(01-30-2014 03:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 02:51 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 02:46 PM)Smaug Wrote:  They can randomly test students in public schools. What exactly is the difference?

I know here they post signs at the schools...when you enter you are willingly giving up your right to protection from search and seizure.

I don't see how that can be legal.

They can't post signs at welfare offices?

I already said I don't see how that can be legal...

Ugh, jesus people do we really need to go over how children in school have long been held to a different standard when it comes to their civil liberties? Teachers are government agents, and because they're ostensibly responsible for the safety and the edification of the students in their classrooms, they are granted rights not given to other government employees.

I can call a government employee about any name I want to without any real recourse by the state, but kids can be forced into detention. Thems the facts.

I didn't think it should be legal when I was in school and I still don't...

Don't get me wrong, when it come to kids there MUST be extra protections taken...but that doesn't mean put them in pseudo-jail with text books.

(01-30-2014 04:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm not hurting the child, the worthless f*ck up is hurting the child.

You are hurting the child in the exact same way that you will have to pay for their subsequent incarceration and progeny.

Sitting around in a circle vilifying this easy target does nothing to actually attempt to resolve the issue. I get that it feels nice to sh*t on someone who deserves it, the therapeutic effects of having a scapegoat are well documented, but it's not conducive to actually preventing welfare fraud.

I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

(01-30-2014 04:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  How far should a government go to insulate people from their decision-making?

I'm not doing it out of some dignified response to human suffering, I'm doing it because kicking drug addicts off of welfare isn't a smart thing to do, from a safety and pragmatic standpoint. Not only does it create a class of very desperate and very poor people, it punishes those peoples children. Unless we're going to say that a single failed drug test should remove all parental rights and make them wards of the state, which is absurd, all you're doing is hurting the child for being the kid of that worthless f*ck-up.

Add to that the sheer idiocy of the 'if they're not desperate and starving, how will they be motivated to work?' line of thinking.

If I didn't know better I'd say you're OK with unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids continuing to be unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids at our expense. I'd also say you don't seem to mind drug addicts having kids and continuing to be drug addicts. Should drug addicts even have kids? Where is CPS when we need them?

Well, of course you don't know better, that's why you make the childish posts you do.

I am not ok with drug addicted people having children, but we're not talking about an objective analysis into the persons drug usage as it relates to whether they're addicted, we're talking about a singular drug test removing welfare benefit. My question is, a parent fails a drug test for welfare, what then? Take the child away for a single drug test failure? Well that seems unconscionable to give the government that much power over a persons right to their children. Let them keep the child, but sans any benefits to care for the child? How does that help anyone?

It's nothing but a kneejerk reaction which only exists to make you feel better. Hell, how many people here support it even if it costs more money than it saves?. Our society is so f*cking concerned with punishing wrongdoers but we don't actually care to fix the problems.

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

So, a mother fails a drug test. Then what? Honest question.

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

So, a mother fails a drug test. Then what? Honest question.

She should provide for her child(ren) without public funds. It's not my job to feed her child. It's hers. I have kids of my own that need fed.

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  How far should a government go to insulate people from their decision-making?

I'm not doing it out of some dignified response to human suffering, I'm doing it because kicking drug addicts off of welfare isn't a smart thing to do, from a safety and pragmatic standpoint. Not only does it create a class of very desperate and very poor people, it punishes those peoples children. Unless we're going to say that a single failed drug test should remove all parental rights and make them wards of the state, which is absurd, all you're doing is hurting the child for being the kid of that worthless f*ck-up.

Add to that the sheer idiocy of the 'if they're not desperate and starving, how will they be motivated to work?' line of thinking.

If I didn't know better I'd say you're OK with unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids continuing to be unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids at our expense. I'd also say you don't seem to mind drug addicts having kids and continuing to be drug addicts. Should drug addicts even have kids? Where is CPS when we need them?

Well, of course you don't know better, that's why you make the childish posts you do.

I am not ok with drug addicted people having children, but we're not talking about an objective analysis into the persons drug usage as it relates to whether they're addicted, we're talking about a singular drug test removing welfare benefit. My question is, a parent fails a drug test for welfare, what then? Take the child away for a single drug test failure? Well that seems unconscionable to give the government that much power over a persons right to their children. Let them keep the child, but sans any benefits to care for the child? How does that help anyone?

It's nothing but a kneejerk reaction which only exists to make you feel better. Hell, how many people here support it even if it costs more money than it saves?. Our society is so f*cking concerned with punishing wrongdoers but we don't actually care to fix the problems.

Would you be OK with putting the parent of a failed drug test in an addiction program of some sort under the promise to remove benefits if improvement isn't made? Naturally, continued testing would be required. I don't think we're doing the kids any favors by giving a drug addict parent money to buy more drugs and the for said parent to go home and either neglect the kids or have even more kids.

How about forced contraception for Welfare recipients? Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for contraception, so let's have at it. You do know how important women's health is these days, right?

Somebody needs to edit the title of this thread and make it shorter.

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

So, a mother fails a drug test. Then what? Honest question.

mandatory treatment and a new test every week when she shows up for the session. Clean for 6 months, every 2 weeks, 12 months clean, once a month.

Within a years time maybe we could have some, some of these people clean, spending their "benefits" in a more responsible fashion, you know, maybe actually feeding the kids(?) And maybe even looking to better their lot in life, by Oh, I don't know, getting a f#%$ing job?

We do it your way, head in sand, just doling out OPM (other people's money) and we NEVER break the cycle of poverty. But, alas, this is exactly what the progs want, the people to remain on the plantation. Feed 'em a bit, clothe 'em a bit, house 'em a bit. Keep 'em just content enough to have to rely on government their entire lives. It's where the left's bread is buttered.

These days most companies require drug tests prior to hiring someone. By allowing a person to be a druggie we're guaranteeing that they'll never get hired anywhere.

(01-30-2014 04:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

So, a mother fails a drug test. Then what? Honest question.

Use CPS for something USEFUL... like making sure the KID gets the money and not the mother?

or what JMUdunk says;

Quote:mandatory treatment and a new test every week when she shows up for the session. Clean for 6 months, every 2 weeks, 12 months clean, once a month.

if this:

Quote:we're talking about a singular drug test removing welfare benefit

is in the bill then I can see it being marked as unconstituional easy.

(01-30-2014 04:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  mandatory treatment and a new test every week when she shows up for the session. Clean for 6 months, every 2 weeks, 12 months clean, once a month.

That's pretty expensive. And who are you expecting to manage this bureaucratic expansion of power? You think the govt. will be able to do this?

Just sounds like more govt. control over people's lives. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm positive this isn't it.

(01-30-2014 04:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  How far should a government go to insulate people from their decision-making?

I'm not doing it out of some dignified response to human suffering, I'm doing it because kicking drug addicts off of welfare isn't a smart thing to do, from a safety and pragmatic standpoint. Not only does it create a class of very desperate and very poor people, it punishes those peoples children. Unless we're going to say that a single failed drug test should remove all parental rights and make them wards of the state, which is absurd, all you're doing is hurting the child for being the kid of that worthless f*ck-up.

Add to that the sheer idiocy of the 'if they're not desperate and starving, how will they be motivated to work?' line of thinking.

If I didn't know better I'd say you're OK with unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids continuing to be unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids at our expense. I'd also say you don't seem to mind drug addicts having kids and continuing to be drug addicts. Should drug addicts even have kids? Where is CPS when we need them?

Which means he generally supports people like this:

5 Mo Old Left In Car Seat For 8 Days No Food, Water Or Diaper Changes, Dies

(01-30-2014 05:28 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 03:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  How far should a government go to insulate people from their decision-making?

I'm not doing it out of some dignified response to human suffering, I'm doing it because kicking drug addicts off of welfare isn't a smart thing to do, from a safety and pragmatic standpoint. Not only does it create a class of very desperate and very poor people, it punishes those peoples children. Unless we're going to say that a single failed drug test should remove all parental rights and make them wards of the state, which is absurd, all you're doing is hurting the child for being the kid of that worthless f*ck-up.

Add to that the sheer idiocy of the 'if they're not desperate and starving, how will they be motivated to work?' line of thinking.

If I didn't know better I'd say you're OK with unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids continuing to be unemployed Welfare drug addicts with kids at our expense. I'd also say you don't seem to mind drug addicts having kids and continuing to be drug addicts. Should drug addicts even have kids? Where is CPS when we need them?

Which means he generally supports people like this:

5 Mo Old Left In Car Seat For 8 Days No Food, Water Or Diaper Changes, Dies

I hope they fry their asses.

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

I don't think it was ever meant to be the solution.

(01-30-2014 05:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

I don't think it was ever meant to be the solution.

Then do tell, what was it supposed to be the solution for?

If you are on the public dole...you should have no problem submitting voluntarily to this. I would like actually go even further into the bad habits of those receiving benefits. Nothing wrong with making things like this conditional upon receiving help. After all it is other peoples money.

(01-30-2014 05:11 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  mandatory treatment and a new test every week when she shows up for the session. Clean for 6 months, every 2 weeks, 12 months clean, once a month.

That's pretty expensive. And who are you expecting to manage this bureaucratic expansion of power? You think the govt. will be able to do this?

Just sounds like more govt. control over people's lives. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm positive this isn't it.

Not in the least. Community Services boards, or in certain cases it could be a private/public program. Clinicians and Psychologists do pro bono or charity work all the time, could access some of that as well.

Manage it? Probation and parole in concert with the Welfare offices. Should be simple and pretty seamless, now with all dem fancy pants commpooter things out there.

This same gov't can expand the welfare roles by 40 million people and somehow "manage" that, you saying they can't also manage a "health" program? Haha.

What's that tell you about the faith those last couple people have in zerOcare?

(01-30-2014 04:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm not hurting the child, the worthless f*ck up is hurting the child.

You are hurting the child in the exact same way that you will have to pay for their subsequent incarceration and progeny.

Sitting around in a circle vilifying this easy target does nothing to actually attempt to resolve the issue. I get that it feels nice to sh*t on someone who deserves it, the therapeutic effects of having a scapegoat are well documented, but it's not conducive to actually preventing welfare fraud.

Here's the thing with human nature, if you reward behavior you want more of - you'll normally get more of it. If you punish behavior you want less of - you'll normally get less of it.

Just passing out money and benefits with NO RESPONSIBILITIES attached to it.......................is the same as a reward which means - you'll get more of it.

The very definition of insanity is doing something the same way over and over and expecting to get a different result.

(01-30-2014 08:40 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm not hurting the child, the worthless f*ck up is hurting the child.

You are hurting the child in the exact same way that you will have to pay for their subsequent incarceration and progeny.

Sitting around in a circle vilifying this easy target does nothing to actually attempt to resolve the issue. I get that it feels nice to sh*t on someone who deserves it, the therapeutic effects of having a scapegoat are well documented, but it's not conducive to actually preventing welfare fraud.

Here's the thing with human nature, if you reward behavior you want more of - you'll normally get more of it. If you punish behavior you want less of - you'll normally get less of it.

Just passing out money and benefits with NO RESPONSIBILITIES attached to it.......................is the same as a reward which means - you'll get more of it.

The very definition of insanity is doing something the same way over and over and expecting to get a different result.

Please stop trying to make sense, use logic, or proven theories as it tends to confuse the liberal mind and then their only response is to call us racists.If liberals and only liberals paid into Welfare then I'd have little problem with the moochers of this country. But we've already seen that upper class libs don't even want homeless people in their neighborhoods.

(01-30-2014 05:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 05:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

I don't think it was ever meant to be the solution.

Then do tell, what was it supposed to be the solution for?

I may be wrong but I think the great society was meant to stem the tide of poverty not completely eradicate it.

Statistics clearly show that in the decades after the great society started, it was successful in lowering poverty.