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.
Maybe the Federal government should read our mail, after all they are subsidizing the cost of those letters in the mail box. Just as sure as they are subsidizing living expenses for the poor who can't afford the actual cost of living... or did you really think it cost only $.44 to tell grandma happy birthday by a hand carried personal note 3000 miles?
Maybe the Federal government should read our mail, after all they are subsidizing the cost of those letters in the mail box. Just as sure as they are subsidizing living expenses for the poor who can't afford the actual cost of living... or did you really think it cost only $.44 to tell grandma happy birthday by a hand carried personal note 3000 miles?
Do you really think it costs only about 25c to till, plant, weed, fertilize, grow, harvest, process, warehouse, ship, wholesale, shelve, ring up and bag a potato from Idaho to your shopping bag?
Do you really think it costs only about 25c to till, plant, weed, fertilize, grow, harvest, process, warehouse, ship, wholesale, shelve, ring up and bag a potato from Idaho to your shopping bag?
should the federal government be drug testing potato farmers as well as welfare recipients? over 3,000 farmers 140 million in loses. how much of those loses are subsidized tax dollars. federal dollars are passed out every where, should we drug test everyone who get a handout from the federal government. what criteria do we used to drug test people who get money from the federal government?
Not all welfare recipients are drug users or addicts; so, THEY have every right to protest my requirement for mandatory testing. However, if there is a reasonable suspicion of drug use by a welfare recipient, then I would have every right to require him to get tested. If he fails the drug test, he gets a probation to clean himself up. He's limited to three chances.
I'm not familiar with the welfare process, but I think what was just described above is how it works now, except he gets unlimited chances.
Testing based on individual cases makes me very dependent on the judgement of the welfare case worker. Therefore, he/she must be very well-trained, not overloaded with work, and his/her judgement strongly backed up by agency administrative officers.
I think that would be completely unnecessary. What's the point? So that the government can continue to force the morals of the few onto the majority?
I think that something should be done to limit the amount of money given to people on welfare. I'm not an economist and I don't know anything regarding statistics, but I have seen plenty of people who abuse the system. It's disgusting. It would be great if there was a way to prevent that, but I'm not sure what exactly that would entail.
I do know that drug testing is NOT the answer. The government telling a person what they can/can't do to their own body is a ridiculous concept to begin with. Oh hey, I'm going to make these PLANTS illegal. But you can still go get smashed on the weekends and get into car crashes, be a rape victim, and kill yourself from ingesting too much alcohol. Lolz. Let's ignore the fact that a lot of illegal drugs could be used to treat medical conditions, stimulate the economy and allow every adult the freedom of choice that was given to us in the constitution.
If they try to drug test welfare recepients I'm not sure what the outcome would be. Maybe some people would stop using drugs. Maybe they wouldn't and would resort to living on the streets. Maybe they would riot. But I see no possible way that enforcing something like this could have positive results.
Should public assistance be cut off or disallowed to any person who fails a mandatory drug test?
Public assistance comes in many forms, so you'd need to be a lot more specific with this concept. Some assistance (e.g., Medicaid, food stamps) is provided for minor children, but given to the adult in the family to administer. If the adult fails a drug test, do you plan to take the assistance away from the child who is the actual recipient?
Likewise, suppose a teenage recipient fails a drug test, would you eliminate assistance that benefits the entire family (Section 8, for example)?
Your thoughts?
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.
