Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Drug testing.

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:15:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Wouldn't that cost money?

Also, I don't believe in the conventional sense of welfare. Everyone's basic needs should be universally covered.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:17:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, I don't believe in the conventional sense of welfare. Everyone's basic needs should be universally covered.

Pretty sure that's the conventional sense of welfare, whether actual welfare programs aim for it or not. :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:19:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:18:11 PM, badger wrote:
quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard in my life..

And that's coming from somebody who is usually always high... Just sayin'. ;)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:21:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:17:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, I don't believe in the conventional sense of welfare. Everyone's basic needs should be universally covered.

Pretty sure that's the conventional sense of welfare, whether actual welfare programs aim for it or not. :P.

Conventional in the sense of directing funds towards specific groups of people.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:21:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:19:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:18:11 PM, badger wrote:
quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard in my life..

And that's coming from somebody who is usually always high... Just sayin'. ;)

someone who also believes drugs should be legal... it's the system's fault that drug use abuses it.
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:28:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:21:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:17:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, I don't believe in the conventional sense of welfare. Everyone's basic needs should be universally covered.

Pretty sure that's the conventional sense of welfare, whether actual welfare programs aim for it or not. :P.

Conventional in the sense of directing funds towards specific groups of people.

That's all welfare, unless services are universal-- and so are taxes. And everyone pays exactly proportional to what they get.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:29:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:21:35 PM, badger wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:19:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:18:11 PM, badger wrote:
quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard in my life..

And that's coming from somebody who is usually always high... Just sayin'. ;)

someone who also believes drugs should be legal... it's the system's fault that drug use abuses it.

I'm fairly sure druggies would still spend welfare monies on drugs even if drugs were legal.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:35:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:29:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:21:35 PM, badger wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:19:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:18:11 PM, badger wrote:
quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard in my life..

And that's coming from somebody who is usually always high... Just sayin'. ;)

someone who also believes drugs should be legal... it's the system's fault that drug use abuses it.

I'm fairly sure druggies would still spend welfare monies on drugs even if drugs were legal.

i'm thinking of it as an abuse in the sense that it funds crime.. who gives a fvck what people do with their welfare.. you can only do so much for a person.
signature
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:36:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:29:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:21:35 PM, badger wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:19:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:18:11 PM, badger wrote:
quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard in my life..

And that's coming from somebody who is usually always high... Just sayin'. ;)

someone who also believes drugs should be legal... it's the system's fault that drug use abuses it.

I'm fairly sure druggies would still spend welfare monies on drugs even if drugs were legal.

In the welfare I'm talking about we don't send checks to people so this wouldn't happen.
Just make certain things cheap/free.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:37:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
it's fairly ridiculous if you're thinking about it in any other sense.. why don't we cut out their television and internet connections while we're at it.
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd have something to say Freedo but OP forbade it :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:51:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:36:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:

In the welfare I'm talking about we don't send checks to people so this wouldn't happen.
Just make certain things cheap/free.

Well in this thread I'm referring to welfare as it is in its current state, getting monthly checks.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:55:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Mandatory drug testing would require too much money.

The system itself is flawed - we must abolish it. Sorry, should be said.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:59:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:55:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Mandatory drug testing would require too much money.

The system itself is flawed - we must abolish it. Sorry, should be said.

What do you propose should be done for the poor then when they're struggling to find work?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 4:59:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:59:22 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:55:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Mandatory drug testing would require too much money.

The system itself is flawed - we must abolish it. Sorry, should be said.

What do you propose should be done for the poor then when they're struggling to find work?
If you want to help them no one will stop you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:01:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:19:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:18:11 PM, badger wrote:
quite possibly the worst idea i've ever heard in my life..

And that's coming from somebody who is usually always high... Just sayin'. ;)

And that's coming from someone who hasn't defended the position... Just sayin'. ;)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:01:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

No, only because its so impractical. It'll increase the costs for the program, and subjects recipients to a lot of undue and unnecessary testing. Most welfare recips =/= drug addicts.

Voluntary, possibly private or charity driven programs, sure. But not mandatory.

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. xD
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:02:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:59:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:59:22 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:55:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Mandatory drug testing would require too much money.

The system itself is flawed - we must abolish it. Sorry, should be said.

What do you propose should be done for the poor then when they're struggling to find work?
If you want to help them no one will stop you.

you can't really believe this sort of sh1t.
signature
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:02:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:02:07 PM, badger wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:59:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:59:22 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:55:04 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:07:54 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Should recipients of welfare be subjected to mandatory drug testing in order to prevent abuses of the system? Is this a good idea?

P.S- this isn't a thread for expressing desires to scrap the welfare system. This thread is under the assumption that welfare must exist.

Mandatory drug testing would require too much money.

The system itself is flawed - we must abolish it. Sorry, should be said.

What do you propose should be done for the poor then when they're struggling to find work?
If you want to help them no one will stop you.

you can't really believe this sort of sh1t.

He does.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:09:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 4:51:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:36:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:

In the welfare I'm talking about we don't send checks to people so this wouldn't happen.
Just make certain things cheap/free.

Well in this thread I'm referring to welfare as it is in its current state, getting monthly checks.

I'm saying this is how welfare should be reformed. It removes the inefficiencies.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:13:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:09:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:51:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:36:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:

In the welfare I'm talking about we don't send checks to people so this wouldn't happen.
Just make certain things cheap/free.

Well in this thread I'm referring to welfare as it is in its current state, getting monthly checks.

I'm saying this is how welfare should be reformed. It removes the inefficiencies.

Tell me, Freedo - how would this system work? Tell me the intricate details, if you would. How do you ensure they'll get back to work? How do you keep your costs low? How do you reconcile the government's foot in the door, either by forcing companies to sell for less, or subsidizing them to maniacal standards?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:19:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't like the idea of government-provided welfare.

Allow charities, philanthropists, etc. to contribute to the well-being of those who are less-fortunate. Most programs that are government-run are inefficient and insufficient.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:26:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:19:18 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I don't like the idea of government-provided welfare.

Allow charities, philanthropists, etc. to contribute to the well-being of those who are less-fortunate. Most programs that are government-run are inefficient and insufficient.

Given that people receive their cheques on a regular basis, usually without complications, and get an amount that allows them basic amenities, and that a good portion of fraud is caught, and that the government programs are available to everyone and anyone who needs it, I feel fairly confident that the system is far from "inefficient and insufficient."

Or we could do it your way, where charities, vaguely-defined "philanthropists," and etc. only cover part of the problem, do not have universal access, and would never in a million years be able to cover and provide the same amount that government welfare programs can. I mean, if some people are clearly covered, who cares about the rest?

The fact is, your "welfare" idea is not welfare at all - it's nowhere close to it. Not anywhere close to the same concept of government-provided welfare. The former is about charity and donations when you can/feel like it, and reaching a few; the latter is about reaching as much as you can, as best as you can, with universal access and consistent funding.

You cannot replace one system with another, and then say that its still the same. They aren't.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:29:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:13:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/1/2010 5:09:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:51:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/1/2010 4:36:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:

In the welfare I'm talking about we don't send checks to people so this wouldn't happen.
Just make certain things cheap/free.

Well in this thread I'm referring to welfare as it is in its current state, getting monthly checks.

I'm saying this is how welfare should be reformed. It removes the inefficiencies.

Tell me, Freedo - how would this system work? Tell me the intricate details, if you would. How do you ensure they'll get back to work? How do you keep your costs low? How do you reconcile the government's foot in the door, either by forcing companies to sell for less, or subsidizing them to maniacal standards?

I'm a Socialist. The government owns the business. It creates enough jobs for anyone who wants one. It lowers the prices of needs and raises the prices of non-needs in replace.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:26:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/1/2010 5:19:18 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I don't like the idea of government-provided welfare.

Allow charities, philanthropists, etc. to contribute to the well-being of those who are less-fortunate. Most programs that are government-run are inefficient and insufficient.

Given that people receive their cheques on a regular basis, usually without complications, and get an amount that allows them basic amenities, and that a good portion of fraud is caught, and that the government programs are available to everyone and anyone who needs it, I feel fairly confident that the system is far from "inefficient and insufficient."

Or we could do it your way, where charities, vaguely-defined "philanthropists," and etc. only cover part of the problem, do not have universal access, and would never in a million years be able to cover and provide the same amount that government welfare programs can. I mean, if some people are clearly covered, who cares about the rest?

The fact is, your "welfare" idea is not welfare at all - it's nowhere close to it. Not anywhere close to the same concept of government-provided welfare. The former is about charity and donations when you can/feel like it, and reaching a few; the latter is about reaching as much as you can, as best as you can, with universal access and consistent funding.

You cannot replace one system with another, and then say that its still the same. They aren't.

This is the old concept of big-government modern liberalism verses small-government classical liberalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:35:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:29:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm a Socialist. The government owns the business. It creates enough jobs for anyone who wants one. It lowers the prices of needs and raises the prices of non-needs in replace.

No - you're clearly a statist, now. It's the government that provides the jobs, it's the government that provides the prices, and it's the government that runs the show. Reasoning wouldn't call you a socialist at all.

But, history is against you, my friend. During the first years of the Soviet Union, they tried this exact thing. Farmers got angry, refused to lower their prices despite the work they put in, and the entire system fell apart. Then they had to institute the more market-leaning NEP, until Stalin came in, and forced the farmers, kolkhozes, and etc. to "listen" to the government's demands of them.

So, Freedo, how do you work this system without such force?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2010 5:36:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/1/2010 5:33:08 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
This is the old concept of big-government modern liberalism verses small-government classical liberalism.

That doesn't really mean anything. How do you address the issues I described? How do you replace one system with another that doesn't even have the same raison d'etre?