FL Governor Scott wants drug test for welfare recipients

Post Reply New Topic

Personal responsibility also entails civic responsibility businesses that bleed the poor dry and politicians who accept bribes to do this (the democrats have been just as much on the take) do not fit that standard of personal responsibility.

And taxpayers inadvertently subsidizing gang activity and cartel activity (don't pretend they don't have operations inside the US) and nobody trying to stop it isn't reprehensible?

You're focusing on the wrong end of it if you want to have any actual effect on the drug gangs.

Orwell wrote:

Labor camps?
Hmmmm………………good idea.




Call it what you want but when you’re on the dole you can expect to pass a simple requirement to get your allotment. If they’re drug users it stands to reason that’s what a good percentage of that welfare money is going to. We’re facilitating them getting high when they should be trying to do something constructive with their lives AND supporting the same drug trade that the state is fighting.
What else do you want our taxpayer dollars to buy from them, whores?



Yeah, well living in the state that we’re talking about definitely gives me more insight to its problems than someone that doesn’t even live in the same country.
Definitely more to say about how OUR welfare program is administered.

From the actual accounting/taxpayer perspective, there is no difference between money spent on assistance to the poor and money spent on tax credits, deductions, and tax cuts to the wealthy. So by the same reasoning, in order to receive, say, a tax deduction for dependent children, one should be compelled to take a drug test. Otherwise they might take that extra money and spend it on drugs. But of course you would not support such a policy. You are only interested in targeting this kind of BS at the poor and powerless.

Nope. In the Republican lingo, Personal Responsibility (TM) only applies to the poor. The wealthy are pretty much exempt. Those at the top of the great Social Darwinist food chain get a free pass. They can run a company that loots medicare of millions on doctor kickbacks and still become govorner of the state of Florida.

Or have some mercy and put a bullet through their f*****g skulls. Damn lazy bums.

There's no reason to put so much effort into articulating a logical argument to a simple bigot.

Orwell wrote:
[quote]From the actual accounting/taxpayer perspective, there is no difference between money spent on assistance to the poor and money spent on tax credits, deductions, and tax cuts to the wealthy. So by the same reasoning, in order to receive, say, a tax deduction for dependent children, one should be compelled to take a drug test. Otherwise they might take that extra money and spend it on drugs. But of course you would not support such a policy. You are only interested in targeting this kind of BS at the poor and powerless.[quote]

Duh, to be paying income taxes must mean you have an income and don’t need welfare. If it weren’t for people working and paying taxes where your beloved welfare would funds come from?
Besides, the well to do can afford legal advice on taxes to find loopholes and tax shelters.

Marshall wrote:
[quote]Nope. In the Republican lingo, Personal Responsibility (TM) only applies to the poor. The wealthy are pretty much exempt. Those at the top of the great Social Darwinist food chain get a free pass. They can run a company that loots medicare of millions on doctor kickbacks and still become governor of the state of Florida.[quote]

That’s a moral issue and legislating morality is a losing proposition. You end up screwing the innocent while the real perpetrators find something legal to hide behind.

[quote]Or have some mercy and put a bullet through their f***ing skulls. Damn lazy bums.[quote]

Hey you said it I didn’t.
Seriosly, though, I don’t see why welfare recipients can’t do something in the form of public chores to earn their allotments like picking up trash, planting trees around town, painting public buildings, etc.
Nothing too hard or mean spirited like the like forced labor camps Orwell proposed but just something so that the public gets a return on the money spent and the recipients have an incentive to find employment when it come available

[quote]There's no reason to put so much effort into articulating a logical argument to a simple bigot.[quote]

I'm just curious as to how I became a bigot.
By that you imply that all welfare recipients are non-whites which makes YOU a bigot as well.
Or is "bigot" just a term to use on anyone with opposing views on social issues.
How about "intolerant" and "homophobic”, can you wedge those in somehow, too?
Oh well, coming from you I guess I can consider it a complement.

Orwell wrote:

Duh, to be paying income taxes must mean you have an income and don’t need welfare. If it weren’t for people working and paying taxes where your beloved welfare would funds come from?
Besides, the well to do can afford legal advice on taxes to find loopholes and tax shelters.

Marshall wrote:


That’s a moral issue and legislating morality is a losing proposition. You end up screwing the innocent while the real perpetrators find something legal to hide behind.



Hey you said it I didn’t.
Seriosly, though, I don’t see why welfare recipients can’t do something in the form of public chores to earn their allotments like picking up trash, planting trees around town, painting public buildings, etc.
Nothing too hard or mean spirited like the like forced labor camps Orwell proposed but just something so that the public gets a return on the money spent and the recipients have an incentive to find employment when it come available



I'm just curious as to how I became a bigot.
By that you imply that all welfare recipients are non-whites which makes YOU a bigot as well.
Or is "bigot" just a term to use on anyone with opposing views on social issues.
How about "intolerant" and "homophobic”, can you wedge those in somehow, too?
Oh well, coming from you I guess I can consider it a complement.

So it's okay to legislate morality concerning drug use but not okay to legislate morality concerning white collar crimes that rip off tax payers even more?


Many of these people may be single parents with young children who are not school-aged yet who need to be taken care of. Should the toddlers be forced to work as well? Also, what about transportation? Seems the tax-payer will have to pay for that too if the person can't drive or can't afford a car. No matter what these people are still an unfair burdon on the tax-payer. I say we shoot 'em all in the head and be done with it.


I said bigot, not racist. You just assume that laziness, drug addiction, etc... is the only thing standing in the way of employment for anyone on welfare. That's what I consider bigoted. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with making judgemental assumptions and/or idiotic generalizations about people you don't know.

Uh, the whole point of many welfare programs is to ensure vulnerabe and unemployalbe people, many of them demoralized in fundamental ways, have some way to survive and don't externalize their problems in harmful ways. Throwing drug-addicts unto the street is a sure-fire way to accomplish mass vandalism.



I don't know how to respond, largely because rightwing extremists totally deprived of any connection to reality like to think that living in an area is equivalent to being an expert in public policy applied to that region. Nevertheless, I see no reason whatsoever to think that Florida drug-addicts roaming the streets would be less of a problem than drug-addicts in Winnipeg or Kitchener roaming the streets. Regardless, unless Winnipeg is ever as stupid as Florida Republicans are and decides to kick drug addicts onto the streets, I see no reason to import Florida Republican's rightly deserved mess.



I have an averse to brainless cruelty, and the Florida GOP (as well as the national party) embodies it.

By your "logic", Orwell has much more insight on Florida welfare programs than John Browning or even an expert on welfare policy who lives outside the state. Well, Religious Fundies tend to have nonsensical beliefs in other areas as well, I guess.

A burger and fries once in a while isn't going to kill someone and it doesn't impair a person's ability to function. LSD causes one to see things that aren't there or think they can fly.

Actually, I suspect (as in my own case) all food stamp recipients are told they will lose them and may even be prosecuted for trading them for ineligible items, but I also suspect the effect of that threat is really only about the same as locks helping to keep only the honest people honest. Personally, I gave my food stamp card and my PIN to my wife to use for both of us (as allowed) nearly a year ago ... and she has yet to even have to show ID.

But getting back to the matter of qualifying tests ...

Do you know why you must now submit to a digital photo in order to get a driver's license or state ID?

Answer: To prove you have never committed an ID crime!

Really. Before receiving a driver's license or state ID, the photo you just submitted is checked against all other photos on file and against your name to be sure you do not have any duplicate or false IDs anywhere ... and you/we will either submit to that or else not receive a license or ID.

But hey, like they say: Who cares if you have nothing to hide, eh?!

Right.

I recently had a doctor slip a urine test in on me to check me for drugs without telling me ...

... and just how much Medicare help might I have received there if I had complained, refused or failed?

Testing welfare recipients might keep a few away, but nothing will really be gained in the end ...

... and the extra load on the courts and jails would only keep going up anyway.

Interesting trivia fact: At the Indiana State Farm (a prison) many years ago, "No Homicide" was rule #1 in the inmate handbook.

Ah, but I disagree with him, so I don't actually count.