We could probably save billions!
2007-02-23 21:39:37 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I bet 60%+ would fail the test, maybe even 80%
2007-02-23 21:40:38 · update #1
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
I agree with the spirit in which you asked the question, but I think the Law of Unintended Consequences would eventually take effect and it would be a nightmare.
First, I would rather get rid of welfare altogether. There is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes the federal government to be involved with welfare. If the state governments wish to enact welfare programs, then they should - I believe in states' rights.
Second, if drug tests were mandated, we would have plenty of drug-addicted hooligans to contend with. The whole point would be to get them off drugs, but I'll bet crime would increase.
Third, all of the out-of-work, on-the-streets drug addicts would become the spotlight of liberal focus groups. I GUARANTEE you that we would shortly have layers and layers of new programs designed for those who are ineligible for traditional welfare. Perhaps we would have "indigent-fare" or "drug-addict-fare." These new programs would come with all kinds of liberal add-ons like counselling with new armies of social workers.
I like my first proposal that it should be eliminated entirely from the federal level.
2007-02-24 12:26:09 · answer #1 · answered by Jesus Jones 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You never save billions that way...because nothing gets passed in Washington without a lobby. So who lobbies for the welfare program, its not the POOR, they have NO MONEY. Its the Private sector industry that gets the public money by using the plight of the poor to justify the government spending. Like who is going to lobby the government for increase in public housing...the real estate lobby. The poor gets the benefit but the special interest gets the money and everyday guy gets the bill. 99% of the time, want the truth follow the money. To save billions you need lobby reform where the middle class people have more power than the special interest lobby.
2007-02-24 00:15:17 · answer #2 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I agree with you, I'm sure it is going to raise a bunch of issues about privacy etc... but i think drug testing any person receiving welfare/government benefits would help stop the misuse of monies that's meant to help families in need, not families with a need . Sadly those who fail the drug tests are still in need of help, so hopefully if they ever do decide to test for drugs, they thought about the ramifications of punishing these people in a way where their children wont have to go hungry or be homeless because of their parents drug habits.
2016-05-24 05:09:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I must be honest I will say YES to that question. Drugs have a debilitating effect on all users.
Not only should the Welfare Program users be drug tested but all employees by their employers. But I suppose that doesn't fit in well with your Conservative Bias right?
2007-02-23 23:44:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Monthly hell it ought to be daily are every time they go to get the check. I work for a honest living and am subject to random testing why can't they test when they go to beg. Oh I forgot that might piss the socialist like Hillary off and the Dem's could not buy the votes they buy not if that happen. It is not that expensive and over the counter drug test for most all drugs cost $35.00 at Krogers.
2007-02-23 23:38:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for it. How many companies insist on drug testing screening before you can get hired? How many of us who are EMPLOYED are subjected to random drug testing as a condition of our continued employment? But, it is okay for us to get tested, but not for a welfare recipient? Who's rights are being stepped on AGAIN? Makes no sense to me.
2007-02-23 22:57:41 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Most Definitely
2007-02-23 22:02:03 · answer #7 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Thats a great idea! I've even stated before I'd love to see that implemented..But i don't think the libs would like it..they prefer to keep the poor high.. because anyone sober wouldn't vote democrat.
2007-02-23 23:12:06 · answer #8 · answered by . 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Here in the USA, many of the wives of soldiers are seeking welfare to feed the children, Maybe we can set up a location in Bagdad so we can test the fathers of these poor kids too.
You haven't a clue to the real % of them on drugs, Maybe you want them stopped so the drugs will be more available to you and your friends.
2007-02-23 21:55:45 · answer #9 · answered by Nort 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Not only would you invade the privacy of the "GIVE ME's" and submit them to medical testing,you'd hurt the drug dealers income.
Then they couldn't afford all the big cars and stuff.
Nor could they contribute to their favorite liberal politician,judge or police chief.
Shame on you.
Let's do it!
2007-02-23 22:21:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋