What do you guys think of this? Someone mentioned to me yesterday that they would completely support welfare and even the expansion of it if necessary, if a new bill would include a provision for monthly maybe bi-monthly, random, mandatory drug testing of everyone who will be receiving a welfare check. I have to say I completely agree. If your household needs a welfare check, there should be no alcohol, cigarettes or drugs within. No cable tv or internet either. This would serve as a disincentive to want the check in the first place. (Most would bail in a hurry.) Nobody needs that stuff to survive! I would say that we are at the thresh hold on a federal and state level, to where most everybody is taking a look at the most extreme cost cutting measures in order to bring costs down. So why not? Is it still too cruel? If I ever needed a welfare check, I would gladly agree to the above criteria and be grateful for the check so I could pay the necessary bills and eat. Why can't everyone else? We need to make the most of what funds are available. If we cut out all the bad apples, maybe we could increase the welfare amount going to people who need it the most. If the government wants to micro-manage people's daily lives, why not start with welfare? Essentially, they are the employer and the employee's job is to sit at home and make varying choices of what to do with vast amounts of free time. You fail a test while receiving welfare, you're done. Zero tolerance. You never receive another check the rest of your life. I would bet the majority would fail the first month. If you are supporting a drug habit with welfare, that means the tax payers are paying someone to degrade themselves faster so they become a burden on the health system earlier and for longer, costing us even more money.
I would totaly support that with 2 provisos 1 they should drive a small car or even use a bicycle and 2 they should have limited internet acess to goverment run job sites.
I like this but my addition to these excellent ideas would be that they could qualify for more money to be repaid within a specified amount of time. If they were to enroll in college or a trade school and maintain a "B" average. If their grades drop, or they drop out all together, they would be eliminated from the entire welfare program. Upon their graduation,and entering the work force, their checks would be garnished for 2 or5% of their gross until the total debt was repaid. If they quit their job then the total amount owed would be due then and there. If unable to satisfy that debt then interest would begin to accrue. All the while being ineligible to receive additional government aide. This would be a 2 fold bonus , since they are spending their time in school and doing homework they would not be at home creating more mouths, further adding to the strain of our tax dollars. Just my 2 cents.
And no going to the movies either. If they want entertainment, make shadow puppets. No buying books. Thats what libraries are for. And they better eat all thier vegetables too. Now would the kids of welfare recipients have to pay back thier parents debt if say, they were to die before then? And how bout a ''C'' on a curve? Would that be ok?
No accountibility at all, is that what you suugest? What is wrong in testing for drug use or expecting welfare recipients to actualy contribute something?
No. Its not what I suggest. I didnt say no drug testing. where did it write no drug testing? Where did I write just give them the money? It was a joke. Christ! Is everything so serious with you?
Craig my question is why must everything be a joke, or humorous? When should we take you seriously and when should we blow you off?
Oh I see now the confusion. When things seem likely. I mean them as a joke. when they seem absurd like. ''Make sure they eat all thier vegetables''. Then its serious. Why must everything be so serious? Life is a carnival. Dont get so freaky about politics. Dont fret, someone else come along and mess things up as well.
Well, when you scoff at a post that suggests accountiability & personal responsibility what are we left to think?
