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.
show me in the Constitution where anyone is allowed welfare at all from any body of government.
<SIGH> Did you bother to read any of the posts here or just decide to throw out a question that's been asked 3 times before? The thread is not about the right to get welfare, it's about why people who scream about 2nd amendment rights are OK with the government walking all over 4th amendment.
Please try again, This time, with reading and comprehension first.
The Constitution never states that welfare is a protected right. What it does guarantee is: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's part of a collection of amendments called The Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is also part of that bill. Hence the question; how can someone get hopping ass mad about having their rights violated when one amendment is threatened yet sponsor something that tromps all over another?
Kees: You choose to work for a company that drug tests employees,I choose not to. Therein lies the difference. We have a choice. Unless it's a blood test, drug tests can still be unreliable and the people they net most are marijuana users. That's because all the really bad drugs can be out of your system in a couple of days so any half wit with a little advanced knowledge can sail right through. With pot, you can be on vacation, smoke one joint, and still test positive 2 weeks later.......which is about 2 weeks later than the drug's effect last. I don't support drug testing for anything except for maybe immediately after an accident. Even then, until better testing is developed, marijuana positives should be ignored. I would however like to see Congress ordered to pee in a bottle on the spur of the moment.
With Florida spending something like $46,000 drug testing over 4,000 applicants and coming up with 108 positives, I'd hardly say that the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
You answered the bolded question with the underlined point. People choose to go on welfare. None of them are required to. If someone wants to get free money from the government (taxpayers) then they may be subjected to certain requirements that the rest of us are not, just like people who work for a company that drug tests.
As for getting our money's worth, how much money will be saved by not providing benefits to people who spend their money on drugs?
I always wonder why owning a gun when you are not a member of a militia is a constitutional right.
That is a clear misunderstanding of the second amendment.
The amendment states that the militia is needed and should be regulated.
It goes on to say that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Why does everyone assume that someone on welfare is doing drugs? That is NOT the case. There are some, SOME, people on drugs and welfare but they are the exception and not the rule.
In case you are unfamiliar, welfare doesn't exactly pay much at all, certainly not enough to support a drug habit. In many cases, the food stamps people get are so insignificant that it wouldn't even be worth selling.
But, if we are going with the logic that "you're getting government money, you should be drug tested first."
Why aren't we calling for billionaires, like Charles Swchab, to be tested? He gets a couple hundred thousand taxpayer dollars a year to grow rice, to attract ducks, just to hunt for fun.
Why aren't we demanding people like Michelle and Marcus Bachman get drug tested? BOTH of them are clearly on drugs and receiving government money in addition to their pay.
Oil companies, nascar, private schools, and various other businesses are getting taxpayer money, why are they exempt from your faux outrage?
Oh yeah, because the news isn't telling you to be upset about it.
Did you know we are sending MORE money to Israel, a country capable of very expensive war with it's neighbors, has 10,500 millionaires, and is only the size of new jersey? We are sending almost the exact same amount, on top of the amount we're already sending them every year, that we cut food stamps last year. Food stamps that millions of Americans working full time jobs need to get by.
Why aren't we drug testing Israel?
Why are we giving them money? Why is the NFL tax exempt?
Why are you always asking the wrong questions?
(Not a personal attack, general statement to anyone who reads.)
You answered the bolded question with the underlined point. People choose to go on welfare. None of them are required to. If someone wants to get free money from the government (taxpayers) then they may be subjected to certain requirements that the rest of us are not, just like people who work for a company that drug tests.
As for getting our money's worth, how much money will be saved by not providing benefits to people who spend their money on drugs?
These are genuinely serious questions: What do you mean when you say "people choose to go on welfare"? And if one chooses to go on welfare, precisely HOW is that accomplished?
I have worked for THREE well-known companies that either were sold to new owners, dissolved themselves, or went bankrupt, so I have lost jobs for no cause of my own and know MANY other people who did, too. Many of us, especially those who are older, have had trouble finding new jobs, especially in this current economic climate.
So I'd seriously like to know how to "go on welfare" for future reference. I'm not kidding. I really want to know how you think one goes about this. What are the government programs that will provide endless funds even to a person who has lost their livelihood for a legitimate reason, let alone because they simply choose not to support themselves? Please don't talk to me about Unemployment Compensation, because that's a program my employers paid for me to have (whether or not they wanted to is irrelevant) and there are very strict regulations about who is entitled to receive it. The people who qualify certainly are NOT people who simply have chosen to go without employment.
I would appreciate it if you, or anyone else for that matter, would reply with specifics that are not single incidences applicable only to one person. The statement here implies that thousands, perhaps millions, of people are freeloading off the government by choice and I fail to see how that can be accomplished.
These are genuinely serious questions: What do you mean when you say "people choose to go on welfare"? And if one chooses to go on welfare, precisely HOW is that accomplished?
I have worked for THREE well-known companies that either were sold to new owners, dissolved themselves, or went bankrupt, so I have lost jobs for no cause of my own and know MANY other people who did, too. Many of us, especially those who are older, have had trouble finding new jobs, especially in this current economic climate.
So I'd seriously like to know how to "go on welfare" for future reference. I'm not kidding. I really want to know how you think one goes about this. What are the government programs that will provide endless funds even to a person who has lost their livelihood for a legitimate reason, let alone because they simply choose not to support themselves? Please don't talk to me about Unemployment Compensation, because that's a program my employers paid for me to have (whether or not they wanted to is irrelevant) and there are very strict regulations about who is entitled to receive it. The people who qualify certainly are NOT people who simply have chosen to go without employment.
I would appreciate it if you, or anyone else for that matter, would reply with specifics that are not single incidences applicable only to one person. The statement here implies that thousands, perhaps millions, of people are freeloading off the government by choice and I fail to see how that can be accomplished.
Where is that implied? I don't see it. I also didn't say or imply anything about endless assistance or people choosing not to support themselves.
I don't understand what you're asking. To obtain any government assistance, you apply, it's reviewed, and you get the benefits or not. People are not forced to apply, so accepting assistance is completely voluntary.
Please don't twist my words to support your agenda. Try making an original response.
You answered the bolded question with the underlined point. People choose to go on welfare. None of them are required to. If someone wants to get free money from the government (taxpayers) then they may be subjected to certain requirements that the rest of us are not, just like people who work for a company that drug tests.
As for getting our money's worth, how much money will be saved by not providing benefits to people who spend their money on drugs?
How is welfare free? They have certainly paid taxes at some point in their life, what's wrong with someone taking advantage of something they also contributed too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
I think it is a shame that the taxpayers are forced to pay for the illegal drug habits of non-productive members of society.
I think it's a shame I have to pay for fat people's, smokers, and alcoholics' healthcare costs. I'm sick of paying for these terribly driving teenagers and old hags who drive up my cost of insurance, the drunks who contribute to my rate, etc.
I don't see your point at all, welfare is a form of insurance. That's how it works.
Thoughts on this? The thing I find ironic about those who support drug testing programs is that they're usually the same people who scream about 2nd amendment rights when ever gun control is mentioned.
If you're one of those people, how can you defend one part of the constitution while supporting a profiteering governor in Fla. who's violating another?
What part of the Constitution guarantees the right to receive welfare without being subject to drug testing?
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.
