drug testing would catch the potheads, and the dumb coke heads. someone once asked "what about if someone comes over and gets a welfare recipient stoned"? good point
i would go as far as to request that those on the govt. dole don't smoke cigarettes, or have pets. those are two costly habits.

Let's not stop there.

They should also not be allowed to own: Any new clothes/shoes or even old ones with a designer label on them, up to date prescription glasses (let'em sort through the Salvation Army bin), costume jewelry, brand name soft drinks/snacks, anything that can be put in a microwave, no real milk (only powdered), a bed larger than a double (absolutely no pillow-tops or water beds)...and a lot of other things that make them think they're real human beings like the rest of us.

Hell, they shouldn't even be allowed to breathe clean air.



On edit:

I almost forgot.

Mandatory sterilization too.


.

On one hand, I agree... on the other hand (and I realize this isn't very liberal of me, but I'll be honest) it bothers me when welfare recipients are able to afford to buy nice stuff for themselves and their kids that I'm not able to buy for myself and my kids (not being on welfare).

Welfare should not strip the dignity nor the humanity from a person, that's for sure. On the other hand, there's a limit to how many luxuries it should provide, if only to keep a lid on class resentments. It burns up the working class when the poor are able to afford more luxuries than they are.

One possible solution is what the WIC program in my state does- it only provides vouchers for certain healthy "staple" foods (as I mentioned in a previous post: milk, eggs, cheese, juice, cereal, beans, etc), and also you can only get brands with the "WIC Approved" sticker on it. This is not necessarily the worst generic brand in the store- sometimes you'll have two or more brands to choose from- but it's often the store brand, not the most expensive name brand item.
As I mentioned, I've been on WIC and plan to go on it again, if I can qualify, and this never made me feel dehumanized. I may not have gotten free Welch's and Tropicana juice, but I still got a choice of flavors, and a choice of two or three of the less expensive brands. And hell, I mean... it's free. If you don't like the options, use your money and buy what you'd rather have.



The added benefit to keeping the costs down this way is that more people can qualify.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you.

I was being a bit facetious above (who..me?! ) and I feel strongly that only those who truly need it should get welfare.

Having said that, I am loathe to get too deep into dictating how they must spend it.

Call it the Libertarian in me.





That sounds like a good compromise.


.

i know you were being silly, but how can you justify a $50.00 per week (or more) cigarette habit, for a person who claims they can't afford housing or food? if both parents smoke, that's $400.00 per month.


and i agree that if you are on the govt. dole, you should be required to limit the amount of kids you have.

Oh, hell no.
No, you did not go there.

why not? working class people generally don't have more kids than they can feed. if you can't afford kids, don't have kids. seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

Oh I definitely think that if someone is getting welfare they should be required to be on birth control of some sort.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

If you require anyone to take a drug test you would have to require everyone. But to the point. You can't be forced to give up your privacy rights in America because you are in need of assistance. This is just an idea promoted by people who hate the idea that there is a welfare system. They figure because they pay taxes that in some small portion help someone else that that person has now become subserviant to them. My answer to those people is I hope if you find yourself in need someday that you find you are still able to have your citizenship intact and respected.

Nope. We figure that anyone who offers another charity has every right to make sure the money they're giving is being spent in a manner they find acceptable, or they have every right to stop giving said charity. If I give my sister money each month to buy food for her kids and I find out she's buying drugs, you can damn well ****ing bet she's not getting another cent from me. That has nothing to do with making anyone subservient. It has everything do with determining who SHOULD be getting charity and who shouldn't. And the person/people/institution giving that charity is the one who determines that. If the person accepting the charity doesn't like the rules, they can go get their charity elsewhere.

And no, you don't need to give everyone a drug test in order to give anyone a drug test. Only those accepting charity would be required to take a drug test, per the rules of the charitable institution.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks