La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

reply to post by Kryties


Good for you.

Money provides the necessities of life.

My family takes priority 100% of the time over anyone else in my eyes.

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne


So you are just saying cut off all welfare and asstistance? If you have 500,000 jobs and $14 million without jobs then you have 50 million disabled and elderly. Ok correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that really increase the homelessness problem and deaths due to their needs NOT being meet.
The solution I offered is way more humane than your non solution. I can't believe we are even on the same web site. Tell me what do you do for a living?

Originally posted by StigShen

Originally posted by Whereweheaded



Which would further suggest corporate welfare should be abolished does it not? In the free market system, if a company cannot meet its requirements, it fails and closes doors. So with that, why should social welfare be given any extra " light " to succeed? It shouldn't thus suggesting the need to eradicate both corporate and social welfare.

If you fix the economy, eradicate corporate welfare, the need for social welfare will evaporate almost entirely. Except perhaps for a token group of folks who are handicapped and so forth. But I'll tell you this much, anyone of sound mind and body would certainly much prefer a job where they could earn a living wage, than trying to survive on welfare. Welfare is death my friend.

You do realize you just agreed with what ive been saying this hole time right?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


No its the need to reduce the amount of interventionist and embrace individualism, which btw, promotes the need to truly succeed in life, and not be dependent on others to pay your way~

The prisons are filled with individualists who set out to succeed at all costs, with whatever meager resources they had at their disposal.

reply to post by dreamseeker


Indeed it does, no problem. We should have to pay for it, too- the same way we'd pay for an application for housing/ lease or the expenses associated with applying for a new job. These are just realities everyone (else?)
faces.
Oh hell YES we should be drug testing our "public servants"! Them first!

I guess you would also want there to be no background checks, either? (same difference) Nothing like a drug dealer/ pedo/ coyote next door, trust me. I mean we *all* want to live in a hellhole, no matter what the price. (Not)
Here's a clue: people will rent to *anybody*. Once they're in, it is not easy to get them out. We need laws like this the same way we "need" "anti discrimination" laws. It has to be "mandated" by law, right? It shouldn't be spotty. Do it right or not at all.

I'm sick of people who screw up their lives and then get patted on the head and told 'oh that's okay. we'll take care of you, go right ahead'. Is it fair to those whose lives are screwed up through no fault of their own? No. But if those who "care" so much would filter out the bad ones, no one would have to suffer unfairly. Funny, the indignation toward that "filtering out" part. Why is that?
It's called "enabling" and it's dragging our whole society down the bowl.

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Kryties

 

Good for you.

Money provides the necessities of life.

My family takes priority 100% of the time over anyone else in my eyes.

Your words, not mine....here they are again in case you've forgotten.....

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
Sustaining those that cannot sustain themselves is not a good idea. Let them succeed or fail, but not to the detriment of other peoples wallets.

Originally posted by thorazineshuffle
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

I think anyone who gets money from the government should take a piss test. Including our leaders. There is a ton of corruption in our country, and it all needs to be addressed! Every facet, needs to be investigated. I agree with that.

Including politicians, love it WalkingFox, after all they are our employees are they not?

Originally posted by StigShen

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


No its the need to reduce the amount of interventionist and embrace individualism, which btw, promotes the need to truly succeed in life, and not be dependent on others to pay your way~

The prisons are filled with individualists who set out to succeed at all costs, with whatever meager resources they had at their disposal.

The prisons are filled with those who made bad choices, not their own individualism. huge difference.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


It is also a fantasy to think we can get rid of social programs 100%. Welfare is a better solution; it might not be the best solution better than starvation and homelessness.
What were your thoughts again on FDR and Maslow?

Originally posted by Michelle129th

Either support the law, or get out and try to have it changed. I have no problem with people taking prescribed medications, drinking a beer, or smoking a cigarette, so I personally have no issues with the laws pertaining to those.

Oh, I assure you, many people are trying to change the "laws," but pharmaceutical interests (mostly) spend a lot of money to keep drugs (and especially cannabis) illegal.

I'd assume the 20% would chosen by the government. They have the facts and figures, not us.

"The government" is pretty broad. And all they have is records of people who are not getting work - regardless of the fact that they may be, say, older and competing with 20-somethings (and an employer will virtually ALWAYS hire the 20-something...) or just not looking. Someone must make the decision. Or is it computer generated?

The issue to me is NOT the fact that people receive welfare. I have no problem giving up taxes on my pay to help those in need. This thread is NOT about whether or not people SHOULD be or DESERVE to be on welfare...it's about what people should be or deserve to be DOING with that money, and that time...it should not be getting high! I truly believe if we give treatment to (at least some of) those testing positive...it may be enough to turn them around, kick their self esteem into high gear and get them back into the workforce. If they're sitting home getting high, I fail to see how that cycle will just magically break itself. Again, this is all MY opinion...nobody has to agree, as I don't agree with yours.

"Getting high..." As that relates to cannabis, that really means "relieving stress." In other words, it's medicinal. Would you approve of alcohol and cigs? Just because they're legal? And, no... It would not "kickstart" them. It would build resentment, and cost the taxpayers a bunch. You make it sound as if there is opportunity in the workforce these days. For someone, say, with a limitation of needing to sit at work, there is virtually nothing out there. And where do you get the idea that relieving stress precludes self esteem and a motivation to try to find work? The propaganda the pharmaceutical companies feed you?

I know many who relieve stress just so they CAN handle the drudge of looking for work (again, day after day, for years).

There is no "cycle." That is more propaganda.

(on a side note, this thread is also not about corporations sucking us dry either...I am humble enough to say I have no education or clue about any of that...otherwise I would be posting in the financial threads).

Michelle

Perhaps that is why you hold the perspective you do. If you research the facts, it becomes quite clear that natural remedies such as cannabis are illegal precisely because they threaten the patentable concoctions offered (at high price) by the pharmaceutical industry (when it was discovered that turmeric was a good anti-cancer spice, there was serious talk of outlawing it...). (Other industries had/have interest in keeping it illegal, too, but I will not address this here).

In fact, though, in order to address the issue of La Bruzzo's efforts, we MUST discuss the reasons for the "laws" and the nature of those on welfare. To do otherwise is to shoot into a vacuum. So I cannot agree that corporate motivation and the nature of the welfare recipient are off topic.

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by StigShen

 

There is no right to any wage other than minimum wage.

If someone is unhappy with what they are paid, there are others who would gladly take their place.

A burger flipper has no right to a "livable wage".

Fine, then you will have to continue to subsidize low-income workers with your tax dollars, because the companies failed to meet their responsibility.

reply to post by dreamseeker

What were your thoughts again on FDR and Maslow?

Both were raping the Constitution, and they were a travesty to the very foundation this country was founded upon! But I bet they're your heros huh?

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne


Want to know what will give? The entitlement mentality will give way to personal motivation and desire. When people realize they have absolutely nothing to fall back on, ingenuity occurs.

Criminal ingenuity. Criminality has little to do with morality, but necessity. People do not go on welfare because they feel they are entitled. They do it because they have to.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


What is wrong with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is common sense. Without the basics of life you will die. Can't you at least agree on that point?

reply to post by dreamseeker


How about you be humane with your own $15,000 and leave everyone elses money alone?

There are not 50 million disabled & elderly in the U.S., you are looking at a number lower than that.

Why don't you go into business providing services to the elderly for a fee?

Since there are so many as you claim, they will need services too right?

reply to post by ripcontrol


I have always felt like the welfare people should be the ones tested, not the everyday hard worker who has fallen victim to the insurance companies.

reply to post by StigShen


Or I could demand that the government stick to the Constitution which it swore to uphold.

Redistributive policies are a smack in the face to the foundations of liberty.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded



No its the need to reduce the amount of interventionist and embrace individualism, which btw, promotes the need to truly succeed in life, and not be dependent on others to pay your way~

No one paid my way. I have been supporting myself since I was 14 years old. I have worked 2 or 3 jobs at a time for most of my life. And as I said before, I am educated, and had an outstanding work record in SEVERAL professions. My diverse work experience has done nothing to help me get a full time job in the past few years.

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne


We are all connected. My money,your money so what we all live in the same world. If you came to me begging for a couple bucks to buy a cheeseburger I would give it to you. I can't afford to help the whole world that is why we all help each other out collectively.
I assume you don't donate to charity then!

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

What is wrong with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is common sense. Without the basics of life you will die. Can't you at least agree on that point?

Your first mistake, is putting Maslow and FDR in the same sentence. Maslow's theory touched basis with some needed points, but it missed out on some very basic facts about human nature. FDR on the other hand, was disaster upon this great nation.