I Can't Argue With That... Debate This Part 2

[beardo]

Awhile ago I started a thread that's long since dead so instead of trying to find it I started a sequel.
Pick a subject or topic and state your side and make your points for why your right and I will try to make a case for the opposing point of view.

 

[wiseguy316]

Going to open a can of worms here..Here goes...Topic. Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. My case, we as taxpayers are footing the bill. Fire at will. This is going to get ugly....lol

 

[beardo]

Going to open a can of worms here..Here goes...Topic. Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. My case, we as taxpayers are footing the bill. Fire at will. This is going to get ugly....lol

The expense of drug testing would further add to the costs of administering the programs that are already struggling with budget cuts. It would also further limit those on welfare from securing employment by leaving their work schedule dependant on making it to random drug test appointments.

 

[wiseguy316]

How much would be saved and not paid out by the state into a system that is already abused. I also would not like to hear about invasion of privacy. If you chose not to be tested get a job. Nice response btw. Keep it coming.

 

[undertheice]

Going to open a can of worms here..Here goes...Topic. Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. My case, we as taxpayers are footing the bill. Fire at will. This is going to get ugly....lol

i don't see why it has to get ugly. it would seem a very straight forward question, with very little against the idea. as much as i believe that all drugs should be legal for the consumption of responsible adults, i also realize that it is a luxury. anyone who believes that the taxpayer should be footing the bill for such non-essentials has to have a screw loose. the entire concept of welfare was that it was to be a temporary measure, a way of helping people get back on their feet and not a way of life. that those funds are used to purchase luxuries that anyone else has to save up for instead of the necessities of life is one of the systems great failings.

 

[beardo]

How much would be saved and not paid out by the state into a system that is already abused. I also would not like to hear about invasion of privacy. If you chose not to be tested get a job. Nice response btw. Keep it coming.

It would result in an increase in total expenditure because they would hire more administrative positions to over see all the tests and results and they would probably contract with an outside clinic to conduct the testing adding huge costs while cutting off more people in need. the total and the percentage of the money going to those in need would fall while the total cost of welfare would rise or at best stay the same. Just because someone failed a drug test does not mean they do not need to eat and who are we to dictate what substances someone must or must not take in order to receive less than a bare minimum of sustenance. I believe some people are required to take Pshyc meds to qualify for programs and now we want to start testing to see what is in their system as a condition for food stamps?

 

[wiseguy316]

people on welfare need to spend their money on things like diapers and detergent — not drugs. Department of Health and Human Services, found that 9.6 percent of people living in households that receive government assistance used illicit drugs in the previous month, compared with a 6.8 percent rate among families who receive no assistance.

 

[beardo]

i don't see why it has to get ugly. it would seem a very straight forward question, with very little against the idea. as much as i believe that all drugs should be legal for the consumption of responsible adults, i also realize that it is a luxury. anyone who believes that the taxpayer should be footing the bill for such non-essentials has to have a screw loose. the entire concept of welfare was that it was to be a temporary measure, a way of helping people get back on their feet and not a way of life. that those funds are used to purchase luxuries that anyone else has to save up for instead of the necessities of life is one of the systems great failings.

It would be more cost effective for tax payers to legalize drugs and release drug offenders and give heroin addicts free heroin and clean needles as part of a welfare program.

 

[wiseguy316]

states do don't think it will increase revenue paid out they believe it will save close to 1.7 mil per year. And I am not saying they should not eat. I am saying we should not be paying for any substance abuse problems they might or might not have.

 

[Balzac89]

If I get tested at my job why would they not test them?

 

[wiseguy316]

The fact is that we have to respect the taxpayer and help the people be work-qualified and be good parents, also has everything to do with helping people that are addicted to drugs get their life back.

 

[Balzac89]

Heroin has become the biggest problem in my town. I see mutliple people fucked everyday. Its depressing including people I used to consider friends who now I wouldn't be caught even near them

 

[beardo]

states do don't think it will increase revenue paid out they believe it will save close to 1.7 mil per year. And I am not saying they should not eat. I am saying we should not be paying for any substance abuse problems they might or might not have.

They will save that in benifits paid out not total paid out to administer program as a whole, your number is indicating that the poor will get 1.7 mil less, why should tax payers fund killing people but not the programs for the poor. It would save us money if we stopped wasting money on the enforcment of prohibition.

 

[wiseguy316]

They will save that in benifits paid out not total paid out to administer program as a whole, your number is indicating that the poor will get 1.7 mil less, why should tax payers fund killing people but not the programs for the poor. It would save us money if we stopped wasting money on the enforcment of prohibition.

enforcement of prohibition is not the topic. I am not saying no welfare for anyone, I said pee in the cup. Look at the rest of the posts , your a little behind.

 

[wiseguy316]

Don't give up on me or keep redirecting. I just picked a controversial subject and wanted to see you defend it...lol

 

[sync0s]

I agree with no welfare. However, if there is to be welfare than if you choose to join it you should follow the rules of it, bottom line. You still hold your rights, because when you make the choice to join welfare you had your right of choice. Now, by joining the program you must abide by the rules they set forth, or you can go provide for yourself. It's good, restrictions in welfare needs to be much more tight, though. They are way to loose as it is and that's why it's so easy to abuse the system.

 

[beardo]

enforcement of prohibition is not the topic. I am not saying no welfare for anyone, I said pee in the cup. Look at the rest of the posts , your a little behind.

Are you suggesting cutting benifits for those who fail correct? In which case I say they still need to eat. And weather or not you cut those who fails welfare the costs of testing are prohibitive. The testing issue ties in with prohibition because you do not speak of checking if they are spending their money on doughnuts or mcdonalds and it ties into prison costs because if you cut welfare you will see an increase in crime and incarceration adding to costs on socitey while potentially lowering welfare costs

 

[wiseguy316]

Are you suggesting cutting benifits for those who fail correct? In which case I say they still need to eat. And weather or not you cut those who fails welfare the costs of testing are prohibitive. The testing issue ties in with prohibition because you do not speak of checking if they are spending their money on doughnuts or mcdonalds and it ties into prison costs because if you cut welfare you will see an increase in crime and incarceration adding to costs on socitey while potentially lowering welfare costs

refer to post #11. tackle that one before we go any further.

 

[alotaball]

They need to just have welfare centers.. you go in once a week and are provided enough food and necessities to get yourself and your family through out the week. A very Small amount of cash should be given to cover unforeseen expenditures .. utilities ect. Housing is already taken care of with Section 8 housing .. pretty much you leave the person with no option but to get items that will ensure their welfare. I understand this will create more jobs.. but its better to put the money into tax paying employees then some person on welfare who lets their kids practically starve so they can spend their check on dope. In a way they already tried to do this with food stamps and ebt cards.. but the problem is .. most drug addicts trade this food money 2 for 1.. So if they want a 20 sack.. they give the dealer 40 in food stamps.. that hurts the kids even more..

 

[beardo]

refer to post #11. tackle that one before we go any further.

Awhile ago I started a thread that's long since dead so instead of trying to find it I started a sequel.
Pick a subject or topic and state your side and make your points for why your right and I will try to make a case for the opposing point of view.

Going to open a can of worms here..Here goes...Topic. Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. My case, we as taxpayers are footing the bill. Fire at will. This is going to get ugly....lol

Post # 2
A- No we should not drug test welfare recipients, it would add further costs to an already burdened system as well as limiting potential for success of welfare recipients as well as violating their constitutional right against search and seizure.
-Edit, my fault, I thought you said refer to post #1 not #11