Drug Testing Welfare Recipiants Bad Move by Conservatives

Death is the road to Awe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everybody knows it is different. Please remember you are discussing this issue with individuals trying to erect a system whereby they can live a life of idleness and intoxication at the public's expense.
 
I got a pell grant for college!
I was a taker.
I graduated and paid twice the taxes most of you clowns pay.
How is that not investing in people
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
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.
Click to expand...

crock of shit theory
 
Death is the road to Awe said:
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.
Click to expand...


Note to the fake libertarian dumbfuck, you are using the same argument of every statist. Basically, Obama's "you did not build that." Do you use or benefit from the roads, schools, police, fire protection, military protection and any other government service? Well then, the government can make you do whatever it wants before your receive your taker benefits/money.

Face it, you are a moron and at your core nothing but a statist.
 
Real life alert:

I will be posting something informed by real life. Conservatives can tune out.

We now leave Planet Con for a tour of reality. In reality, most welfare recipients have young children. Food stamps and welfare monies feed these children. In real life, if you drug tested welfare recipients and cut them off if they test positive, you are starving children who are not responsible for the actions of their parent(s). These children are already residing in poverty and have a parent taking drugs.

Starving the children to teach the parents a lesson seems extreme and inhumane.

So, no.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program "Planet Con: Reality Can't Touch Us"

Thank you.
 
Taft2016 said:
Everybody knows it is different. Please remember you are discussing this issue with individuals trying to erect a system whereby they can live a life of idleness and intoxication at the public's expense.
Click to expand...

And the star of the show rejoins us! Untouched by reality, or even common sense, and certainly no humanity, we give you Taft! Take it away Taft.

Scene 1008: Taft bloviates.

And, Action!
 
Taft2016 said:
Everybody knows it is different. Please remember you are discussing this issue with individuals trying to erect a system whereby they can live a life of idleness and intoxication at the public's expense.
Click to expand...

What's that like Taft? 'cause you are so high you must be on welfare.
 
If you're going to be drug testing these people, why not also test them for alcohol and tobacco? Is a guy smoking a joint some how worse than a guy drinking a box of wine? Or make sure they don't have cable TV, or hobbies? I understand the desire not to see people live the life of Riley on your tax dollars, so why limit it to drugs? Why not everything fun?
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "general welfare" clause; the clause that is not actually in the Constitution.

Hamilton himself anticipated your argument, and not only rejected it, but mocked those who made it. From Federalist 41:
It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Click to expand...
 
cawacko said:
Was drug testing being tied to unemployment benefits?
Click to expand...

It was in Georgia and apparently other states, too.

"For the past year, the Georgia Department of Labor has encouraged Georgia businesses to alert the agency if a job applicant fails a drug test, so that the department does not spend unemployment insurance on those who aren't really ready to work.

How many drug test failures have businesses reported? Just one, according to department spokesman Sam Hall.

"As a result of that one employer calling, we investigated and the person that had been reported was disallowed from continuing to receive benefits," Hall said.

For the past few years, concern that unemployed people are using drugs has been widespread among state business groups and Republican officeholders. Lawmakers in more than 30 states have pursued drug testing for people seeking unemployment or welfare benefits."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/georgia-drug-testing_n_2637551.html
 
Darla said:
Real life alert:

I will be posting something informed by real life. Conservatives can tune out.

We now leave Planet Con for a tour of reality. In reality, most welfare recipients have young children. Food stamps and welfare monies feed these children. In real life, if you drug tested welfare recipients and cut them off if they test positive, you are starving children who are not responsible for the actions of their parent(s). These children are already residing in poverty and have a parent taking drugs.

Starving the children to teach the parents a lesson seems extreme and inhumane.

So, no.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program "Planet Con: Reality Can't Touch Us"

Thank you.
Click to expand...

By your "reasoning", adults don't eat off of the same food stamps and/or welfare; because it's only for the adults; right??

We shouldn't send parents to prison either, using your "logic"; because it takes a wage earner away from the family and might create a situation where the children will starve, right??

:palm:
 
IWI Tavor said:
If you're going to be drug testing these people, why not also test them for alcohol and tobacco? Is a guy smoking a joint some how worse than a guy drinking a box of wine? Or make sure they don't have cable TV, or hobbies? I understand the desire not to see people live the life of Riley on your tax dollars, so why limit it to drugs? Why not everything fun?
Click to expand...

Maybe - Just maybe - Because the drugs they're testing for are illegal!! :dunno:
 
Right said:
Ah, the "general welfare" clause; the clause that is not actually in the Constitution.

Hamilton himself anticipated your argument, and not only rejected it, but mocked those who made it. From Federalist 41:
Click to expand...

Look Federalist no. 41, which I've read before, was written by James Madison, not Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton himself disagreed with Madison's logic, and mocked it by quoting his statement elsewhere that "no axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that... wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it, is included" during his debates with Madison in congress, when Madison disagreed with Hamiltons attempt to justify the program given in his Report on Manufacturers through his broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. Madison's position is illogical - why would a clause that grants a general power somehow be limited to other more specific clauses mentioned elsewhere? Its redundant, why not just not include it, or specifically mention your ridiculous logic that it's somehow only an utterly pointless reiteration of what was said elsewhere?

The clause does not give the government every power imaginable for the "general welfare", it is confined to the realm of spending tax money due to its presence in the taxing and spending clause. So, for instance, the ban on marijuana derives from the regulation of interstate commerce, not the general welfare clause (and the original logic actually used the taxing, not spending portion of the taxing and spending clause - the Marijuana tax act, which allowed the federal government to go after them unless they paid a tax on Marijuana, which would be self-incriminatory because all 50 states had banned Marijuana at that point; later laws abandoned this approach). Nor could the federal government say "Gay marriage is now legal everywhere, due to general welfare clause."
 
Last edited:
Tyrion the Imp said:
Look Federalist no. 41, which I've read before, was written by James Madison, not Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton himself disagreed with Madison's logic, and mocked it by quoting his statement elsewhere that "no axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that... wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it, is included" during his debates with Madison in congress, when Madison disagreed with Hamiltons attempt to justify the program given in his Report on Manufacturers through his broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. Madison's position is illogical - why would a clause that grants a general power somehow be limited to other more specific clauses mentioned elsewhere? Its redundant, why not just not include it, or specifically mention your ridiculous logic that it's somehow only an utterly pointless reiteration of what was said elsewhere?

The clause does not give the government every power imaginable for the "general welfare", it is confined to the realm of spending tax money due to its presence in the taxing and spending clause. So, for instance, the ban on marijuana derives from the regulation of interstate commerce, not the general welfare clause. Nor could the federal government say "Gay marriage is now legal everywhere, due to general welfare clause."
Click to expand...

My mistake I meant Madison. A dumb mistake, actually, since the two were so ideologically opposed.

Hamilton lost his debate with Madison so why pretend otherwise?

Liberals claim that the "commerce clause", Article I Section 8 Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the federal government broad powers.
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,and with the Indian Tribes;
Click to expand...
This is an attempt to redefine the word "commerce" to suit their argument. But according to Webster, in this context, "commerce" means "the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place." Dictionaries in the Colonial era say essentially the same thing. Thus "commerce" is used to define activities of free trade and nothing more.

Commerce is also discussed in Article I, Section 9: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another..." Thus "commerce", again, is used to define activities of free trade, nothing more.

No where in the Federalist Papers or Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention is the term "commerce" used to describe anything beyond free trade.
 
The simple truth is Conservatives love Govt just as much as Democrats, they just want the love implemented in their favor.

One example is their never ending refusal to end taxpayer subsidies to some of the richest corporations in america. That is one of the biggest govt handout giveaways.
 
Yoda said:
The simple truth is liberal to moderate Republicans love Govt just as much as Democrats, they just want the love implemented in their favor.

One example is their never ending refusal to end taxpayer subsidies to some of the richest corporations in america. That is one of the biggest govt handout giveaways.
Click to expand...
fify
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
Yeah, it's a crock shit of a theory produced by that liberal big government idiot, James Madison, in his justification for specifically denying a request by some during his crafting of the bill of rights to include the "expressly" language.
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment is not a 'catch all' Amendment in that it tells us that the feds can go outside it's delineated powers when it wants or needs to. so you're misinterpreting madison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top