Mandatory drug test

[retro]

What does unemployment insurance have anything to do with it? That's not welfare.

Who the hell cares if you are a drug addict or alcoholic if you are getting an UI check???

It's like saying they should screen you for drugs and alcohol before you can get an insurance check if your house burned down. You paid into it and if you need to use the insurance then you should damn well get it.

You have to meet certain criteria in order to be eligible for UI, making it somewhat similar to welfare. I don't claim that it's the same thing, but there are similarities between the two.

My point still stands... people lie, and they can certainly lie about their drug and alcohol usage when applying for welfare.

 

[Tim]

If it was nothing more than a questionnaire that you fill out, I could see your point. But you meet with a trained professional and I'm sure people lie to them, but don't you think if you had an obvious problem, it would show?

My point being, they already have checks in place, they don't just hand out money to everyone without going through a screening process. To suggest that everyone take a drug test does nothing more than to placate the uninformed.

 

[Panacea]

You can educate people and give out free contraception all you want, but some people will have babies because that's what they want, not because it's a mistake they followed through or they're too stupid to understand.

Sure, so what do you do with them?

The way I see it, you can't ethically force people to live right. It would be fabulous, but I don't know how possible it is. That was the issue with the drug testing. People ultimately do whatever the fuck they want to do. Knowing that, I always push for the bare minimum, at least. I think some people are literally ignorant, or in denial, and if they get a free condom and some info about how to not get knocked up, if it prevents just one baby from being brought into bullshit, I feel better at the end of the day.

But I don't think there's any winning, no.

 

[darkcgi]

i guess so sounds good

 

[Peter Parka]

People who have children who are temporarily out of work with children are not bad parents. people who have 5 or 6 children and continue to mooch off the system without even attempting to look for work are the ones that need to be told they can't have anymore children. did you read that link I dropped about the food stamp fraud that happened here a few years ago?

Guess it's differnet where you live. Where I live people on job seekers allowance have to provide proof of looking for work every week.

People actually reproduce so they can stay on welfare...

Very few do but I'd still rather them have benifits than a complete cunt who is disabled but thinks its ok to take the piss out of others with disabilities.

 

[Accountable]

Your blinders make it very difficult for you to respond effectively. This has nothing to do with your ability to pop out kids. If it has to be spelled out for you, the issue is doing this while spending a lifetime on the dole.

However I thought the days of "lifetime on the dole" were over? No?

I'm not really interested in how you rationalize authoritarianism.

 

[Accountable]

These discussions about welfare perfectly illustrate the effectiveness of the right wing, ie Ronald Reagan when the term "Welfare Queen" was coined to paint a picture of a lazy black woman living off the government dole popping out kids and doing drugs.
Just admit it, what type of person do you think of when welfare is mentioned?

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of welfare recipients are white single mothers who only collect for an average of 2 months before getting out of the system. Women who are recently divorced who need help transitioning. And recently it's people who have found themselves without a job in this crappy economy.
And you will find that most of the people on welfare or food stamps are embarrassed and get off the system a quickly as possible...

So yes, let's kick these people when their down. Let's get them to piss in a cup to make them feel even lower than they already are. Let's force them to swallow birth control pills everyday. Lets do this because a very small percentage of people abuse the system. Lets not try to clean up those who are abusing the system, let's punish everyone else.

It was phenomenally effective. It's got authoritarians from the left and the right agreeing that they should be stripped of their major rights that both have argued for in other cases: the right to life and decisions about one's body.

Not to mention convincing Dana to perpetuate a stereotype based on a number of people so small you could probably list them on the back of a business card.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not really interested in how you rationalize authoritarianism.

You first. No one is required participation in welfare.

 

[Accountable]

You first. No one is required participation in welfare.

confused True. confused
Me first, what?

 

[BadBoy]

I still haven't heard a sensible answer as to why people who are temporarily not working are bad parents and how you think you can realistically force someone not to have children.

No one said people who are temporarily not working are bad parents. But if I am paying into the tax system that pays for these welfare benefits I have every right to impose restrictions.

I agree that it would be ideal for only the financially stable to bring children into the world (as I believe poverty has been shown to hamper the futures of children greatly), it's not reasonable to impose breeding restrictions on humans. I don't know where the middle ground is, in my naivete I think education is all that can be done (offer free condoms to people on welfare, educate them about the costs of parenthood) idk.

Why not? If we ever become over populated or limited in food and water or other natural resources, don't you think something would have to be done in order to survive?

Guess it's differnet where you live. Where I live people on job seekers allowance have to provide proof of looking for work every week.



Very few do but I'd still rather them have benifits than a complete cunt who is disabled but thinks its ok to take the piss out of others with disabilities.

You have to do the same in this state as well, however the proof burden is an easy obstacle to overcome to continue being a 99 weeker. Why would someone choose this route? Some choose this route to go to college while collecting unemployment which is a no-no in the eyes of the payer.

The reason there are those of us complaining is because there are many abusers. Do they outweigh those that use the system legally? Probably not. But its still bleeding money out of everyone here's pocket. Is that acceptable for you? Do you like it when your cable company raises your rates every year? I know I don't like bleeding money away.

 

[Tim]

No one said people who are temporarily not working are bad parents. But if I am paying into the tax system that pays for these welfare benefits I have every right to impose restrictions.

And they don't have a say? Like I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of people who collect welfare do so short term, averaging 2 months. The rest of the time they are paying in just like you. So what makes your say so any more important?

 

[Panacea]

Why not? If we ever become over populated or limited in food and water or other natural resources, don't you think something would have to be done in order to survive?

We are currently over populated, and are currently dwindling our food/water supplies to a dangerous level, and nothing is directly done to force people out of having children, so no.

 

[BadBoy]

And they don't have a say? Like I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of people who collect welfare do so short term, averaging 2 months. The rest of the time they are paying in just like you. So what makes your say so any more important?

Everyone has equal say and I would expect the same restrictions to be placed on me if I was ever so unfortunate. Luckily for me, I went to college and earned a degree that will never put me out of work.

We are currently over populated, and are currently dwindling our food/water supplies to a dangerous level, and nothing is directly done to force people out of having children, so no.

This is not a problem in the US Panacea and you know it. When it gets to be dire straights, I'm sure something will be done, it will have to be.

 

[Tim]

Everyone has equal say and I would expect the same restrictions to be placed on me if I was ever so unfortunate. Luckily for me, I went to college and earned a degree that will never put me out of work.

Lol, as long as you have that degree you're good as gold.
I forgot the fact that only the uneducated deal with unemployment. :24:

I guess that degree didn't come with common sense.

 

[Panacea]

This is not a problem in the US Panacea and you know it. When it gets to be dire straights, I'm sure something will be done, it will have to be.

It's a worldwide problem. My original point is that it's unethical to force someone into a reproductive choice against their will because they don't have a job, what does that have to do with "dire straights" regarding natural resources. They're two entirely different reasons for restricting human rights, and shouldn't be compared.

 

[Panacea]

Luckily for me, I went to college and earned a degree that will never put me out of work.

You've really outdone yourself this time

 

[BadBoy]

Lol, as long as you have that degree you're good as gold.
I forgot the fact that only the uneducated deal with unemployment. :24:

I guess that degree didn't come with common sense.

You've really outdone yourself this time

I never said that college educated people aren't dealing with unemployment, I'm saying that with the degree I have I will not have to worry being that the unemployment rate with my skills and education is currently at 0.9%.

I will not back down from that statement and when you get Tim's dick out of your mouth, we can continue.

 

[darkcgi]

4 year college degrees and clear backgrounds are almost the only way to get a good job in the us

 

[retro]

Guess it's differnet where you live. Where I live people on job seekers allowance have to provide proof of looking for work every week.

Out here, they send a postcard that you have to return stating at least one job that you applied for during the previous two week period.

 

[retro]

If it was nothing more than a questionnaire that you fill out, I could see your point. But you meet with a trained professional and I'm sure people lie to them, but don't you think if you had an obvious problem, it would show?

My point being, they already have checks in place, they don't just hand out money to everyone without going through a screening process. To suggest that everyone take a drug test does nothing more than to placate the uninformed.

Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people with drug problems show it outwardly? C'mon Tim, I didn't take you for someone as completely naive as your statements are implying that you are. I'm sure that your typical junkie is pretty obvious, but someone that's had a steady job or lives an outwardly seeming normal life doesn't in the least bit. Plus, how hard do you really think that it is to lie to a "trained professional" that is dealing with numerous of these kinds of cases in a day? I'd submit that it more than likely isn't particularly difficult to do.