It's about F-ing time

[sloppy]

I like where you are going with this, but have you actually tried to look for and attend interviews for a job while holding down another full time job?

Its community service that he suggests.. You could serve the community at any time. I am sure a setup like this could swing around interviews and job hunting.. I mean Saturday and Sunday are pretty slow interview days. and You know from 5PM till 6AM. plenty of time to get in a couple hours of trash pickup, or feeding the hungry at the community shelter. As for trying to do this, Not on welfare I never tried but I have worked 2 and 3 shitty jobs and still found a step up job in my life more then once. Its called hard work it sucks, IMO it sucks less then having a hand out to the Government. You force hard work on people maybe they would start to make the right choice and get off the big ol Govement titty

I think both of these ideas have merit. but the drug test thing seems much easier to implement.. Last I checked drug test were pretty pricey seems like Randoms would be the way to roll, or anytime they show up hurt or "sick" at the hospital.. Hand them a piss cup first.

 

[JeremyH]

Yep, I know what he was referring to....however, even with community service guys, you still have to have an employee watching them. The only cleanup crews I have ever seen working on the weekends were on the beach down here....and I am not sure they were from the city....and they work because that's when the beach is busiest.

I agree, I too have found jobs/careers while holding down other jobs.....and I like the idea of those on welfare being required to work to earn their keep, I just dont think it's reasonable to give someone 40 hours of work while getting them to look for work.

 

[fortysixandtwo]

How about throwing a citizenship check in there too for US CITIZEN benefits.

 

[KBrog]

Hummm.....last I checked, it isnt a crime to buy a Big Mac. Not even to buy 40.

So, wait, you want people to be open minded about your bad habit, but you want to be able to condemn fatties for their bad habits? Seems a bit.....what's that word....oh right, hypocritical.

Best post in this thread. "thumbsup"

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Best post in this thread. "thumbsup"

X2

Government assistance is to help you in your life, not to help maintain your lifestyle.

Any drug/alchohol use while on assistance should be stopped. The same can be said for those who are grossly overweight or have other health issues. If you're recieving aid and aren't using it to make things better for yourself and just maintaining the status quo, then you need cut off.

I support the freedom to do what you want in your life, but only if I'm not the one footing the bill and receiving none of the perks. I think most people you talk to would agree.

 

[MnRockCrawler]

Im not opposed to this nor really for it either. I say that because all that will come from this is instead of us paying for peoples welfare checks, we are going to be paying for every crackhead who wants a welfare checks treatment, and then on top of that, their welfare check once treated. So I see it only costing us more money in the long run. Not to mention the cost of testing everyone.

 

[murdock]

Except I don't think Mc Donalds accepts EBT cards?
How about those who work for their money, that have to take a drug test to be employed?

Nothing cooked lol, i see people at publix buying all kinds of stuff w/ ebt ; raw oysters, sushi, ect. and are perfectly healthy able bodied citizens, I for one have not partaken in this obama-que, But if i ever did have to swallow my pride and use it, i wouldn't abuse it and i would be more than happy to pass an annual D.T. to continue my benefits. I think some one such as myself w/ no kids/dependents should not be able to use such a thing so frivelously, exactly!, to maintain a lifestyle.

my .02:mrgreen:

 

[RANOVRU]

X2

Government assistance is to help you in your life, not to help maintain your lifestyle.

Any drug/alchohol use while on assistance should be stopped. The same can be said for those who are grossly overweight or have other health issues. If you're recieving aid and aren't using it to make things better for yourself and just maintaining the status quo, then you need cut off.

I support the freedom to do what you want in your life, but only if I'm not the one footing the bill and receiving none of the perks. I think most people you talk to would agree.

Thats exactly what I said (the underlined), and I was called hypocritical.

:roll:

 

[RANOVRU]

Hummm.....last I checked, it isnt a crime to buy a Big Mac. Not even to buy 40.

So, wait, you want people to be open minded about your bad habit, but you want to be able to condemn fatties for their bad habits? Seems a bit.....what's that word....oh right, hypocritical.

Its not against the law to drink beer but there are places that require alcohol tests now too.

All Ive EVER said is lets make it equal across the board. If we're going to outlaw "bad things" lets outlaw them ALL.

True hypocrisy is one demanding drug tests while shoving their obese ass face full of processed garbage.

 

[slobin3d]

Hmmm the govt requiring some sort of personal responsibility, whats the world coming too!

If it were up to me the entire Welfare/income tax thing would have ended in the 30's when it was supposed to!

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Im not opposed to this nor really for it either. I say that because all that will come from this is instead of us paying for peoples welfare checks, we are going to be paying for every crackhead who wants a welfare checks treatment, and then on top of that, their welfare check once treated. So I see it only costing us more money in the long run. Not to mention the cost of testing everyone.

An ex-crackhead has a greater chance at getting themselves off of welfare and becoming a productive citizen. They may also have a lower risk of committing a crime, and their overall health would improve as well, lowering their dependance on government funded health services.

The same can be said for overly obese people who are receiving assistance. Lowering someones weight will do all kinds of positive things for them. Increased mobility, greater stamina, increased health, all which would make them more fit to re-enter the work force and reduce the likelihood of medical complications due to health, which will also lessen their dependency on government medical services down the road.

Hell, I'd even throw in tobaco as a no-no.

 

[JeremyH]

Its not against the law to drink beer but there are places that require alcohol tests now too.

As you know, the law regulates how and when you can drink. Does it regulate how many burgers you can eat? Nope... BTW, what test would be given? How would you differentiate between someone who eats too many burgers and sits on their ass all day, versus someone that has an actual health issue that causes their weight problem yet tries hard to keep it under control? Or, would the test be purely subjective with you as the deciding factor?

I called out your hypocrisy because you were adamantly for one type of testing for something that didn't apply to you, but against one that would....

If you want to make it equal, then that is fine with me. I'm all for reducing the amount of MY money that is given to lazy, fat, drunk, addicts....

 

[JeremyH]

An ex-crackhead has a greater chance at getting themselves off of welfare and becoming a productive citizen. They may also have a lower risk of committing a crime, and their overall health would improve as well, lowering their dependance on government funded health services.

Unfortunately, people have great difficulty seeing things long term......I agree, a slight investment in our future would pay off in a big way later. "thumbsup"

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Unfortunately, people have great difficulty seeing things long term......I agree, a slight investment in our future would pay off in a big way later. "thumbsup"

Yup.

The easiest way to figure out what should and should not be allowed is to imagine you had to support someone directly out of your pocket for the long term. What exactly would you be willing to pay them to do while under your wing? Drugs? Drink? Smoke? Have a gaggle of babies (which you would also have to pay for)?

If they are going to be helped and have a problem, then part of the "help" is to resolve that problem, not enable them to continue to feed it. If they are unwilling to comply, then they don't get the help.

Its pretty simple IMO.

 

[SlickRockSpider]

We have much bigger problems. There is a fox in the hen house. We as Americans voted him in. ( i did not )

We are the infidel. Be proud of it.

Sorry for the Hi jack of the thread.



Evan

 

[RANOVRU]

As you know, the law regulates how and when you can drink. Does it regulate how many burgers you can eat? Nope... BTW, what test would be given? How would you differentiate between someone who eats too many burgers and sits on their ass all day, versus someone that has an actual health issue that causes their weight problem yet tries hard to keep it under control? Or, would the test be purely subjective with you as the deciding factor?

I called out your hypocrisy because you were adamantly for one type of testing for something that didn't apply to you, but against one that would....

If you want to make it equal, then that is fine with me. I'm all for reducing the amount of MY money that is given to lazy, fat, drunk, addicts....

Wow. You either cant see, or refuse to see the point.

Whether its a job or asking for help, peoples personal lives should stay left alone. It only breeds discrimination.

We all have our vices. But as long as ours arent subject to interpretation, its all gravy. Its only then that we here people speak out. I hope one day Ill here you speak out about something Jeremy.

 

[RANOVRU]

Yup.

The easiest way to figure out what should and should not be allowed is to imagine you had to support someone directly out of your pocket for the long term. What exactly would you be willing to pay them to do while under your wing? Drugs? Drink? Smoke? Have a gaggle of babies (which you would also have to pay for)?

If they are going to be helped and have a problem, then part of the "help" is to resolve that problem, not enable them to continue to feed it. If they are unwilling to comply, then they don't get the help.

Its pretty simple IMO.

As you may or may not know, I dont agree with the notion of "addiction", but from your last couple of posts Im guessing you do. So lets look at this from your view...

You think the best way to genuinely help a crackhead, a person who "has no control" over what they do, is to put a test in place that would prevent them from recieving help (aka money; money equals help in a capitalist society)??

Just trying to clarify....

 

[JeremyH]

We all have our vices. But as long as ours arent subject to interpretation, its all gravy.

That was my EXACT point (which I have said multiple times in this thread). You wanted testing to "outlaw" something that didn't affect you.....but didn't want testing for something that did.

I agree....people should be allowed to go about their daily lives without involvement from others (or government). However, when someone requests help from others (specifically, when those "others" aren't given a choice in how their monetary help is given), then that help should come with some stipulations.

My parents used to tell me when I was a kid "when you live under my roof, you follow my rules.....you can make your own rules when you live under your own roof".

 

[slobin3d]

(aka money; money equals help in a capitalist society)??

Just trying to clarify....

Money = help is a socialist notion, In a capitalist help is do it yourself"thumbsup"

Charity begins at home Not DC
Give a Man a fisy he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish he Eats for a lifetime
Give a Man a match and he's warm for second, Light a man on fire he's warm for a lifetime

 

[RANOVRU]

That was my EXACT point (which I have said multiple times in this thread). You wanted testing to "outlaw" something that didn't affect you.....but didn't want testing for something that did.

I agree....people should be allowed to go about their daily lives without involvement from others (or government). However, when someone requests help from others (specifically, when those "others" aren't given a choice in how their monetary help is given), then that help should come with some stipulations.

My parents used to tell me when I was a kid "when you live under my roof, you follow my rules.....you can make your own rules when you live under your own roof".

I thought the fast food remark was obvious enough as sarcasm. It was mentioned simply to make a point on how much you can scrutinize peoples lives.

The rest I mainly agree with, except for the way its (the help) applied in a monetary based society. Thats what fuels things like "testing".