U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2010, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 20,675,588 times
Reputation: 3587

Advertisements

If workers have to take them then so too should those getting government money. I would even expand that to those getting student loans and grants. If you got cash to buy dope- or cigarettes for that matter- then you don't need to ask for my tax dollars. And all these rich people should be forced to take them too. The CEO should be required to take them and so should his children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,996,705 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis View Post

Or we could just let people live their lives and remember what happens when whole groups are disenfranchised according to what one group believes.
Yes, they can live their lives in the ways that suit them...and without welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,027 posts, read 15,654,303 times
Reputation: 7764
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
I'm all for restricting soft drinks but how do you restrict that unless you cut it from food stamps? There's no test to restrict recreational activities, and they are not illegal and not bad for you. I am referring to all illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco products.

So you would restrict them from everything that you consider "bad for you", is that it?

How about taking a ride in the country on Sunday afternoon? That increases the risk of a car accident. Prohibit ????

And studies have shown that alcohol in moderation is a health benefit. So why would you prohibit alcohol?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:55 PM
 
20,502 posts, read 26,651,554 times
Reputation: 13249
What about the states where the employees actually do pay directly into UI tax (maybe more states should adopt this policy, might be a better way to save tax dollars than marginalized prohibition)?

I think that perhaps I'll apply for UI benefits online this afternoon while sipping a nice light red from my cellar.

I've paid into it for years, after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:17 PM
 
20,502 posts, read 26,651,554 times
Reputation: 13249
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
Yes, they can live their lives in the ways that suit them...and without welfare.
There have actually been rulings on this....wish I recall the specifics but in some states where this type of thing has been proposed, it's been ruled that the children cannot be made to suffer for the "sins" of the parents.

What I mean by legal precedent is something like this: we all have a legal right as adults to consumer alcohol, smoke tobacco, and in some cases use marijuana. If we as a society decide to curtail those rights on any segment of our population, we're leaving ourselves pretty open to the government already having precedence to do so in our own lives. Constitutional law is tricky, but one of its premises is that we cannot curtail the rights of a certain demographic without endangering our own.

Job training programs would go a long way towards weeding out those with significant substance issues and I wouldn't see a problem with a failure to participate in one being grounds for termination of welfare benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:43 PM
 
4,126 posts, read 4,346,364 times
Reputation: 1610
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
Yes, they can live their lives in the ways that suit them...and without welfare.
Exactly! I have every right to own and drive a Ferrari but that right in no way guarantees it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 07:58 PM
 
Location: In the desert
2,470 posts, read 1,865,881 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
There have actually been rulings on this....wish I recall the specifics but in some states where this type of thing has been proposed, it's been ruled that the children cannot be made to suffer for the "sins" of the parents.


Job training programs would go a long way towards weeding out those with significant substance issues and I wouldn't see a problem with a failure to participate in one being grounds for termination of welfare benefit.
I am in complete agreement with job training for welfare recipients or for the termination of benefits if they choose to not participate.

Unfortunatly we have a certain percentage of the general population that just doesn't give a dam about 'the children' of anyone who collects welfare. You hear it all the time, 'their parents shouldn't be bums', 'it's the parents fault', etc. & while some of this is true, it is cruel to punish children but, many just don't care.

Not caring about those most vulnerable only helps to continue the endless cycle of generations of those who receive benefits.

If we actually created some of the 'feel good' programs(programs created to make some members of society feel better about how tax dollars are being spent or not) that some on here suggest many children would suffer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 08:01 PM
 
10,813 posts, read 6,961,498 times
Reputation: 4163
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey View Post

I will & I do.
That's good. Then let me keep my money and give to a charity that I choose. The government should do the big things that individuals can't do like having a military, regulating commerce, and building infrastructure. The government shouldn't be handing out checks to people because they make bad choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 09:17 PM
 
Location: In the desert
2,470 posts, read 1,865,881 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
That's good. Then let me keep my money and give to a charity that I choose. The government should do the big things that individuals can't do like having a military, regulating commerce, and building infrastructure. The government shouldn't be handing out checks to people because they make bad choices.
Our politicians make bad choices all the time & we still hand them checks though don't we? & we keep on voting for idiots no matter what party they are that look out for their own interests.

Not all the poor have made bad choices, life sometimes hands you lemons.
Get sick, or have a child with a chronic illness & not be able to afford treatments for that child & then lose your job, & then your home.

The problem is many DON'T give to charity. I have stated before the churches & food banks here are broke & turning people away because they can't help.
There are some people who have had many bad things happen to them, should we just tell them 'tough' when they need help feeding their kids?

Or should we tell the kids 'tough' your parents made bad choices?

I do understand there are some people who can donate to charity & live their lives & not be effected by those who are hungry. Sometimes when I work the food bank or clothes drive, I wish I could just forget about it because there are times when it really gets to me.

Every time I see a family with small kids though, I suck it up & just continue on. It has gotten so much worse this last year too.

If I can feed some hungry kid, they can have more of my money.

I have heard the comments & have even been called names by some here for my opinions.

Look, there have been times I get angry because I see the mom with her cell phone & nice clothes & car bringing her kids in to eat a free meal. You have no idea what I would like to say to her but, what if that selfish woman wasn't going to spend the money to feed her kids, should THEY just not eat? < & this is very rare, most are very grateful.

Recently you can tell those folks who are "first timers", they are extremly quite & embarrassed & look so very defeated.

You may see me as a weak person but believe me if your not strong you wouldn't be able to keep going back.
Pretty recently I was given one of life's reality checks. I became very sick (am better now) My priorities changed drastically.
I couldn't turn a kid away, it's not in me. JMPO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,996,705 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey View Post
I am in complete agreement with job training for welfare recipients or for the termination of benefits if they choose to not participate.

Unfortunatly we have a certain percentage of the general population that just doesn't give a dam about 'the children' of anyone who collects welfare. You hear it all the time, 'their parents shouldn't be bums', 'it's the parents fault', etc. & while some of this is true, it is cruel to punish children but, many just don't care.

Not caring about those most vulnerable only helps to continue the endless cycle of generations of those who receive benefits.

If we actually created some of the 'feel good' programs(programs created to make some members of society feel better about how tax dollars are being spent or not) that some on here suggest many children would suffer.
WIC is one program that I can somewhat get behind. It says exactly what the parent can buy, it is not a free-for-all at the grocery store, it is not cash to be spent on whatever, etc. I have repeatedly said in my personal life that we can't punish children for the sins of the parent, but when it comes to welfare, I'm not sure what exactly could be done, short of removing the children from the home to be raised by parents who actually give a crap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top