The Gov't is giving these people money so that they can live, not so that they can buy a huge-ass TV and fags whilst their kids have tatty clothes that are two sizes too small.
If you want to mistreat your kids, get a job (I'm kidding with this line, of course).
How is it not a good idea?
Interesting proposal to say the least. If they were only testing for narcotics and not things like marijuana and other non-addictive drugs I don't think it is a bad idea. But of course they aren't going to do that.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
| SamuelRSmith said: The Gov't is giving these people money so that they can live, not so that they can buy a huge-ass TV and fags whilst their kids have tatty clothes that are two sizes too small. If you want to mistreat your kids, get a job (I'm kidding with this line, of course). How is it not a good idea? |
how about the right to privacy?
SciFiBoy said:
so the government should tell people how they can and cant spend there money, and police it, how is that a good idea? |
They aren't spending their money.
They're spending the governments money... which is money paid by citizens... ones not on welfare.
Really the problem is that welfare deals in money at all.
It should deal directly in food, clothing and shelter.
If your on welfare, you should go to a foodbank and they give you food and clothing.
Which is my point.
Stuff like i listed is a step in the wrong direction because it's just costly and pointless.
The correct way to handle welfare since it's already income and child based is to just give out the products needed for survival. Rather then money and hope the person who uses it buys food.
SciFiBoy said:
how about the right to privacy? |
So... right to privacy > the treatment of children?
Kasz216 said:
They aren't spending their money. They're spending the governments money... which is money paid by citizens... ones not on welfare. Really the problem is that welfare deals in money at all. It should deal directly in food, clothing and shelter. If your on welfare, you should go to a foodbank and they give you food and clothing. Which is my point. Stuff like i listed is a step in the wrong direction because it's just costly and pointless. The correct way to handle welfare since it's already income and child based is to just give out the products needed for survival. Rather then money and hope the person who uses it buys food.
|
I agree with this, also, but that can also be costly as the Gov't would have to set up shop type thing in all towns and cities to provide the goods, or do it home-delivery, but that can also be costly.
Vouchers would work, but it could be a struggle getting stores to accept them. And, of course, people could illegally trade them.
Kasz216 said:
So... right to privacy > the treatment of children? |
Actually, yes, because the two don't go hand-in-hand. Beware the politician that does anything "for the children".
Overall, I don't know about this... I can see both sides of it. I don't really have an opinion off-hand. On one side, many states outlaw random drug testing for employees... On the other hand, government handouts aren't made for drug users to abuse.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
We should do a poll on how many think this is actually necessary
SciFiBoy said:
how about the right to privacy? |
They've given up that right when they accepted the money. It wasn't earned. It was given. If I give somebody money for something specific like rent or groceries I'm going to make sure a new flat screen TV doesn't show up in their house either. We're also giving a lot of money to companies as handouts because of this recession. We gave them privacy and a lot of places blew the money on things they shouldn't have. Should they keep their privacy also with money that was given to them for a specific purpose or should the government step in and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to?
Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.
Kasz216 said:
So... right to privacy > the treatment of children?
|
no, thats not what im saying, im saying you cant tell people what they can and cant buy, its wrong, i think mistreating children is abhorent and if kids are being treated badly, we should send the parents to rehab or jail and if neccesary take the kids into care where they will be safe
Stop Misrepresenting My Posts, It Really, Really Pisses Me Off
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
