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.
I was thinking about the controversy on drug testing government assistance recipients. After realizing just how big of an undertaking this would really be I came to what I think is the bigger question behind this.
I don't understand how the right, the poster children of "we need less government interference in our lives" could advocate what would possibly be one of the biggest happenings of big brother "interference" in American history.
The right wing is generally all for things like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, owning 25% of the planet's incarcerated population, constitutional amendments that define marriage etc. How on earth can the right wing claim to be so viciously against government interference in our lives, yet continuously support more and more government authority over everyone?
I was thinking about the controversy on drug testing government assistance recipients. After realizing just how big of an undertaking this would really be I came to what I think is the bigger question behind this.
I don't understand how the right, the poster children of "we need less government interference in our lives" could advocate what would possibly be one of the biggest happenings of big brother "interference" in American history.
The right wing is generally all for things like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, owning 25% of the planet's incarcerated population, constitutional amendments that define marriage etc. How on earth can the right wing claim to be so viciously against government interference in our lives, yet continuously support more and more government authority over everyone?
I don't know. The answer lies in congressmen pandering to the right so they can make money in congress doing the opposite.
Most of us are hypocrites. Sorry to say it, but it's a fact. Most people in general are hypocrites.
That being said, I disagree with your assertion regarding drug testing welfare recipients. I would not call any restriction based on any benefit intervention by virtue of the fact that it is voluntary.
Anyone who accepts federal funds in any way shape or form should be under scrutiny. Such is not intervention, but a pre-condition to an unearned benefit.
I'm with you on the "Patriot" Act, gay marriage, etc etc.
Cue the "you don't care about corporate welfare" garbage. I'll be ignoring it.
Anyone who accepts federal funds in any way shape or form should be under scrutiny. Such is not intervention, but a pre-condition to an unearned benefit.
What level of scrutiny? Does that include submitting to a urinalysis before receiving every payment? And what is your definition of "unearned" benefits? Unemployment checks are covered by unemployment insurance that you pay for while you work - its not unearned, its like auto insurance. You pay into it so you collect when you need to. So would you exempt these people?
What level of scrutiny? Does that include submitting to a urinalysis before receiving every payment? And what is your definition of "unearned" benefits? Unemployment checks are covered by unemployment insurance that you pay for while you work - its not unearned, its like auto insurance. You pay into it so you collect when you need to. So would you exempt these people?
Reasonable scrutiny. Urinalysis before every payment was never suggested as far as I'm aware. That would serve no legitimate purpose.
Any particular isolated and self sustaining program like UE that you pay into is not an unearned benefit.
Any type of corporate subsidization or welfare payment is an unearned benefit.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what you mean by corporate subsidization - anything corporate is private, so why would you care?
A corporate subsidization is when money is given to corporations by the government. Usually in order to promote their particular industry for political reasons. For example green energy.
In these cases the government should be able to intervene to ensure that the money is furthering their intended goals.
A corporate subsidization is when money is given to corporations by the government. Usually in order to promote their particular industry for political reasons. For example green energy.
In these cases the government should be able to intervene to ensure that the money is furthering their intended goals.
Ahhh...I think I agree with that. That would, of course, include farm subsidies and the like....
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.
