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.
That's only a theoretical question, based on your own assumptions. You ASSUME that a couple on food stamps, would be spending their benefit money on pot. So your question isn't even legitimate anyhow. And I won't bother to answer a question, that's based only on your own assumptions, and not fact.
What I WILL say, is that the whole drug testing idea, is an invasion of privacy for welfare and UI recipients. It will never fly, because this is still a free country, even for the poor. You and people like you, seem to think this country should be free, for everybody BUT the poor. And that's ME telling it like it is!
Its no assumptions. Did you miss the part of they are friends of mine? I never said they are spending their food stamps. They are paying cash.
It is very much a legitimate question because you think that people that have cash to buy drugs need help buying food.
So once again I ask you, Why should we give a couple almost 400.00 a mth in food stamps while they spend no less then 100.00 a week on pot. They dont miss a day without smoking a joint. So can you tell me why we should be paying for them to have food stamps when they have money for pot?
I have a feeling since this being the what 5th time I've asked this. I wont get an answer. You are unable to defend your own argument and explain how come we should give someone that has cash for drugs gov aid.
Dont put words in my mouth about who freedom is for.
Honest question: Do you actually read the posts or do you just skim them and make the rest up as you go? The poster was stating that these people spend $100/week on weed and they receive $400/month in food stamps. This is a fact. NOW try to compose a response.
If you don't like the invasion of privacy for welfare and UE, then don't apply for welfare or UE. Simple. It's a condition of a handout, if you want it, you will abide by the rules or else you won't get it. Just like a driver's license, if you don't want to abide by the rules of the road, you won't be allowed to drive. If taxpayer money is subsidizing something, there absolutely should be limits.
I am honestly not understanding how anybody would be okay with a welfare recipient spending their money on drugs. If they are receiving welfare money and spend an equivalent amount on drugs each month, why is this okay??
I dont either. Its like they like buying people drugs, because that is what they are basically doing. They are buying people food stamps, insurance, daycare. Instead of that person having to use their drug money to buy those things.
Its almost like they want people on drugs to be honest.
I dont either. Its like they like buying people drugs, because that is what they are basically doing. They are buying people food stamps, insurance, daycare. Instead of that person having to use their drug money to buy those things.
Its almost like they want people on drugs to be honest.
Is there a valid reason for being fat? Don't get that way to begin with and you won't have a problem. Being fat is the worst strain you can possibly put on your body, most systems are affected in some way, including the musculoskeletal system (i.e., your legs). It's bad news. And please don't tell me that hormones are 100% to blame, as that is rarely the case. Nor is diabetes. Type 2 is caused by being overweight and putting that strain on your pancreas (well, it's caused by eating too many carbs which leads to being overweight as well as leads to your pancreas crapping out).
There are many medical reason that some people become 'fat'.
There are also some drugs that people NEED that have weight gain as a side effect.
Since threads like this one are your specialty, stay on topic, your so very good at plugging away about the poor.
I was responding to a poster who said people become fat so they can collect benefits.
I'm against drug testing, but I'm also against welfare.
So if a woman has 3 little kids & her husband or boyfriend takes off & he was the families sole provider & the rent is overdue, what do you suggest she do temporarily to keep a roof over their heads & to keep them fed?
Should she count on the good will of others while she is looking for work that would support her & the kids? Just wonderin....
So if a woman has 3 little kids & her husband or boyfriend takes off & he was the families sole provider & the rent is overdue, what do you suggest she do temporarily to keep a roof over their heads & to keep them fed?
Should she count on the good will of others while she is looking for work that would support her & the kids? Just wonderin....
Go to a local charity or church, stay with family or friends.
Relatively simple fix. Start writing these people up for attitude, insubordination, find a way to make them quit or gather enough write-ups that you can fire them without being taken to court for UE.
I'd rather just lay someone off rather than try to fix attitude. It's pretty easy to tell early on if someone is going to be a good fit; we let them go with no hard feelings way before they earn enough to qualify for benefits. We've found that a positive management style really does serve us well.
I'm curious though about what sort of advertising you're doing for the open positions that you have. People in the industry here in Oregon tell me that when they're hiring, they recieve literally hundreds of applications. Maybe the economy is better where you're at. Is there a local university or college in your area? Most of them have jobs boards that can be a good resource.
Quote:
I am honestly not understanding how anybody would be okay with a welfare recipient spending their money on drugs.
I'm not okay with that at all. But I'm less okay with the legal precedent that such legislation would involve. And as I've said before, experienced druggies can get by a test fairly easily.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 12-15-2010 at 07:24 PM..
Her husband running off is not society's problem. Don't expect everyone else to pay for the husband's mistakes.
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.
It's a condition of a handout, if you want it, you will abide by the rules or else you won't get it. Just like a driver's license, if you don't want to abide by the rules of the road, you won't be allowed to drive. If taxpayer money is subsidizing something, there absolutely should be limits.
