I know you didn't ask me this question, however, I will answer anyways:
In a heartbeat.
convince me welfare recipients should take drug test...
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
I know you didn't ask me this question, however, I will answer anyways:
In a heartbeat.
That is simply not true, what the "R"'s and myself included are against are people making a lifestyle of living on entitlements and please do not say that this does not happen. I personally am against illegals being able to get any social assistance, if they want assistance than go back to your own country and get it, don't tax our safety net with foreigners. Drug testing should be allowed if the social worker detects that a recipient is a drug addict, that there are children in the household, etc...certainly the citizenry should not have to support drug addicts unless it is to help them to stop. No entitlements should come without strings attached, it is not their money being spent.
Of course it happens. I am against *those* types as well. The intention should be *temporary* assistance.
I don't believe illegals should be in our country. Period. So that takes care of that one.
There are strings attached, however, it's the wrong kind of strings. Again, I am for temporary assistance which also focuses on helping the parents gain necessary skills to hold a full-time permanent job.
Personally, I would like to see more of the job training programs and focus on preschool and daycare for working parents. This is coming from a single mom who worked full time while my children were growing up. While I was between jobs shortly after my youngest was born, I was blessed with the opportunity to be assigned to work temporarily at Blue Shield of California. Two weeks later, I sent for a drug test and hired as a full-time employee. Even though it was a struggle, the pay and benefits allowed us to the luxury of having a rough over our head and more importantly, great healthcare coverage.
At the same time, I realize that I was one of the *lucky* ones because I had affordable housing (through family) and the best caregivers ever should my job keep me over. Yep, my parents lived two blocks away. :chuckle:
Restrictions, not a problem. It's the "there are no real poor people in America" attitude that is the problem.
Catastrophes and life happens. Sometimes people bring it on themselves. Sometimes they don't.
However, this issue for me is much like the issue of abortion: My first priority will always be the well being and care of the children even if I don't care for the parents.
Don't know what I would do if that situation came up.
But even if I did steal, I would still KNOW that stealing from others is not right.
If you are being taxed for a welfare system, then yes.
Because not everyone benefits from that tax like they do with a tax for fire service, the police or the military.
Welfare is robbing from those that have to benefit only those that don't have.
Not everyone benefits from the welfare system.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
I fail to see how everyone benefits from the fire service. If I don't have a fire, how do I benefit from it? I'm simply paying taxes to put out other people's fires. How does that benefit me?
Would you argue that someone who for whatever reason isn't able to work and has a fire at their home shouldn't have access to the fire service because they aren't paying taxes? Would they be stealing from those that have and forcing them to pay for the fire to be put out?
There are many parallels here between the fire service and the welfare system. People pay for it as a safety net in case they have a fire. If they don't have a fire they don't directly benefit from the system that they have paid in to. They simply have that security of knowing if they are unfortunate enough to have a fire, someone will be there to help. If someone does have a fire, they do benefit from the system.
It's very much the same with the welfare system, everyone pays for it but not everyone will be unfortunate enough to have to use it. It's there as a security net though should you find yourself fall on hard times and need to use the system you have paid in to.
shagster01
New member
You don't think getting people off the streets in your city benefits you too?
whitestone
Well-known member
In the thread title "convince me WELFARE RECIPIENTS should take drug test",,,you used the word "welfare" then in the first post "food stamps?". Food stamps(s.n.a.p.) are 'a part' of welfare in the United States,but only a small portion.
This is the current budget (notice welfare is 10%) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie ,,,,so of the 10% of welfare how much of it is actually "food stamps/s.n.a.p."(we may never know gov. wont tell),,,but what all is included in "welfare"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare (scroll down to United states),,,(notice that UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, S.S.I., SOCIAL SECURITY,MEDICARE ect. are all also included in welfare).
So if it is reasonable to drug test "welfare recipients" then when someone retires at 64 and begins to draw the s.s.(they would be tested). If someone is crippled they would be tested,the blind,ect.ect all would be tested before they received payment.
I put this on you post but it was not just directed at you. I suppose the news media does a swell job of planting subliminal messages because in the modern world if you say the word "welfare" most believe the definition of that word is "food stamps" but its not it means "social security,s.s.i.,,ect.,,,lol I wonder if all the ones who think they should be drug tested to get food stamps would have a problem being drug tested when they file for s.s.,,,,,,,
p.s.,,,"universal healthcare",,,should we test them all?
It's pretty simple.
Fire spreads.
Your whole neighborhood could burn even though the fire did not start with your house.
shagster01
New member
I keep failing to say how you benefit if there is no fire at all.
there are always fires
whitestone
Well-known member
If we speak about "repent" or "mystery" during a discussion generally someone will post/give the actual Greek word i.e. "strong s #,definition ect.",,,on the other hand if we use a word like "welfare,food stamps ect." we do not usually do this .
Here is the official explanation from the s.s.a.(it's best to take their own definition) http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html so I'll give the link from their own website.
Curiously is their anyone who considers their grandparents who are drawing social security,or their parents who worked at a plant and were "laid off" and drawing unemployment as "moochers" (notice they are considered as such and grouped together with the people receiving food stamps) http://oig.ssa.gov/newsroom/blog/july17-post
Here is the official explanation from the s.s.a.(it's best to take their own definition) http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html so I'll give the link from their own website.
Curiously is their anyone who considers their grandparents who are drawing social security,or their parents who worked at a plant and were "laid off" and drawing unemployment as "moochers" (notice they are considered as such and grouped together with the people receiving food stamps) http://oig.ssa.gov/newsroom/blog/july17-post
Not a good argument at all.
Whether one believes we should have a law to murder babies in the womb, we have it.
Whether one believes we should have a same sex marriage law or not, we have it.
???????????????
You're like Inspector Javert only without the law on your side.
It's the same here.
The rural firemen are volunteers. But they must still be provided with the equipment.
Farmers and ranches don't want to lose their whole flocks or crops due to fire.
And that can happen pretty quick if not dealt with as soon as it starts.
A couple of years ago our volunteer fire department did a demonstration.
They purposely set fire to an old trailer home that had been abandoned on about 6 acres of pastureland.
They lit a cigar and dropped it into a magazine rack of newspapers next to a recliner chair in the living room.
It only took about 25 minutes for the whole thing to be engulfed with fire.
But that wasn't the end. Nearby trees, bushes, and grass caught on fire.
There was a low breeze that day, and the fire kept jumping further and further. It didn't take long before more than 1/2 acre was ablaze and still spreading.
The perimeter of the land had already been plowed up previously (for the demonstration) to prevent it from spreading any further.
It was an eyeopener as to how quickly fire can spread.
There were 8 firetrucks and crew on hand for the demonstration.
I have no idea what that means.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
Do you consider welfare to be on the same moral standing as abortion and same sex marriage?