Drug Testing Welfare Recipiants Bad Move by Conservatives

Right said:
One could make a case of the constitutionality of the former, at least om "post roads", because FedCo has an interest in regulating what they are authorized to build and maintain. I see no such argument for regulation of alcohol or any drug.
Click to expand...

there is no constitutional authority or power for the feds to regulate either of them, yet through the commerce clause and threats of withholding federal welfare for the states, they were able to.
 
The primary purpose of drug testing for welfare recipients is not to save money. It's to demean and shame people receiving government assistance.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is a question you need to ask whoever brought up that welfare still exists today. especially if you say that clinton ended it.
Click to expand...

Im asking anyone who is willing to explain it to me. Food stamps? Medicaid? Social Security Disability? Unemployment? Corporate Tax Breaks? Tax Deductions? Medicare? The Court System? Police services? The Health Department? The Post Office?
 
Jarod said:
First of all some drug use does not correlate to a failure to earn money or work, its simply the government trying to enforce a morality upon a class of people. I know many coke users who make plenty of money.
Click to expand...

Coke users who are not supposedly so destitute they require having other peoples' monies redistributed to them, in effect subsidizing the illegal behavior they should not be engaging in in the first place.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The issue I have with drug testing law is that is violated one constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and the right not to testify against ones self. In addition it sets a horrible precedent that could be expanded to include drug testing for any and all government services. If it's acceptable to drug test public relief applicant the by the same precend couldn't they make you take a drug test for;

Recieving a federally funded mortgage?
A quarenteed student loan?
Medicare/Medicaid benefits?
Social Security benefits?
A marriage license?
A drivers license?
A business permit?
Public education?

See my point? This law not only violates constitutional protections but its establishes a very frightening legal precedent that to recieve any kind of government service you might have to prove that you are not a criminal.
Click to expand...
Oh irony.
 
Jarod said:
I don't agree with it for several reasons.

First of all some drug use does not correlate to a failure to earn money or work, its simply the government trying to enforce a morality upon a class of people. I know many coke users who make plenty of money.

If people paid for unemployment insurance via their taxes its not an entitlement, its a policy the people paid for, changing the conditions upon which they can collect on that policy is unfair.

Food stamps are generally provided to assist in keeping families together and ensuring the health of children. The side of food stamps nobody wants to admit is that its also a jobs program, without food stamps many current jobs would go away and the bottom line of many corporations, such as Wall-Mart would suffer.

There are more reasons based on privacy and childhood development but I don't need to spend more time on this.
Click to expand...

:rofl2:

I can't belie you said food stamps is a jobs program. You actually believe that don't you? How precious

:rofl2:
 
I can see both sides of this argument.

The first side has already been stated in this thread.

The second side is, once you are on the dole, and you are reaching into someone elses pocket, beggars can't be choosers. If I want you to do a handstand before you can receive your stolen taker money, then that should be ok.

*note to future retard baxter, I am not saying I am for forcing all people to stand on their heads.
 
Bonestorm said:
The primary purpose of drug testing for welfare recipients is not to save money. It's to demean and shame people receiving government assistance.
Click to expand...

and they should be shamed. They should feel it burn. They should wear it around their neck, dirty bottom feeding taker parasites.
 
person a - "hello, yes I would like your money please"

person b - "ummm ok, well if you want my money, since it's mine, I think I get to set some ground rules. I want you to do x y z. dont like it? Well go get money from someone else then

person a - "how DARE you put stipulations on how your OWN money is spent and the standards by which it is given to me!"
 
Right said:
I would argue otherwise, since the Constitution states only what FedCo can do, and welfare for the individuals is not enumerated.
Click to expand...

The 10th amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." It does not say expressly delegated, i.e. say that the power in question has to be explicitly mentioned. So, the federal government can have particular powers contained within the scope of some of the more general power that the constitution does expressly delegates. In this case, congress is spending tax money on a project it has deemed to be in the general welfare. The specifics of the welfare programs in question do not have to be explicitly detailed in the constitution, we don't have to amend the constitution to add unemployment insurance or NASA to the taxing and spending clause.
 
Death is the road to Awe said:
person a - "hello, yes I would like your money please"

person b - "ummm ok, well if you want my money, since it's mine, I think I get to set some ground rules. I want you to do x y z. dont like it? Well go get money from someone else then

person a - "how DARE you put stipulations on how your OWN money is spent and the standards by which it is given to me!"
Click to expand...

I paid into unemployment insurance my whole life, who care if I smoke a few bowls every now and again while I'm looking for a job? It's nunya business. You aren't giving me money, it's insurance, I gave myself that money.
 
I think that's different. People that are made to pay into something are only getting back what they put in. Same thing with social security. I am talking about takers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top