Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, if you are receiving assistance like this, you should have to abide by the rules of the law.
No drugs
No breaking the law
No Selling food stamps
No children while on assistance
I think any able bodied citizen should be required to do 20 hours of community service until they find a job. I also believe that if you break any of the 4 rules, you lose benefits for at least a year or two.
Why should we fund people that do drugs, lie, cheat, steal, and continue to have children while we do the right things and get taxes instead.
As soon as you require the same for corporations who take government money, I am on board. All employees and executives should be drug tested. If they break any laws, they will not be allowed any further government handouts or tax breaks for at least a year or two. And they must do community service of 20 hours per week per employee.
Why should we fund corporations filled with employees who do drugs, lie, cheat, steal while we do the right things?
I think any able bodied citizen should be required to do 20 hours of community service until they find a job.
Community service where in NYC? Its all unionized city labor. For NYC all its going to cause is another level of bills for NYC who already is in a deficit. It works outside of the metro area because they don't have to deal with the high labor costs and labor contracts.
good for you. just more money for jails
and even more second-class citizenship.
just more problems than it is intended
to eliminate i guess. who knows?
Georgia is a deeply backward and stupid state in many ways and this asinine law proves it because it shows absolutely no understanding that 1) some people actually can smoke a joint one in a while and go on about their business with no drama and 2) people who CANNOT do the occasional toke and a beer thing, and are truly hooked on whatever drug, are seriously sick and need help -- rehab, sober living residences perhpas, therapy, and the like. Now if the state were truly willing to pay for those services and the individuals refused them, then yes, I'd cut them off.
But I'd bet anything that the state offers little to no help for the addicted and alcoholic that might help them get on their feet and become productive again, and makes no attempt to differentiate between someone who who has a joint occasionally and those who are dependant on weed or hooked on other drugs.
It has absoutely nothing to do with fraud. Rather it's a bunch of crappy puritanical Republican Southerners (half of whom I'd wager get filthy drunk more than they should and run around on their wives) who are showboating, ignorant of addiction, and trying to balance the state budget on the backs of the poor.
F**k 'em.
Last edited by citylove101; 06-15-2012 at 03:20 PM..
To me, if you are receiving assistance like this, you should have to abide by the rules of the law.
No drugs
No breaking the law
No Selling food stamps
No children while on assistance
I think any able bodied citizen should be required to do 20 hours of community service until they find a job. I also believe that if you break any of the 4 rules, you lose benefits for at least a year or two.
Why should we fund people that do drugs, lie, cheat, steal, and continue to have children while we do the right things and get taxes instead.
I totally agree. If workers need to be drug tested to get a job then welfare recipients should be tested to qualify and keep their handout check from tax payers. Its very simple. Play by the rules and continue to get your welfare check, break the rules, lose your check. Don't try to be slick and argue that smoking a joint ever now and then doesn't effect your performance. Rules are rules. Follow them or get booted. Again, I totally agree with this law. NY definitely needs this law.
Georgia is a deeply backward and stupid state in many ways and this asinine law proves it because it shows absolutely no understanding that 1) some people actually can smoke a joint one in a while and go on about their business with no drama and 2) people who CANNOT do the occasional toke and a beer thing, and are truly hooked on whatever drug, are seriously sick and need help -- rehab, sober living residences perhpas, therapy, and the like. Now if the state were truly willing to pay for those services and the individuals refused them, then yes, I'd cut them off.
But I'd bet anything that the state offers little to no help for the addicted and alcoholic that might help them get on their feet and become productive again, and makes no attempt to differentiate between someone who who has a joint occasionally and those who are dependant on weed or hooked on other drugs.
It has absoutely nothing to do with fraud. Rather it's a bunch of crappy puritanical Republican Southerners (half of whom I'd wager get filthy drunk more than they should and run around on their wives) who are showboating, ignorant of addiction, and trying to balance the state budget on the backs of the poor.
F**k 'em.
It has nothing to do with "rights". Marijuana is still illegal. Until they make it legal, they should not be engaging in that activity. Instead of smoking pot, why not look for a job? And given they are smoking weed, what does that do to help them get a job if they get drug tested? So now they fail a drug test for a job and can't get one.
If you are accepting money from the government, you are slave to said government.
As soon as you require the same for corporations who take government money, I am on board. All employees and executives should be drug tested. If they break any laws, they will not be allowed any further government handouts or tax breaks for at least a year or two. And they must do community service of 20 hours per week per employee.
Why should we fund corporations filled with employees who do drugs, lie, cheat, steal while we do the right things?
I can't really argue with this post sobro because I'm very opposed to corporate welfare as well. Those corporations which receive government money don't really pass this welfare on to the employees, executives may be another story.
In a big way people on welfare equate to being like the employees, which must abide by most general working rules, such as drug testing or being arrested and convicted of a crime. Employees don't have to abide by the stricter rules which welfare recipients should because employees actually to contribute to the system via their taxes.
Both welfare and corporate welfare should be addressed.
Like you adamantly stressed in the Bloomie soda ban thread, if you drain our system because of poor health choices and expect the government to then take care of you then you must accept the rules of conduct set by the government. This is much the same thing.
Like you adamantly stressed in the Bloomie soda ban thread, if you drain our system because of poor health choices and expect the government to then take care of you then you must accept the rules of conduct set by the government.
Except in regard to that thread, not everyone who drinks soda expects the government to pay for their medical care. In this one he has more of a point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
