Posted on 04/27/2015 12:53:16 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Ok, but we are going to need a lot more prisons and foster homes.
THE primary, and perhaps only, reason the left insists on the gov’t implementing charity is so that none of this “judgment” of behavior happens.
Private charities MUST make sure that they are not wasting resources.
Gov’t just points the gun in people’s faces and demands more.
In the short run, perhaps.
People adjusted their behavior toward sloth and drunkeness when the consequences for such were alleviated,
they’ll adjust away from that behavior when the consequences have to be personally borne, however.
Post #9.
“...Walker committed to drug testing recipients of BadgerCare Plus health coverage and also pledged free treatment and job training for those testing positive for drugs.”
Bump to Post #24.
“We’re putting up barriers that are keeping people hungry and in poverty, and not addressing their needs.”
If your pride is so high that you are too insulted to take a drug test — in other words, if your pride is bigger than your need for food — then you have chosen to go hungry.
Not only that. If you "owned" your retirement, you'd be able to decide whether to spend it or leave it as a legacy to your children/grandchildren.
My parents paid an enormous amount in Social Security over the course of their lifetimes, but both died young, never having an opportunity to recoup that "investment" or choosing to spend it in a wild spree once they learned they were terminally ill.
In the Army I had to p** in the bottle on demand, often every month. If our soldiers have to do it while risking their lives, then the welfare cheats should d@mn well have to do so.
As for all Federal employees & elected officials, absolutely they should! GWB’s attorney general John Ashcroft took a drug test as his first official act, and liberals howled in outrage.
I remember reading here that a federal court struck down a drug test requirement for welfare in Florida(?).
Don’t you have to have a mind to lose? I was always under the impression that the average liberal had no mind.
Good point, but not that big of difference.
Conservatives who support this aren’t thinking far ahead. Once the precedent has been set that the government can require recipients of government programs to waive their constitutional rights—in this case, Fourth Amendment rights—there’s no telling where this thing will go. They could require, for example, people to waive their Second Amendment rights to have their children in the public schools. Don’t like it? Don’t use the schools. For that matter, the sidewalks are owned by the government, too. Lets just ban gun possession there. After all, all you have to do to keep your rights intact is not use the sidewalk.
And while we’re at it, let’s test granny on Social Security. It’s true that she payed into the SS fund, but most people on NA have jobs and pay taxes too—they qualify because their jobs don’t pay enough to live on. Money is fungible and the fact that the money NA users pay into the general fund isn’t earmarked for that specific purpose like OASDI is means nothing.
Just a few thoughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.