In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!! I didn't even realize this was being looked at. I think this is great news, I for one have been drug-tested several times to get a job to provide for the ones that don't have to be, seems only right.[:D][:D][:D][:D]
I dont get the aclu throwing around constitutional rights. There is no constitutional right to welfare, quite the contrary. If one wants to sign for a unconstitutional entitlement they should be more than happy to comply with the requirements of the program [?]
I would venture to say that in any state in the U.S. that number would be higher than 65% JMHOquote:Originally posted by Chris8161
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
This one I would like to see go nation wide. Especially in CA!
If they drug tested in CA, about 65% of the recipients would be dropped!
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
[
if they purchase them on their own more power to them. If you are being supported by people who really have no desire to support you you shouldn't be allowed to use those funds to fuel a drug addiction. Quite frankly they should never see money from a hand ot anyway. The most they should be able to do is go to a food bank and pick up essentials
[/quote]
[/quote]free men do not require the theft of another mans property to subside on. These people are merely serfs, or at best committed to indentured servitude. Free men provide for themselves, and their families without relying on the redistribution of stolen property. If you get a loan from a bank you are required to meet their demands as listed in the contract. If you get a job with an employer you are required to adhere to their rules and regulations as they see fit.
[/quote]
Acts 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
[/quote]this means what? Quit trying to deflect from what we are discussing. Religion has nothing to do with this.
[/quote]Please do not attempt to specify what my response should or can be. Simply a reference to the origin of free status, natural law.
Free men do not do one thing or another according to your understanding of a situation, they do not dance to whatever tune you wish to pipe.
As I asked, "And where do you get the authority to specify what free men will do ?"
[/quote]lol, you are too funny. I am the way and the light. All who want my wallet must pass through me first. Nice to know your interpretation of free men are those who are serfs. Bravo
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quite frankly I do not believe in any form of welfare, but if they insist on it anyway this is a good first step. The second should be tracking their prescription drug purchases from multiple doctors that they then take and sell on the street to supplement their income. Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid. Pretty disgusting when they treat beggars better than our elderly [xx(]
The knee-jerk reaction is that all welfare is bad. However, there is more than a "feel good" value behind welfare.
Before anyone jumps all over me, I dislike our welfare system, it is highly abused, and I find it extra-constitutional. I am merely pointing out what **good** welfare does that is beyond putting money in the hands of the lazy or undeserving.
I'm only going to talk about healthcare since I think it paints the most sensible picture.
It is detrimental to a society to not provide "free" or "subsidized" healthcare to its poorest citizens, for it is the poor who are likely to become the most sick. If the poor catch a common cold, it really has no impact on society. But, if the poor catch something nasty and highly infectious, it can have a significant impact on society.
We've done a pretty good job of wiping out malaria, polio, etc. But, look at third-world countries where these diseases run rampant. If we did not pay to immunize and treat the poor against these infectious diseases, we could wind up being no better off than a third-world country. Disease would hit the rich, the middle class and the poor, and could have a catastrophic effect.
It could be seen as the government's duty, in an attempt to protect ALL of its citizens, to pay/subsidize to treat infectious diseases. And, this would obviously come in the form of welfare.
I do not advocate nationalizing our health care system and I do not advocate the government acting extra-constitutionally. I'm merely pointing out what could be seen as a necessity for the government to protect its citizens.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
But they have a right to have drugs ! The constitution doesn't say anything about drugs ! They aren't hurting anyone ! No more state-ism !
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
Every time you open your keyboard "pie-hole" on such a subject, you demonstrate your massive failure to grasp these simple concepts.[8)]
A swing and a miss.
Go figure.
On the bright side, such failures are doing more to demonstrate the general lack of comprehension of these subjects than most any argument I can post.
A strategic comment now and then, to focus attention on these massive misinterpretations, is seemingly all that is required.[:)]
I get peoed when at the store I see this fat mamma with 5 kids hanging on to her with three carts full of the best groceries in the store, she pays for them with the Welfare credit card, then she pulls up the cart with the Items she has to pay for.. BEER, WINE, AND CIGARETTES, Out comes the cash..[xx(][xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
I get peoed when at the store I see this fat mamma with 5 kids hanging on to her with three carts full of the best groceries in the store, she pays for them with the Welfare credit card, then she pulls up the cart with the Items she has to pay for.. BEER, WINE, AND CIGARETTES, Out comes the cash..[xx(][xx(]
yep, that burns my * to...and they always buy the best cuts of meat, and i buy hamburger ,hotdogs ,peanut butter[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by tomahawk
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
I get peoed when at the store I see this fat mamma with 5 kids hanging on to her with three carts full of the best groceries in the store, she pays for them with the Welfare credit card, then she pulls up the cart with the Items she has to pay for.. BEER, WINE, AND CIGARETTES, Out comes the cash..[xx(][xx(]
yep, that burns my * to...and they always buy the best cuts of meat, and i buy hamburger ,hotdogs ,peanut butter[:(!]
I sit in the same boat tomahwak. My wife works in a grocery store (manager). See sees all Classic has mentioned. I have seen the same.
I think, the best way to tackle the problem, is to ONLY have a CC to pay for EVERYTHING. No cash whatsoever, and no way to acquire it through the welfare system.
Items like t-bones, morel mushrooms, smokes, pop, candy, ect. ect. ect., could be eliminated through the barcode system.
There is no real reason for welfare receiptients to have ANY cash. Anything they need can be paid by CC. EVERYONE accepts CC these days.
definitely not something I would want my tax money going toward, especially since buying marijuana on the street is a lot cheaper and safer than a scrib for xanax and paxil.
Don't see this happening, somehow it will be shown as a hardship to make druggies quit. Then they'll suggest you keep giving them free money and offer optional treatment.
And Be likely to increase theft since they don't want jobs anyways.
Drug testing works. It separates the irresponsible idiot users who can not get it together enough to fake out a $5 pee test from the rest that have never even blinked when asked to take one.
The only thing drug testing does is make money for the people selling the drug tests themselves.
However, if you think your states situation will improve by testing stupid people and denying them assistance based upon their drug use, go ahead. I am sure it will result in a wholesale decline in use and lots of people getting jobs (you do have plenty of jobs for all these people, right?) and becoming the kind of people you want living next door. No way it will turn a desperate junkie into an even more desperate junkie.
quote:Originally posted by chaoslodge
Drug testing works. It separates the irresponsible idiot users who can not get it together enough to fake out a $5 pee test from the rest that have never even blinked when asked to take one.
The only thing drug testing does is make money for the people selling the drug tests themselves.
However, if you think your states situation will improve by testing stupid people and denying them assistance based upon their drug use, go ahead. I am sure it will result in a wholesale decline in use and lots of people getting jobs (you do have plenty of jobs for all these people, right?) and becoming the kind of people you want living next door. No way it will turn a desperate junkie into an even more desperate junkie.
You sound like you know a thing or two about cheating on drug tests![:D]
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quite frankly I do not believe in any form of welfare, but if they insist on it anyway this is a good first step. The second should be tracking their prescription drug purchases from multiple doctors that they then take and sell on the street to supplement their income. Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid. Pretty disgusting when they treat beggars better than our elderly [xx(]
The first part highlited I agree but think this should include all RX's, this would slow the multi Dr patients. I bet the State is well aware of all the meds they pay for on Medicare, so multiple RX's should not be a problem with the system we have now.
The part in red is something I am not so sure about, if someone goes on welfare of any sort and you loose everything do you honestly think people will be able to get back on their feet. I hope you are talking about 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipiants. If so I agree. I know a family that is 2nd generation welfare and none of them have ever worked a day in their life.
The people in a home on medicaid I know a little bit about. Here in Oklahoma you loose everything, then if you recover your health enough to go home you have no place to go so the state picks up all the costs for your housing and food and any other stuff they see fit.
Just smile and say nothing, let them guess how much you know.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
"Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid."
That's not exactly the way it works, in any state.
That is the way it works in MY state, and I bet just about ANY other state. If you go into a home, and you are on medicaid/care they want the deed to your property, your savings/checking, and any real property they can sell to "pay" for medical services.
I know, I have went through it with mom. I made sure none of it was touchable by them, by putting anything of value in my name. I also am her payee for her SS.
The nursing home doesn't like it, but thats the way it is. They are not going to hit the lotto off my mom's hard work.
I presume this means the state will save more money by getting the drug users off welfare than they would save by allowing them to use drugs and die? Sounds reasonable.
I'd assume some of those cut off will commit crime to feed their habit - what's the CCW situation in MO?
Comments
Keep us posted tomahawk.
This one I would like to see go nation wide. Especially in CA!
If they drug tested in CA, about 65% of the recipients would be dropped!
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
This one I would like to see go nation wide. Especially in CA!
If they drug tested in CA, about 65% of the recipients would be dropped!
[
if they purchase them on their own more power to them. If you are being supported by people who really have no desire to support you you shouldn't be allowed to use those funds to fuel a drug addiction. Quite frankly they should never see money from a hand ot anyway. The most they should be able to do is go to a food bank and pick up essentials
[/quote]
[/quote]free men do not require the theft of another mans property to subside on. These people are merely serfs, or at best committed to indentured servitude. Free men provide for themselves, and their families without relying on the redistribution of stolen property. If you get a loan from a bank you are required to meet their demands as listed in the contract. If you get a job with an employer you are required to adhere to their rules and regulations as they see fit.
[/quote]
Acts 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
[/quote]this means what? Quit trying to deflect from what we are discussing. Religion has nothing to do with this.
[/quote]Please do not attempt to specify what my response should or can be. Simply a reference to the origin of free status, natural law.
Free men do not do one thing or another according to your understanding of a situation, they do not dance to whatever tune you wish to pipe.
As I asked, "And where do you get the authority to specify what free men will do ?"
[/quote]lol, you are too funny. I am the way and the light. All who want my wallet must pass through me first. Nice to know your interpretation of free men are those who are serfs. Bravo
quite frankly I do not believe in any form of welfare, but if they insist on it anyway this is a good first step. The second should be tracking their prescription drug purchases from multiple doctors that they then take and sell on the street to supplement their income. Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid. Pretty disgusting when they treat beggars better than our elderly [xx(]
The knee-jerk reaction is that all welfare is bad. However, there is more than a "feel good" value behind welfare.
Before anyone jumps all over me, I dislike our welfare system, it is highly abused, and I find it extra-constitutional. I am merely pointing out what **good** welfare does that is beyond putting money in the hands of the lazy or undeserving.
I'm only going to talk about healthcare since I think it paints the most sensible picture.
It is detrimental to a society to not provide "free" or "subsidized" healthcare to its poorest citizens, for it is the poor who are likely to become the most sick. If the poor catch a common cold, it really has no impact on society. But, if the poor catch something nasty and highly infectious, it can have a significant impact on society.
We've done a pretty good job of wiping out malaria, polio, etc. But, look at third-world countries where these diseases run rampant. If we did not pay to immunize and treat the poor against these infectious diseases, we could wind up being no better off than a third-world country. Disease would hit the rich, the middle class and the poor, and could have a catastrophic effect.
It could be seen as the government's duty, in an attempt to protect ALL of its citizens, to pay/subsidize to treat infectious diseases. And, this would obviously come in the form of welfare.
I do not advocate nationalizing our health care system and I do not advocate the government acting extra-constitutionally. I'm merely pointing out what could be seen as a necessity for the government to protect its citizens.
But they have a right to have drugs ! The constitution doesn't say anything about drugs ! They aren't hurting anyone ! No more state-ism !
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
Every time you open your keyboard "pie-hole" on such a subject, you demonstrate your massive failure to grasp these simple concepts.[8)]
A swing and a miss.
Go figure.
On the bright side, such failures are doing more to demonstrate the general lack of comprehension of these subjects than most any argument I can post.
A strategic comment now and then, to focus attention on these massive misinterpretations, is seemingly all that is required.[:)]
Keep up the good work Barzillia.
I get peoed when at the store I see this fat mamma with 5 kids hanging on to her with three carts full of the best groceries in the store, she pays for them with the Welfare credit card, then she pulls up the cart with the Items she has to pay for.. BEER, WINE, AND CIGARETTES, Out comes the cash..[xx(][xx(]
yep, that burns my * to...and they always buy the best cuts of meat, and i buy hamburger ,hotdogs ,peanut butter[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
I get peoed when at the store I see this fat mamma with 5 kids hanging on to her with three carts full of the best groceries in the store, she pays for them with the Welfare credit card, then she pulls up the cart with the Items she has to pay for.. BEER, WINE, AND CIGARETTES, Out comes the cash..[xx(][xx(]
yep, that burns my * to...and they always buy the best cuts of meat, and i buy hamburger ,hotdogs ,peanut butter[:(!]
I sit in the same boat tomahwak. My wife works in a grocery store (manager). See sees all Classic has mentioned. I have seen the same.
I think, the best way to tackle the problem, is to ONLY have a CC to pay for EVERYTHING. No cash whatsoever, and no way to acquire it through the welfare system.
Items like t-bones, morel mushrooms, smokes, pop, candy, ect. ect. ect., could be eliminated through the barcode system.
There is no real reason for welfare receiptients to have ANY cash. Anything they need can be paid by CC. EVERYONE accepts CC these days.
I get acid reflux,.......I am disabled![:p]
I'm goin on the dole after what Andrea said.
I get acid reflux,.......I am disabled![:p]
Actually thru the VA it is a disability. But mine hit hard enough to put me on the floor. Curled up in a ball from the pain.
But with meds and a better diet no more problems.
And Be likely to increase theft since they don't want jobs anyways.
The only thing drug testing does is make money for the people selling the drug tests themselves.
However, if you think your states situation will improve by testing stupid people and denying them assistance based upon their drug use, go ahead. I am sure it will result in a wholesale decline in use and lots of people getting jobs (you do have plenty of jobs for all these people, right?) and becoming the kind of people you want living next door. No way it will turn a desperate junkie into an even more desperate junkie.
Drug testing works. It separates the irresponsible idiot users who can not get it together enough to fake out a $5 pee test from the rest that have never even blinked when asked to take one.
The only thing drug testing does is make money for the people selling the drug tests themselves.
However, if you think your states situation will improve by testing stupid people and denying them assistance based upon their drug use, go ahead. I am sure it will result in a wholesale decline in use and lots of people getting jobs (you do have plenty of jobs for all these people, right?) and becoming the kind of people you want living next door. No way it will turn a desperate junkie into an even more desperate junkie.
You sound like you know a thing or two about cheating on drug tests![:D]
quite frankly I do not believe in any form of welfare, but if they insist on it anyway this is a good first step. The second should be tracking their prescription drug purchases from multiple doctors that they then take and sell on the street to supplement their income. Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid. Pretty disgusting when they treat beggars better than our elderly [xx(]
The first part highlited I agree but think this should include all RX's, this would slow the multi Dr patients. I bet the State is well aware of all the meds they pay for on Medicare, so multiple RX's should not be a problem with the system we have now.
The part in red is something I am not so sure about, if someone goes on welfare of any sort and you loose everything do you honestly think people will be able to get back on their feet. I hope you are talking about 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipiants. If so I agree. I know a family that is 2nd generation welfare and none of them have ever worked a day in their life.
The people in a home on medicaid I know a little bit about. Here in Oklahoma you loose everything, then if you recover your health enough to go home you have no place to go so the state picks up all the costs for your housing and food and any other stuff they see fit.
"Third they should have to sign all their possessions over to the government the same way they do to old people who wind up having to go into a home on medicaid."
That's not exactly the way it works, in any state.
That is the way it works in MY state, and I bet just about ANY other state. If you go into a home, and you are on medicaid/care they want the deed to your property, your savings/checking, and any real property they can sell to "pay" for medical services.
I know, I have went through it with mom. I made sure none of it was touchable by them, by putting anything of value in my name. I also am her payee for her SS.
The nursing home doesn't like it, but thats the way it is. They are not going to hit the lotto off my mom's hard work.
I'd assume some of those cut off will commit crime to feed their habit - what's the CCW situation in MO?
very good. You don't even need a chl to carry it loaded in your car/truck