I myself consider myself an Independent and I don't cater to one specific party as some do regardless of that party's agenda. I choose to be a free thinker and in an election will choose whichever most characterizes my beliefs. Unfortunately for the Dems this few years I lean towards the Rep. party because they show me that's the way to go. I've voted for Dem. presidential candidates, Carter, Clinton for example. Not anymore. The Dem. party is so far left leaning that in my opinion will not be a Constitutional backing party. It's more a Socialist party disguised as an American political party. Everyone needs to look into history and you will see so many similarities with any Socialist government, can you say Venezuela.

So I say to all of you. Don't follow any party, follow the one that really has American ideals in mind.

(04-02-2014 04:17 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:14 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:53 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's even more simple to remain independent.


I think the takeaway here is that most people who gravitate towards a political party when they are young, tend to change their views after living in the real world.

I am currently having a facebook argument with one of my nephews. He seem to think that people on welfare should be drug tested. Meanwhile, he is a pot smoker who is still living with his mother.

I have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients, as long as it is cost effective. Nothing up to this point says it will be.

Interesting that you miss the fact that many won't be receiving their checks. That sounds pretty cost effective to me. I think it might also be cost effective to stop giving food stamps to illegals because they have a child on our soil.

I missed nothing. There is no evidence that drug testing welfare recipients saves any money, and the evidence actually says the opposite. Do you think all those drug tests are free?

I guess I'm a bit surprised at the frugality considering the amount of money being spent on Obamacare. I'm guessing you are in favor of eliminating that expense as well? Right?

Yep.

(04-02-2014 04:14 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:53 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Sometimes it's just that simple.

It's even more simple to remain independent.


I think the takeaway here is that most people who gravitate towards a political party when they are young, tend to change their views after living in the real world.

I am currently having a facebook argument with one of my nephews. He seem to think that people on welfare should be drug tested. Meanwhile, he is a pot smoker who is still living with his mother.

I have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients, as long as it is cost effective. Nothing up to this point says it will be.

Interesting that you miss the fact that many won't be receiving their checks. That sounds pretty cost effective to me. I think it might also be cost effective to stop giving food stamps to illegals because they have a child on our soil.

I missed nothing. There is no evidence that drug testing welfare recipients saves any money, and the evidence actually says the opposite. Do you think all those drug tests are free?

Yeah, I think you did miss something. Unless you think testing costs more than the monies saved on benefits being withheld from the countless drug users now receiving checks.

(04-02-2014 04:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 04:14 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:53 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's even more simple to remain independent.


I think the takeaway here is that most people who gravitate towards a political party when they are young, tend to change their views after living in the real world.

I am currently having a facebook argument with one of my nephews. He seem to think that people on welfare should be drug tested. Meanwhile, he is a pot smoker who is still living with his mother.

I have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients, as long as it is cost effective. Nothing up to this point says it will be.

Interesting that you miss the fact that many won't be receiving their checks. That sounds pretty cost effective to me. I think it might also be cost effective to stop giving food stamps to illegals because they have a child on our soil.

I missed nothing. There is no evidence that drug testing welfare recipients saves any money, and the evidence actually says the opposite. Do you think all those drug tests are free?

Yeah, I think you did miss something. Unless you think testing costs more than the monies saved on benefits being withheld from the countless drug users now receiving checks.

Take this however you want to. Like I said, if it is cost effective, I am all for it.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/s...ients-wil/

Well first off it is stupid to do premliminary testing. It should be random.

Secondly, I don't live in Rhode Island. It may not save them state money considering how much they spend. Welfare is federal money. Weeding out offenders through random testing that recipients pay for would indeed save federal dollars. There just isn't any question about it.

(04-02-2014 03:03 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  



Louisiana State Senator on why he left the Democratic Party. He nails it.

Completely agree with this.

It also discussed plans in LA that would have cost the state money. Florida lost money when they drug tested for welfare (although maybe that wouldn't have been the case had their law not been struck down, we will never know). Overall there is no evidence that this would save money, and all evidence (up to this point) says it will cost more than it saves.

(04-02-2014 04:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Well first off it is stupid to do premliminary testing. It should be random.

Secondly, I don't live in Rhode Island. It may not save them state money considering how much they spend. Welfare is federal money. Weeding out offenders through random testing that recipients pay for would indeed save federal dollars. There just isn't any question about it.

I think we put a limit on this stuff (2 years consecutive with 5 years lifetime). That's the sure fire way to make sure we as a country aren't wasting too much money on social welfare. I like the idea of random testing, but people will find ways around that or allege discrimination and politicians will change the law. That said, it's still worth a try.

(04-02-2014 03:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 03:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Interesting comparison. One article has paragraphs and paragraphs of examples the other, a tweet.

Sometimes it's just that simple.

It's even more simple to remain independent.


I think the takeaway here is that most people who gravitate towards a political party when they are young, tend to change their views after living in the real world.

I am currently having a facebook argument with one of my nephews. He seem to think that people on welfare should be drug tested.

Meanwhile, he is a pot smoker who is still living with his mother.

Dang! Weed USUALLY clouds judgment and clear thinking.