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

You can't possibly go hungry if you are responsible. There are too many churches out there to this day that give food away. A church down the street gives $100 worth of groceries (my estimate based on past shopping and what they give to people) a week. How can you go hungry in america with things like this?

beardo, it's not illegal search and seizure when you consent to it. When you join the program, you are consenting to it. While the costs do burden the tax payer, so does the entire welfare system.

wiseguy316 said:

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

Click to expand...

wiseguy316 said:

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.

Click to expand...

We need people on welfare and on drugs to fill prison beds and keep people working for welfare agencys and police departments employed. The amount of people who make their living from drug addicts and welfare recipients is huge, If we got everyone off drugs and off welfare unemployment would skyrocket and wadges would fall.

beardo said:

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.

Click to expand...

how can we be limiting them when this in efforts to help them. It will save costs and provide more productive work force.

Our welfare system should just hire these people to work in the welfare system. If you refuse to work, you don't reap the benefits.

We do need people on welfare. It is a good thing , when not abused. It is too often abused, ie selling of food stamps for 50 cent on the dollar to support drug habits. So, to fix this and help the families involved, just pee it the cup.

wiseguy316 said:

We do need people on welfare. It is a good thing , when not abused. It is too often abused, ie selling of food stamps for 50 cent on the dollar to support drug habits. So, to fix this and help the families involved, just pee it the cup.

Click to expand...

Can we get a topic jump? anyone got another one? or do you wan't to try to defend against the premise that.....
We should sterilize welfare recipients, When you go to apply and do the paper work one of the conditions should be that you go to one of their approved doctors and have your tubes tied or get a vasectomy before they finalize your approval.

Do you really disagree with it or just debating? Either way ^ 5.

beardo said:

Can we get a topic jump? anyone got another one? or do you wan't to try to defend against the premise that.....
We should sterilize welfare recipients, When you go to apply and do the paper work one of the conditions should be that you go to one of their approved doctors and have your tubes tied or get a vasectomy before they finalize your approval.

Click to expand...

Genocide of the poor. I like it.........

edit - please don't like my posting unless you get the sarcasm. I don't want bigots agreeing with me.

I say no drug testing for welfare recipients for most cases... Not all people abuse the system and they should not be treated that way. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary program to help people during rough times to help get them back on their feet, those people who paid into the system all these years by working and paying taxes should be entitled to use the system when they need it without being treated like a parolee... On the other hand I would say they could make it so that if you need assistance for over 12 months then yeah maybe drug test them...

Drug testing after a year is a valid point. I think we need to move on to another topic.

wiseguy316 said:

Do you really disagree with it or just debating?

Click to expand...

A little of both, just trying to make a good argument for whatever side i'm on, I usually see the merits of both points of view. yes it is definatly good if programs can accomplish what they were meant to do. I think they should focus on getting people on welfare into jobs that earn them a decent living so they can get off programs and succeed

beardo said:

A little of both, just trying to make a good argument for whatever side i'm on, I usually see the merits of both points of view. yes it is definatly good if programs can accomplish what they were meant to do. I think they should focus on getting people on welfare into jobs that earn them a decent living so they can get off programs and succeed

Click to expand...

Most states do, that is part of the program. You have to be actively seeking suitable employment. Turn in 3 work search contact per week.

wiseguy316 said:

Most states do, that is part of the program. You have to be actively seeking suitable employment. Turn in 3 work search contact per week.

Click to expand...

Suitable shouldn't be minimum wadge, we need more real jobs that earn a living wadge....But this isn't debate as much as conversation at this point.- Debate part 2 anyone, anything intresting?

beardo said:

Suitable shouldn't be minimum wadge, we need more real jobs that earn a living wadge....But this isn't debate as much as conversation at this point.- Debate part 2 anyone, anything intresting?

Click to expand...

Suitable meaning you no longer need assistance. So no not min wage.

Drug testing is a joke. Drug testing in the Unites States is actually testing for someone having smoked pot. Speed exits the system in a few days, cocaine in a few hours, the half life of some opiates are 3 or 4 hours. The majority of all drug tests that test positive are for pot. Are you going to begrudge a welfare recipient who is having a pretty miserable time of it a little toke? Now if there are harder drugs involved, the presumption is that if they are denied welfare they will just quit using. This is a fallacy as well. Without welfare money the user may well resort to theft or worse. This will send him to jail. It costs more to keep someone incarcerated than it does to keep him on welfare. The cost saving is illusory, the social costs of such a program are high as well.

I believe the best method for handling the situation would be to allow choice. To use government to force other's choices directly is wrong. Welfare recepients should be given enough assistance to allow them to live and advance, no more. The assistance should have a definite endpoint. If the welfare user chooses to waste their assistance on drugs, that is their choice, as are the consequences.

Welfare is not a choice to those who actually need it, so to say that an impoverished person has the choice to not deal with privacy-violating drug tests if they are a requirement to welfare is incorrect. Also, beardo and others already pointed out that if the purpose of the drug tests was to determine if the welfare recipient is being wasteful with their money, it is an extremely inefficient method for determining such as the presence of drugs in the system aside from marijuana is very short, and drugs are far from the only thing a person can wastefully spend money on.

beardo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Anyone have anything interesting tonight? Pick your topic...pick your side.

Hell, I thought we ended this last night..^5.

Helmet law...& u pick your side

People should be required to wear helmets. I believe in helmet laws because they save lives and prevent brain injuries that cost taxpayers.