Urine Test For Welfare A Must!!!

[Oremus]

as true as this is, we can also point out the fact that as soon as something is NOT ALLOWED, the same applies.

So we cant use any type of test to determine eligability of the worthles,,, um, recepient.
I suppose that requiring them to disclose any income or assets would be the next thing to go.

There is a reasonable nexus between income and receiving government benefits. I don't see a reasonable nexus between piss tests and receiving government benefits.

Is there a nexus between your inability to spell and your narrow views?

 

[MMDad]

I don't see a reasonable nexus between piss tests and receiving government benefits.

There are a few pertinent facts: drug use among the poor is a real problem, drug use hampers a persons ability to better their situation, and there are people who use their welfare money to buy drugs.

As taxpayers, we are paying for welfare. It is reasonable for us to want our tax money to be spent wisely. It is reasonable for us to want to know that our money is not being used to finance a drug habit. It is reasonable for us to want the people who receive our tax money to be subjected to the same drug testing that those of us who earned the money in the first place are subjected to.

Welfare recipients are not required to collect welfare. If they don't want to take the test, they don't have to. Just don't expect a check if you don't.

 

[Toxick]

There is a reasonable nexus between income and receiving government benefits. I don't see a reasonable nexus between piss tests and receiving government benefits.

Is there a nexus between your inability to spell and your narrow views?

There's a nexus between your head and your ass hole.
Is there also a nexus between your arrogance and your uselessness ... I think there might be.


How about this nexus: taxpayers shouldn't subsidize a slothful existence and criminal behavior?


Nexus.

 

[Oremus]

There are a few pertinent facts: drug use among the poor is a real problem, drug use hampers a persons ability to better their situation, and there are people who use their welfare money to buy drugs.

As taxpayers, we are paying for welfare. It is reasonable for us to want our tax money to be spent wisely. It is reasonable for us to want to know that our money is not being used to finance a drug habit. It is reasonable for us to want the people who receive our tax money to be subjected to the same drug testing that those of us who earned the money in the first place are subjected to.

Welfare recipients are not required to collect welfare. If they don't want to take the test, they don't have to. Just don't expect a check if you don't.

I agree with your second and third paragraphs, but drug use is a problem among all economic classes. Should we require a piss test to qualify for student loans, small business loans, or other middle class government benefits?

 

[This_person]

I agree with your second and third paragraphs, but drug use is a problem among all economic classes. Should we require a piss test to qualify for student loans, small business loans, or other middle class government benefits?

I would think that would depend on whether there's a difference between the payback of loans and the payback of welfare.

 

[Oremus]

There's a nexus between your head and your ass hole.
Is there also a nexus between your arrogance and your uselessness ... I think there might be.


How about this nexus: taxpayers shouldn't subsidize a slothful existence and criminal behavior?


Nexus.

Really? Explain it to me, genius.

How do you tell who is slothful and criminal? Who makes the decision? What is the mechanism for making that decision? Do we have an administrative hearing with witnesses and testimony? And what happens to those that are adjudicated slothful since obviously the criminals go to jail?

 

[MMDad]

I agree with your second and third paragraphs, but drug use is a problem among all economic classes. Should we require a piss test to qualify for student loans, small business loans, or other middle class government benefits?

They are frequently a requirment due to circumstances. If you do business in transportation, defense, and other government related industry, drug testing is already required.

These loans also aren't just a handout - if you use drugs and you default, the loan doesn't just go away. Welfare is not a loan, so your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

I would have no problem with a urinalysis requirement before receiving a grant.

 

[This_person]

How do you tell who is ... criminal? Who makes the decision? What is the mechanism for making that decision?

I have an idea. We could drug test recipients to see if they're criminal in that respect!

 

[Oremus]

I have an idea. We could drug test recipients to see if they're criminal in that respect!

OK. What if we just drug test everyone regardless of their occupation or income? Oh, almost forgot, it would include alcohol.

 

[Toxick]

Really? Explain it to me, genius.

No sweat, dullard.

How do you tell who is slothful and criminal?

Well, one easy way to spot the criminal behavior in question is to give them a urine test.

If they pop positive, they're a drug user. I.e. a criminal.

Q.E.D.


Slothful would include those people physically capable of working, and yet neither work, nor attempt to find gainful employment.

Who makes the decision? What is the mechanism for making that decision? Do we have an administrative hearing with witnesses and testimony?

There's no decision to be made. These are easily quantifiable conditions. There's nothing abstract, confusing, nor arbitrary about them. No smoke. No mirrors.

And what happens to those that are adjudicated slothful since obviously the criminals go to jail?

IMO, a simple denial of benefits should suffice on both counts.

 

[MMDad]

OK. What if we just drug test everyone regardless of their occupation or income? Oh, almost forgot, it would include alcohol.

In order to receive government benefits?

 

[Toxick]

OK. What if we just drug test everyone regardless of their occupation or income? Oh, almost forgot, it would include alcohol.

Everyone regardless of occupation or income aren't a burden on taxpayers. If someone can finance their own crack-habit without using my money, it's no skin off my ass.

Why would it include alcohol? Alcohol is a legal substance.

 

[This_person]

OK. What if we just drug test everyone regardless of their occupation or income? Oh, almost forgot, it would include alcohol.

A> Alcohol is not illegal anymore. That prohibition went out in the twenties or so, I think.

B> Everyone who seeks income in the form of my tax dollars? Sure! Good idea! I think most of the ones who do it as an occupation already have that randomly done, though. So, I guess it would just apply to recipients of unemployment, food stamps, welfare, etc.

I think that's the whole point of this thread, though, so it's not really that original this far in.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

No sweat, dullard.

Well, one easy way to spot the criminal behavior in question is to give them a urine test.

If they pop positive, they're a drug user. I.e. a criminal.

Q.E.D.

Slothful would include those people physically capable of working, and yet neither work, nor attempt to find gainful employment.

There's no decision to be made. These are easily quantifiable conditions. There's nothing abstract, confusing, nor arbitrary about them. No smoke. No mirrors.

IMO, a simple denial of benefits should suffice on both counts.

Why bother Tox. This numbskull is from the forestool/slappy mold and can't comprehend simple concepts. It's probably one of their MPD's.

 

[spicy]

I'm curious to know JPC's thoughts on this idea

 

[This_person]

I'm curious to know JPC's thoughts on this idea

I literally fell out of my chair laughing! Thank you!

 

[Toxick]

Why bother Tox. This numbskull is from the forestool/slappy mold and can't comprehend simple concepts. It's probably one of their MPD's.

I dunno. If this one is as half as smart as he thinks he is, perhaps there's some small glimmer of hope.




But maybe you're right and I'm being unnecessarily optimisitic.

 

[Oremus]

No sweat, dullard.





Well, one easy way to spot the criminal behavior in question is to give them a urine test.

If they pop positive, they're a drug user. I.e. a criminal.

Q.E.D.


Slothful would include those people physically capable of working, and yet neither work, nor attempt to find gainful employment.




There's no decision to be made. These are easily quantifiable conditions. There's nothing abstract, confusing, nor arbitrary about them. No smoke. No mirrors.





IMO, a simple denial of benefits should suffice on both counts.

So you can identify with a reasonable degree of accuracy if someone is using illegal drugs. Nice start. Do they then get arrested and tried? You have a 5th Amendment problem there. What about other criminal behavior?

People tend not to advertise their slothfulness. How are you going to identify them, quantify their slothfulness, and who performs these tasks?

Suppose one is determined to be either criminal or slothful and their benefits are terminated. What happens to them then? Darwinism?

You simplify. It's not that simple.

 

[Oremus]

Everyone regardless of occupation or income aren't a burden on taxpayers. If someone can finance their own crack-habit without using my money, it's no skin off my ass.

Why would it include alcohol? Alcohol is a legal substance.

How much of your money are they using?

Then we are allowed to drink at work?

 

[Oremus]

I dunno. If this one is as half as smart as he thinks he is, perhaps there's some small glimmer of hope.




But maybe you're right and I'm being unnecessarily optimisitic.

You can't pretend to be smarter than everyone and keep misspelling words.