if you're not working I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't have the time to itemize your spending and learn the value of money and budgeting.

So that would be an ends testing as well as a means testing. Not a bad idea, but then again you are talking more costs and means testing alone already usually adds significantly more cost than it is able to save and must still be maintained when it makes no savings at all to stand aginst its expense.

[Wolferz]

The war on poverty has been lost and is now the war on the poor..
http://news.msn.com/us/help-shrinks-...ikes-in-the-us

Onward to the rear march!

[August]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

The war on poverty has been lost and is now the war on the poor..
http://news.msn.com/us/help-shrinks-...ikes-in-the-us

Onward to the rear march!

Yeah but that's a religious charity so it doesn't count. I expect that the forums anti-religious contingent will be on here soon to detail why giving religions public money to fund their brainwashing efforts is just plain wrong.

[Betonov]

Public money shouldn't go to religions under any cause. A lot of people donate willingly and should have their tax breaks acknowledged. But public money shouldn't go into private pockets of religions.

You never saw the cathoilic church work their magic. Millions go in, hundreds go out to poor.

Yeah but that's a religious charity so it doesn't count. I expect that the forums anti-religious contingent will be on here soon to detail why giving religions public money to fund their brainwashing efforts is just plain wrong.

I thought that would be the strict US constitutionalists doing the detail and insisting on the seperation of church and state

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Public money shouldn't go to religions under any cause. A lot of people donate willingly and should have their tax breaks acknowledged. But public money shouldn't go into private pockets of religions.

You never saw the cathoilic church work their magic. Millions go in, hundreds go out to poor.

What you say may be true but religious charities still do most of the charity work. Take them out of the picture and who will the poor turn to then? The government?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

What you say may be true but religious charities still do most of the charity work. Take them out of the picture and who will the poor turn to then? The government?

Red cross ??

Don't trust even them and I volunteer.

Tax exempt for people donating to charity (don't care which) and a high transparency how much money actually gets to the poor so the people decide themselves who to donate. And more charity drives. Brings the community together for a good deed. Here every body is just: give give give and the only benefitors are the not so poor running the organizations.

Its the ''here's some taxpayer money, go feed the poor and make sure you do it because were not checking on you'' thing that makes me sick.

[CaptainHaplo]

Many so called "charities" are corrupt - but that is why many religious charities are willing to open their books. So are many non-religious ones. The ones who are willing - are the ones that can show how they help - and they are the ones I am willing to donate to. Religious or otherwise.

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Red cross ??

That's a possiblity but I wonder if the Red Cross could handle the extra work load. I also wonder if people would donate the same amount they give to religious charities.

Guilt and fear of damnation can be powerful motivators and priests are very good at putting the arm on their parishioners. I can't see the RC or other secular charity having the same coercive power.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by August

Guilt and fear of damnation can be powerful motivators and priests are very good at putting the arm on their parishioners. I can't see the RC or other secular charity having the same coercive power.

Which is a really sad thing - because no one should be acting out of "fear" - but rather love. Something that many a parish leader could learn.

Its like the sermon that says you better get saved because if you don't you will burn in torment for all eternity. Not only is such a message theologically incorrect, it seeks to motive from a negative. No conversion done through fear lasts.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Which is a really sad thing - because no one should be acting out of "fear" - but rather love. Something that many a parish leader could learn.

Its like the sermon that says you better get saved because if you don't you will burn in torment for all eternity. Not only is such a message theologically incorrect, it seeks to motive from a negative. No conversion done through fear lasts.

Maybe not but a little fire and brimstone judiciously applied now and then does help to fill the collection basket.