Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Phantom (phantom5815)      Join Date: Jul 2002       06-01-2011, 5:48 AM Reply   
Don't know when it will start or how long it will last.... you know the ACLU is putting their claws into this one.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5522308.story

New state law requires drug test for welfare recipients

TALLAHASSEE -- Thousands of the state's poorest Floridians will have to take a drug test if they want to qualify for welfare assistance, under a new law signed by Gov. Rick Scott Monday.

The idea, plugged by Scott and the GOP-dominated Legislature, is that drug tests will root out welfare recipients who are using public dollars to buy drugs. But Democrats and advocates for the poor say the requirement could violate individuals' constitutional rights to privacy, and the American Civil Liberties Union is likely to challenge the law in court.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said in a news release. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

According to legislative analysts,113,346 people are receiving temporary cash assistance. However, only people 18 and older will be tested, and officials from the Department of Children and Families estimate that will total about 4,400 adults who apply for aid each month.

Officials estimate the initial screenings would cost about $10 per person – refundable if the individual passes – and first-time failures will be disqualified for one year from receiving benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. A second failure disqualifies the individual for three years.

TANF recipients are eligible for cash assistance for a lifetime cumulative total of 48 months, and their eligibility is checked every six months.

Advocates for the poor worry about the cost of the tests – which one DCF official said could go as high as $40 -- and also about the message the new rule sends to people already facing financial problems.

Karen Broussard, director of program development for Jewish Family Services of Greater Orlando, called the testing "disrespectful … To do this simply by virtue of the applicants being vulnerable economically is so disappointing," she said.

Pastor Scott George, co-founder of the Community Food & Outreach Center in Orlando that helps needy families apply for aid and look for work, cautioned that the cost of the test could be a "real hurdle" for some of the state's poorest citizens.

"At times I feel like there are so many hurdles that they keep genuine people with real needs from getting help… Kids could end up paying the price for parents' irresponsibility," he said. "I wouldn't want that to happen. I wouldn't want them to pay the price for mistakes the parents are making."

However, the new law does allow DCF to designate a person to receive funds on behalf of children whose parent fails a drug test. This could include an immediate family member.

Florida's welfare caseload spiked as the economy tanked and the housing market folded. But it is slowly starting to decline as the state begins to recover. The 52,911 families receiving assistance in May was 6.1- percent below the total 12 months earlier, DCF said.

No other state currently requires drug testing for welfare recipients, but a number of states are considering similar action.

The effectiveness of testing is unknown. A pilot program that tested some welfare recipients between 1999 to 2001 found that there was little difference in employment and earnings between those who tested positive for drug use and those who were clean, according to an evaluation by a Florida State University researcher.

The issue is ripe for a lawsuit though.

The American Civil Liberties Union has indicated that it may challenge the new law in addition to a number of other bills that the governor has already approved or is likely to sign in the coming weeks. The group is slated to announce action today related to a separate order by Scott that mandates drug-testing of all state employees.

In 1999, Michigan began drug-testing all welfare recipients, prompting the ACLU to sue. In 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that universal testing was unconstitutional, and the ACLU and the state reached an agreement that allowed drug tests of welfare recipients only if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was using drugs.

Howard Simon, the executive director of ACLU of Florida, released a statement saying that the governor was ignoring privacy law and treating people who have lost their jobs "like suspected criminals."

"Searching the bodily fluids of those in need of assistance is a scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound policy," he said. "Today, that unsound policy is Florida law."
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-01-2011, 7:36 AM Reply   
If they do drug tests for jobs, why would this violate anybody's civil liberties? These people get paid just like those with jobs, except welfare recipients don't work for the money.
Old    C.I.E. J-Rod (jarrod)      Join Date: May 2003       06-01-2011, 7:40 AM Reply   
Hell yes!
Old    John James (johnboyy7)      Join Date: Apr 2011       06-01-2011, 7:43 AM Reply   
nice work florida. i hope texas follows suit.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-01-2011, 7:52 AM Reply   
Good start!

I agree and hope it catches on
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 8:38 AM Reply   
Yup... and the Democrats are yelling that it is unconstitutional. Funny how they trample the constitution when it they want to and then use it defend their position otherwise... You can clearly tell that they are all Constitutional Scholars...

Here are the SNAP numbers. Pretty crazy! Up 61% in four years and 39% since Obama took over.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-01-2011, 8:53 AM Reply   
Unemployement should be next too
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 9:08 AM Reply   
"...except welfare recipients don't work for the money."

There are people that receive welfare that have full-time jobs (some with multiple jobs). Just because one receives public assistance does not mean that they are lazy, unemployed drug-users. I wonder if the one's proposing this law read the same Bible and what it says concerning the poor:

"Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

Luke 14:12-14 "Then Jesus said to his host, ‘When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’

Proverbs 14:31 “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”

1 John 3:17 “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-01-2011, 9:10 AM Reply   
Why isn't the state providing the test? And how are Democrats trampling the Constitution anymore than Republicans or even the SCOTUS?
Old    Kat Laird (wakekat15)      Join Date: Jul 2005       06-01-2011, 9:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Why isn't the state providing the test? And how are Democrats trampling the Constitution anymore than Republicans or even the SCOTUS?
I agree with you John....it's not one party or the other, it's politicians in general that feel the need to abuse their positions of power in their attempts to legislate morality.

Of course, welfare/gov't assistance is up under Obama...I'm not a huge fan of his, but he did inherit an effed up economy from 8 years of GW. With unemployment @ 9%, you get more people applying for assistance. I don't label myself one party or the other, but do tend to lean left of center on certain issues. However, I would fully support implementing drug tests...just not sure you can expect (a) a quality test for 10 bucks & (b) people with no money to pay $10 to get it.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-01-2011, 9:55 AM Reply   
all of the Bible quotes are great. I try to live by them myself. I, however, want to make the personal choice. I don't want the government forcing me to provide charity where, when and how they want to. Government has proven that it can not effectively manage anything.
I applaud Florida and hope that Texas follows suit. I also agree that ANY government assistance should require a drug test and a criminal back ground check. If you have a felony, you are not eligible!!!
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 10:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Why isn't the state providing the test? And how are Democrats trampling the Constitution anymore than Republicans or even the SCOTUS?
LOL different topic and thread... but the individual mandate comes to mind.

Wake77... This brings to mind a book that I just finished reading...

Arthur C. Brooks. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. New York: Basic Books, 2006. (ISBN 978-0-465-00821-6)

The author, Brooks, says this, “The liberal idea of social compassion is passing laws forcing all tax payers to fund entitlements and hand outs for people who can’t (or more often won’t) provide for themselves. The conservative idea of social compassion is to create an environment where people are as free as possible to provide for themselves, and then allow each citizen to make a personal decision about how much he/she wants to contribute to the needy. Liberals want everyone else to pay for their compassion, conservatives pay for their compassion themselves. ”

I would have to agree with him.

If all men are endowed with equal dignity, how is the state morally justifiable? and how does the state justify what is deemed necessary charity, and who deserves such?

If men are endowed with the God-given right to act in a manner consistent with their consciences, how can the tax-funded state ever be morally justifiable? Because taxation is necessarily coercive (that is, all taxes are paid to the state under the threat of severe punishment), subjects are prohibited from employing the fruits of their labor in a manner consistent with their consciences. On the contrary, the subject makes his contribution to the state coffers merely in an attempt to avoid jail or the gulag, and the ruling caste subsequently apportions his contributions to those things that it, for whatever reasons, deems expedient.

If you want to use the Bible let's do it then:

I also understand Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25, but what is Caesar's? What is Caesar's authority to decide who deserves what?

In Paul's letter to the Romans are the versus "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Christians obey secular rulers not because of anything inherent to the rulers. Rather, when rulers properly use their power, they draw their authority from God.

If the rulers draw their power from God then the fact that I, like virtually every conscientious Christian, am forced to contribute to state-funded abortion and aggressive wars presents a serious problem for theory of the state. For "[man] must not be forced 'to act contrary to his conscience, especially in religious matters"… All persons have a God-given right to believe as their conscience demands. Truth can only be proposed. It cannot be imposed without violating the sanctity of the individual person and subverting the truth itself"

Who decides what charity my taxes are to go for? How does the state have a right at all to use my money to help the poor? Shouldn't I have the right to decide who needs a helping hand? What gives Caesar the right?

What did we do before welfare? Were people starving in the streets? What is constitutional about welfare?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " Thomas Jefferson

Welfare is unconstitutional in every way.

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks." - Congressman Davy Crockett
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-01-2011, 10:16 AM Reply   
Who are these mythical conservatives? I'm pretty sure that my share of the Iraq war would have easily put a new roof on my house.

edit: on second thought more like 4 or 5 roofs.
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 10:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Who are these mythical conservatives? I'm pretty sure that my share of the Iraq war would have easily put a new roof on my house.

edit: on second thought more like 4 or 5 roofs.
Hey, I will agree with you on that one. George Bush was/is not a conservative. We need to get out of all the wars... we also need to get out of most of our foreign bases too. What the hell are we doing in South Korea? I would think that after all these years the South Koreans could figure out how to defend their boarder themselves. The list goes on and on...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 10:50 AM Reply   
"Welfare is unconstitutional in every way."

How???

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 11:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"Welfare is unconstitutional in every way."

How???

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I thoroughly answered your question above. The Welfare Clause doesn't allow for welfare programs...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 11:06 AM Reply   
Sam, you posted a bunch of quotes and the ISBN of a book you happen to agree. For example, one of the TJ quotes you posted:

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

How in any way does this suggest that all "welfare" is unconstitutional? If it is just an opinion, then say, "It is my OPINION that welfare is unconstitutional, and here is some evidence I INTERPRET to support my stance."
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 11:19 AM Reply   
All welfare is not unconstitutional, only Federal Welfare - including SNAP, the states are left to decide what they want to do within the states. Currently the Federal Government mandates through federal funding to the states what the state has to provide at minimum. It isn't until that the states are telling the Feds where to stick it.

I would assume that the guys who wrote the constitution know the intended meaning of it, wouldn't you.

What happened to your Bible quotes... I love quotes from the bible, even more so when they are taken or used out of context.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 11:30 AM Reply   
It is my contention that the quotes I posted are cut-and-dry. If you are implying that I took or that I am using the quotes out of context, please do explain.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 11:34 AM Reply   
P.S. Your last post totally contradicts you earlier post:

Earlier post; "Welfare is unconstitutional in every way."

Last post; "All welfare is not unconstitutional..."

What exactly was your final grade in the logic course you were advertising a few months ago?
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 11:55 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
It is my contention that the quotes I posted are cut-and-dry. If you are implying that I took or that I am using the quotes out of context, please do explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wake77
There are people that receive welfare that have full-time jobs (some with multiple jobs). Just because one receives public assistance does not mean that they are lazy, unemployed drug-users. I wonder if the one's proposing this law read the same Bible and what it says concerning the poor:
You are using quotes regarding CHARITY in the context of WELFARE.

Charity is not welfare! and welfare is not charity. Welfare is the FORCED transfer of the benefits of one's labor and preparation for the future to another who did nothing to deserve those benefits.

According to the dictionary:

CHARITY = generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.

Welfare = financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

Therefore, you are using the quotes out of context since they don't refer to welfare in any way, they refer to charity. This is why I brought up Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25 (quick run, and google those...)

You are so omniscient, I think all governments should just ask you for advice, that would solve our problems...
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 11:56 AM Reply   
When are you going to start teaching classes?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-01-2011, 12:25 PM Reply   
There is no way to definitively say that welfare is unconstitutional. In fact nowadays it's impossible to actually say anything is unconstitutional because the SCOTUS, which is supposed to be the final word pretty much ignores the Constitution.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 12:29 PM Reply   
"Welfare is the FORCED transfer of the benefits of one's labor and preparation for the future to another who did nothing to deserve those benefits."

Sam, this is YOUR definition. You cannot intelligently argue that one receiving government assistance (welfare) has done nothing to deserve those benefits. Example, a person that has worked x-number of years and has contributed state and federal taxes and then loses their job for whatever reason. Can you say that person has done "nothing to deserve those benefits"? If you say yes, then you are a pretentious a-hole and here is your F in logic.

As far as the biblical verses, you in your self-serving way are trying to equate the bible to your thought process. The messages do not mention welfare or charity. They mention the POOR. Are there no poor people on welfare?
Old    J Brewer (wakecumberlandky)      Join Date: Feb 2011       06-01-2011, 12:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"...except welfare recipients don't work for the money."

There are people that receive welfare that have full-time jobs (some with multiple jobs). Just because one receives public assistance does not mean that they are lazy, unemployed drug-users. I wonder if the one's proposing this law read the same Bible and what it says concerning the poor:

"Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

Luke 14:12-14 "Then Jesus said to his host, ‘When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’

Proverbs 14:31 “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”

1 John 3:17 “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
How about this one... I hope Ohio is next!

In the New Testament, Paul writes in Thessalonians 3:10-12:

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their own work quietly and to earn their own living."
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 1:06 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"welfare is the forced transfer of the benefits of one's labor and preparation for the future to another who did nothing to deserve those benefits."

sam, this is your definition. You cannot intelligently argue that one receiving government assistance (welfare) has done nothing to deserve those benefits. Example, a person that has worked x-number of years and has contributed state and federal taxes and then loses their job for whatever reason. Can you say that person has done "nothing to deserve those benefits"? If you say yes, then you are a pretentious a-hole and here is your f in logic.

As far as the biblical verses, you in your self-serving way are trying to equate the bible to your thought process. The messages do not mention welfare or charity. They mention the poor. Are there no poor people on welfare?
fail!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-01-2011, 1:10 PM Reply   
Brewer, the corollary to that passage is that we as a society must strive to provide the opportunity for employment to all segments of society. That means when we choose to send a half trillion per year of American dollars to other countries we are stealing those opportunities from Americans. The morality of how we provide for the poor is a complex subject, and subject to many considerations. I think it's suffice to say if someone subscribes to the message of the Bible and chooses to ignore the econonic impact of our deeds and decisions, then there is a substantual amount of either ignorance or hypocrisy in their rationale.

It could certainly be argued that the large trade deficit is a matter of the General Welfare and the security of our nation.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 1:22 PM Reply   
"fail!"

I can't believe you had enough brainpower left to conjure up a word with four distinct letters. Bravo, bravo.
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 1:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"Welfare is the FORCED transfer of the benefits of one's labor and preparation for the future to another who did nothing to deserve those benefits."

Sam, this is YOUR definition. You cannot intelligently argue that one receiving government assistance (welfare) has done nothing to deserve those benefits. Example, a person that has worked x-number of years and has contributed state and federal taxes and then loses their job for whatever reason. Can you say that person has done "nothing to deserve those benefits"? If you say yes, then you are a pretentious a-hole and here is your F in logic.

As far as the biblical verses, you in your self-serving way are trying to equate the bible to your thought process. The messages do not mention welfare or charity. They mention the POOR. Are there no poor people on welfare?
I gave the definition of the dictionary too, and you specifically ignored the idea behind the post. So instead of actually answering the post, that you asked for, you just changed the discussion, because you were proven wrong.

You did use the quotes in an incorrect, wrong, misleading context. You tried to justify your liberal position, by trying to equate welfare with charity and using the bible to do it.

You can call me what ever you want, I don't care, because I don't respect you. You have a basic problem... your ideology is so wrong that you can't even define it. I think everyone here knows what my ideology is. I can define it and I defend. I have no way of having a rational discussion with you regarding your ideology because it is a moving target.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 1:47 PM Reply   
J Brewer, just to be clear...the verse you posted trumps and, therefore invalidates the verses I posted? Is that how it works, we pick and choose which ones we agree and ignore those in which we don't?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-01-2011, 2:07 PM Reply   
The dictionary cannot be consulted to answer philosophical questions, such as... is welfare a charitable act? I would contend that welfare is charity when given to those in need who cannot provide for themselves.

And by golly... I just checked dictionary.com and it agrees.

Also Jeremy is correct when he said... "this is YOUR definition" . While taxes are FORCED. There is nothing that defines whether someone receiving welfare is deserving or not. Pollution is a good example of the obscured connection between illness, fault, and individual cost vs the benefit to society. Vaccinations are another.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 2:09 PM Reply   
The "basic problem" that I (and I'm sure countless others) have, is that we don't agree with you. You have this idea that everything you believe, everything you support, and everything that comes out of your mouth is without a doubt 100% correct, and anyone that doesn't subscribe to your line of thinking to a T is wrong. Not only that, but you are condescending in the message you convey. I was not justifying my liberal position, I was simply identifying a flaw that you and many others tend to follow; everyone on government assistance is not a drug user trying to scam the system. Some of them are poor people with genuine need, and I simply posted what the Bible says concerning the poor. My stance on the situation has nothing to do with politics.

You are in a position that I am attacking your beliefs, when I am simply stating that you attack your own beliefs. I don't want you to respect me, hell you don't even know me.
Old    J Brewer (wakecumberlandky)      Join Date: Feb 2011       06-01-2011, 2:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
J Brewer, just to be clear...the verse you posted trumps and, therefore invalidates the verses I posted? Is that how it works, we pick and choose which ones we agree and ignore those in which we don't?
Just as you posted verses, i did the same. If you say that i pick and choose what to agree with and what to ignore im afraid you my friend are just as guilty as I.
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 2:44 PM Reply   
and you have never heard one word out of my mouth...

I find it funny that somehow you decide what my ideas are. I find it funny that you have to add "countless others" to your position, have you discussed this with them? I find it funny that somehow you decide that I am condescending, yet you have never heard one spoken word from me. I find if funny that you can not rationally discuss your ideas, instead you attack mine and somehow imply that mine are lessor than yours. You then get really defensive when I do the same against you and accuse me of doing something wrong. You have thin skin. It is my position that you have thin skin because you don't have a definable set of personal values and morals that act as the basis of your ideals. When someone challenges your ideals and positions you don't know what do, your natural reaction is to get defensive and attack the person, not the idea. I find if funny that you are incapable of countering my ideals in your discussion, instead you focus one part of my post and shift the discussion to that one thing, changing the entire discussion. I think you do this because you realize that your position is flawed and instead of acknowledging that, it is easier to shift the discussion. After all the time I have spent on this forum I still don't know your position. You can not convey it in a distinct manor. I can, and you call it condescending. It is not meant to be condescending, it may sound that way because it is what I believe. I have convictions and based on my moral code can back them up. I find it funny that you make fun of me for taking a class, I am always trying to learn more and better myself.

I will offer this explanation for some of your thoughts though and an apology. The majority of my personal income is made through writing. My writing style may seem as you say, due to the type of work I do; although maybe it is the other way around. Maybe I make the majority of my personal income from writing because of my condescending style, I don't know. It seems like which came first, the chicken or the egg. I write real estate appraisals for litigation purposes. An appraisal is nothing more than an opinion and you have to be able to defend it. I get paid to give my opinion to a judge or jury and then to defend it. My boss is arguably the best in the country and I try to emulate him as much as possible. He actually makes more money by being on retainer and not actually working. People retain him, and me to a much lessor degree, so that the other side can not use him.

Basically, I get paid to convey that everything that I write, is without a doubt 100% correct, and anyone that doesn't subscribe to my line of thinking to a T is wrong. I guess I am good at what I do.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-01-2011, 3:07 PM Reply   
"There are people that receive welfare that have full-time jobs (some with multiple jobs). Just because one receives public assistance does not mean that they are lazy, unemployed drug-users. I wonder if the one's proposing this law read the same Bible and what it says concerning the poor":...blah blah blah "

I never said anything negative about people that receive welfare. Some people fall on hard times and need it temporarily. I feel it's totally justified for some folks. All I said was that some folks with jobs get drug tested and there's nothing wrong with that. Welfare recipients get paid, too but simply don't work for it, so how is it they'd have more rights (than those working for money) and somehow have the right to NOT get drug tested? It's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong at all with requiring people on welfare to pass drug tests - just like many employees.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-01-2011, 4:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Democrats and advocates for the poor say the requirement could violate individuals' constitutional rights to privacy, and the American Civil Liberties Union is likely to challenge the law in court.
This is absurd. By instituting these welfare programs all of our constitutional rights are being violated. It's not a give a little bit thing, it's all or nothing. Mandatory contributions to government run welfare schemes are a flagrant violation of our rights to life, liberty and the fruits of our labor. All government programs such as this violate out individual liberties and are full of corruption and waste. The solution is a return to the principles of liberty. Our rights are not violated if there is no theft to give to the poor, and their privacy or the poor is maintained.

Continuation of these welfare programs only results in keeping the poor down. Meanwhile, those of use who value our liberty hope that the others will be satisfied with the little we conceded to "help" the poor, but it doesn't work that way. Once you have given up your liberty, they will take more and more. That is how we got to this exact situation worrying about welfare recipients spending that money stolen from us on drugs.
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 4:30 PM Reply   
I couldn't agree more.

I have similarly argued that affirmative action helps no one except white males. Affirmative action introduces more competition to the white male, when all other things are equal the minority gets the benefits of affirmative action; therefore, the white male is taught or forced to better himself so that all other things are never equal and he gets the job, accepted to school, etc... All the while, the minority is rewarded when all else is equal and is taught not to better himself. The white male is forced to better himself. This is very similar to how the person who gets welfare is taught that a safety net is present for their short comings in planning and misfortunes. Welfare is a self-sustaining program. This is also very similar to 99 weeks of unemployment. Unemployment enforces working for someone, versus working for yourself and being accountable for your own actions. You are not eligible for unemployment insurance if you are an entrepreneur. The system seems backwards to me. We should promote accountability and self sustainment versus being an employee.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 4:37 PM Reply   
Brett, I don't want to get into a peeing contest with you (as you can see I am in one with Sam at the moment), but you posted "welfare recipients don't work for the money." In my post, I simply stated that there are many recipients that are employed and pay taxes as you and I do. Your posts (and maybe I read into a bit too much) seem to say that ALL welfare recipients are unemployed.

My point to all of this, if the bill passes, what does it mean? Is this the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

Will Florida benefit from an influx in money because a few thousand people perhaps don't receive assistance? No, read the article. If the person has children, someone else will get the money to help the kids.

Will Florida be ridded from people cheating the system?

Even if everything works to plan, will Florida's 3 billion dollar budget shortfall be resolved?

People seem to think this is the magical answer to solving state budget crises, but truth is, it won't.

Sam, I wasn't making fun of you for taking a class. I was pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

JBrewer, let's assume that I am guilty of your accusation (and if you read Paul's letter to the Thessalonians you will see that it has nothing to do with what you are implying). Does that make it right since I am wrong, you can be wrong also?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 4:41 PM Reply   
"By instituting these welfare programs all of our constitutional rights are being violated."

Explain to me how exactly your rights are violated. What you are implying is, by a person getting welfare, you lose rights. Which ones have you lost? Please elaborate further on this statement, "Mandatory contributions to government run welfare schemes are a flagrant violation of our rights to life, liberty and the fruits of our labor". Where is the "flagrant violation"?
Old    SamIngram            06-01-2011, 5:25 PM Reply   
IMO his rights are violated by the federal government taking his tax dollars and then giving them to someone else who the federal government believes needs the money more than he does.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both are based on Natural Law, and what is more natural than an individual being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor? IMO you seem to be an FDR supporter... do some research and learn how we got the new deal and welfare to begin with. FDR used the stacked Supreme Court Justice threat to enact what he wanted. IMO FDR should have been prosecuted for treason.

I have one challenge for you; explain to us how Federal Welfare is constitutional. What is your reasoning, please elaborate on this idea. Show me how welfare is supported in the Constitution. I don't think you can. I can using quotes from the authors of the document, the history of how the unconstitutional federal welfare system was enacted, the theory of natural law, and actual language from the constitution.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-01-2011, 5:49 PM Reply   
People don't work for the money that the government gives them as welfare. My point is, though, that they deserve no more rights than those that do work for the organizations that pay them, so drug testing shouldn't be a problem. What it solves is to not give money to people to spend on drugs. It might help keep some people off drugs and will save some money by not feeding people's drug habits with government money. I just don't see what the problem is unless someone is also against companies drug testing. Although, I'd argue welfare recipients have less rights compared to employees in arguing against drug testing since they're not actually doing anything to earn their welfare payments.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-01-2011, 5:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"By instituting these welfare programs all of our constitutional rights are being violated."

Explain to me how exactly your rights are violated. What you are implying is, by a person getting welfare, you lose rights. Which ones have you lost? Please elaborate further on this statement, "Mandatory contributions to government run welfare schemes are a flagrant violation of our rights to life, liberty and the fruits of our labor". Where is the "flagrant violation"?
The flagrant violation is theft at gunpoint. That is, the government taking my money forcibly and giving it to other who those in power feel are more deserving of my earnings than I am. This is the beginning and end of the argument against welfare. This has nothing to do with drugs or substance abuse. Welfare is unconstitutional and a flagrant violation of our rights.

Explain to me on how armed robbery is not a flagrant violation of one's rights.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 6:18 PM Reply   
^Because, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the RIGHT to dictate how lawmakers spend your tax dollars. I don't think you can call it "armed robbery". You choose to live in the US, therefore you pay taxes. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. I don't hear one lawmaker Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Whig, Socialist, whatever, calling for the end of taxes. I may object to how the DoD spends my tax dollars. Are my rights violated? Absolutely not. You and Sam have it in your mind that if the government does something that you do not agree with, then your rights are violated. Or if it spends tax dollars in a manner you disagree with, your rights are violated. It simply does not work that way. I would expect a Constitutional scholar such as Sam to understand that with minimal difficulty.
Old    Mark Anderson (puckinshat)      Join Date: Sep 2003       06-01-2011, 7:37 PM Reply   
Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe to qualify for welfare you have to make under a certain threshold of income. And if you are under said threshold you too are exempt from paying income tax (bottom tax bracket); therefore, the recipients of welfare are actually in fact not tax paying Americans as they do not indeed pay any tax. They would be tax exempt Americans, thus, I believe should have to pass a drug test to receive any of my tax dollars as subsidies.

Last edited by puckinshat; 06-01-2011 at 7:46 PM. Reason: forgot an "I" in subsidies.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 7:57 PM Reply   
^Elected officials dictate where your tax dollars go, why don't they have to pass a drug test? Do oil company CEO's have to pass drug tests? They receive "your" tax dollars as subsidies.
Old    Mark Anderson (puckinshat)      Join Date: Sep 2003       06-01-2011, 8:11 PM Reply   
If they want government money, I think they should have to pass drug tests. Jeremy, your over defensiveness about the subject makes me wonder if you would pass a drug test...

Last edited by puckinshat; 06-01-2011 at 8:12 PM. Reason: typo
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-01-2011, 8:25 PM Reply   
^I'm subjected to random drug screens.

My defensiveness about the subject is that it really accomplishes nothing. Put the stereotypes aside. Would an 80 year old widow on SSI be forced to take these drug screens? I would much rather welfare recipients be forced to give back to the community (mow grass, pick up trash, etc.) than be forced to take drug screens.
Old    Mark Anderson (puckinshat)      Join Date: Sep 2003       06-01-2011, 8:35 PM Reply   
I like your idea too of having the recipients give back to the community. I'm not naive enough to think this will solve all the wastefulness of a flawed program; however, I do think it is a step in the right direction.

Welfare is not the same as social security. This article is specific to welfare and I think we would all have a more productive discussion if we kept on topic (myself included).
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-02-2011, 4:13 AM Reply   
^Agree 100%, but there are people that receive SSI as well as government assistance (food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc.)
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       06-02-2011, 5:22 AM Reply   
I think it's perfectly logical; substance abuse may be a contributing factor to their chronic unemployment. I only hope they screen for alcohol too. If they can't stay clean long enough to get welfare, how are they ever going to get a job that requires screening? I am against the war on drugs, but I am all for this.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-02-2011, 7:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
I would much rather welfare recipients be forced to give back to the community (mow grass, pick up trash, etc.) than be forced to take drug screens.
I totally think unemployement should be this way. Lets say in the past someone who is laid-off or whatever would get $1000/mo. to do nothing.... I think they should only get like 50% unless the provide evidence they are actually doing something worthwhile - like you said, some sort of charity work/service to the community. Just a few hours a week even cleaning up a state park or this or that.... I've know a lot of people who do somewhat season work and get "laidoff" and collect a huge amount of unemployement (more than I was making working in college) and just did nothing - wouldn't job hunt, would stay home get wasted and play video games.... There needs to be an incentive to go out and do something.... the system is just far to easy to abuse.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-02-2011, 8:47 AM Reply   
The problem is exactly what is happening here. You guys are arguing about how best to spend the money you stole from someone, and which type of person deserves it more than the person who earned it. This is the problem with all entitlement programs. End the entitlements. No handouts and no welfare, unemployment, etc. taxes. Then all these ridiculous arguments like, people must be drug tested or do community service to collect, are irrelevant. The person who earned the money gets to keep it, and those who are out of work [should] have more savings so they can float by, since they were taxed less while working. Such a system respects our individual liberties, our rights as outlined by the founders of this country, and encourages people to provide for themselves and plan for tough times.
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 9:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Because, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the RIGHT to dictate how lawmakers spend your tax dollars. I don't think you can call it "armed robbery". You choose to live in the US, therefore you pay taxes. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. I don't hear one lawmaker Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Whig, Socialist, whatever, calling for the end of taxes. I may object to how the DoD spends my tax dollars. Are my rights violated? Absolutely not. You and Sam have it in your mind that if the government does something that you do not agree with, then your rights are violated. Or if it spends tax dollars in a manner you disagree with, your rights are violated. It simply does not work that way. I would expect a Constitutional scholar such as Sam to understand that with minimal difficulty.
Wow... I think we all need a civics class. We should start with Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, aka the Enumerated Powers


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
—James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Just because the constitution has been bastardized doesn't mean that what Federal Government is doing is actually legal.

Also, you brought up the fact that I could move and that that is basically my only option. I would emphatically suggest that you read What Belongs to Caesar? It is written with a pretext based on a book, but it will at least get you to question the above position. This is not how our Constitution was designed. Our Constitution largely comes from the Iroquois League of Nations were the intent was to include everyone's input (including woman, minorities, transvestites, and even the earth). I hope no one believes that the writers of the Constitution came up with on their own, they did not, Franklin stumbled on the Iroquois League of Nations and tried his best to copy it.

Consider this:

Centuries of political philosophy notwithstanding, there is no social contract in any meaningful sense that can account for the foundations of government… The typical situation in all modern societies is that people are born into the formal structure of their political systems, do not agree to it from the outset, and cannot leave if they find it disadvantageous (unless they are prepared to leave the country) … This being so, the fact that some groups may lose in domestic politics — and may, in particular, have new institutions thrust upon them that they don’t want and don’t find beneficial — cannot be glossed over by saying that they have agreed to the larger system. They haven’t.

In the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent… On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist, a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself of this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot he may become a master, if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self defense, he attempts the former.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-02-2011, 9:51 AM Reply   
Quote:
End the entitlements. No handouts and no welfare, unemployment, etc. taxes.
I disagree. Some people need help or a pick me up so they can contribute later.

About taxes why shouldn't it be even across the board.... you make more you contribute more. I would be pissed if all the people higher up in the company making more than me were putting in what I was... it should be a fixed percentage.... XX% no matter how much or how little you make, no breaks for anyone. If you don't want to pay the "taxes" then just start donating more and get the right-offs. It sucks to have 30% of my check gone before it touches my hand but its the nature of the beast.... I want police, roads, schools, and other services and its worth it to me.

Quote:
and those who are out of work [should] have more savings so they can float by, since they were taxed less while working.
Lets be real, this will NEVER be the case. You make more money, you spend more money...at least that is how the majority of the U.S. is. I've been good about saving (I'm young though - no house/kids/etc yet) so it isn't hard... but people don't save expecting to lose their job. They assume that paycheck is always going to be there, is it right-- NO, but is it the norm, YES. You're not going to break people of this habit so the next best option is find a way to help ONLY those who truely need it... which as I said before is not the case because it is WAY WAY to easy to rape the system

Last edited by sidekicknicholas; 06-02-2011 at 9:54 AM.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-02-2011, 10:07 AM Reply   
"I would much rather welfare recipients be forced to give back to the community (mow grass, pick up trash, etc.) than be forced to take drug screens."
Jeremy is on crack!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-02-2011, 11:14 AM Reply   
Sam, lovely post, but you never answered how your rights are violated by someone receiving welfare.

Cory, you need to move to another planet or a deserted island. It is the only way I see that you will be happy. The founding fathers were not against taxes. How do you fund roads, the military, etc., etc., etc. Remember the only two certainties in life.

jo shmoe, Truly I'm speechless.
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 11:17 AM Reply   
My constitutional rights are violated by Federal welfare.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-02-2011, 11:37 AM Reply   
Which ones???
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 12:57 PM Reply   
Mainly Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-02-2011, 1:54 PM Reply   
Here is Article 1 section 8,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

How exactly is your right in this violated? I mean, I am not trying to be a smartass, but I honestly don't understand how you can claim that any of your rights are violated.
Old    J D (jeff_mn)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-02-2011, 1:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Mainly Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
LOL @ using the constitution like it's some valid, living document.

It's 2011 and you're still trying to pount a square peg into a round hole.

I guess you ARE the guy who open carries on the ski slopes - why doesn't your ridiculous arguments surprise me.


Feel free to move elsewhere where your "liberties" are better respected.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       06-02-2011, 3:10 PM Reply   
I think the bottom line is that you either believe the government should take the earnings from one individual and give it to another for no other reason other than they are poor, or you do not. Now you can sugar coat it all you want, but that, at its foundation, is against the spirit of american culture.

But lets be honest about what welfare really is. its not to help the poor, as they cannot be helped. Its not to keep the poor down, as they do that on their own. It is nothing more than cheap riot control. When the lazy grow hungry, they grow active. The quickest means to an end is to try and take what others have. If you are successful, you have the bounties of your victory, and if you fail you have 3 hots and a cot.

Its much like the war on drugs in that it is unwinnable. Welfare is much cheaper than staffing riot police 24/7.

But wait, this is America, we are supposed to do what is right and not what is easy. The government should be out of the handout business. Handouts should be voluntary and should be at the community level, not the federal level.
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 3:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_mn View Post
LOL @ using the constitution like it's some valid, living document.

It's 2011 and you're still trying to pount a square peg into a round hole.

I guess you ARE the guy who open carries on the ski slopes - why doesn't your ridiculous arguments surprise me.


Feel free to move elsewhere where your "liberties" are better respected.
Jeff, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever read the Constitution? It is not a living document and I am not using it as one, nor would I refer to it as one. You are the reason why we are in the trouble that we are in. If you read my previous post you would understand why it is silly to suggest that I have an option of moving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Here is Article 1 section 8,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

How exactly is your right in this violated? I mean, I am not trying to be a smartass, but I honestly don't understand how you can claim that any of your rights are violated.
Wake77,
You only missed about 3/4's of it... Here is what it actually says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I have the right to be governed by the document that every person who holds a US office swears that they will uphold and follow. In Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution it explicitly spells out what Congress (the Federal Government) shall have the right to do. It can do nothing more. It was specifically spelled out by the authors of the Constitution that welfare and charity provided by the Federal Government would be illegal.

Again, it is my God given right to be governed by this document, anything beyond this document is a direct violation of all of our rights. The only legal way to change that is to go through the amendment process.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-02-2011, 3:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
But lets be honest about what welfare really is. its not to help the poor, as they cannot be helped. Its not to keep the poor down, as they do that on their own.
What a dumb thing to say. There isn't a face palm big enough to convey the stupidity There are many people in a situation that they can't do anything about. I suppose children of poor parents can't be helped because food isn't important.
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 3:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
What a dumb thing to say. There isn't a face palm big enough to convey the stupidity There are many people in a situation that they can't do anything about. I suppose children of poor parents can't be helped because food isn't important.
Hey! Something we can agree upon...
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-02-2011, 4:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
I disagree. Some people need help or a pick me up so they can contribute later.
Maybe they do, but it is a violation of my rights to force me to pay for them. That is all that matters in a free society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
About taxes why shouldn't it be even across the board.... you make more you contribute more. I would be pissed if all the people higher up in the company making more than me were putting in what I was... it should be a fixed percentage.... XX% no matter how much or how little you make, no breaks for anyone. If you don't want to pay the "taxes" then just start donating more and get the right-offs. It sucks to have 30% of my check gone before it touches my hand but its the nature of the beast.... I want police, roads, schools, and other services and its worth it to me.
I could make the same argument that it should all be even across the board. Take the annual federal budget, and divide by the number of adults in the country. Everyone pays their fair share, the same exact amount paid by everyone. This would be a truly even and fair way of paying for government spending.

As for police, roads, schools, and anything else, that's your perogative. If you want them, you pay for them. Some of these are Constitutional, others are not. We can start by eliminating the DOE and many other federal organizations. The federal level is where much of the problem is. Socialist programs on a state level are a state issue and many are perfectly legal. I may not like many of them but for most I can't make the same unconstitutional or illegal argument as I can on a federal level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
Lets be real, this will NEVER be the case. You make more money, you spend more money...at least that is how the majority of the U.S. is. I've been good about saving (I'm young though - no house/kids/etc yet) so it isn't hard... but people don't save expecting to lose their job. They assume that paycheck is always going to be there, is it right-- NO, but is it the norm, YES. You're not going to break people of this habit so the next best option is find a way to help ONLY those who truely need it... which as I said before is not the case because it is WAY WAY to easy to rape the system
It's not my problem if others don't save for these things. I'm not rich, and I'd wager I'm pretty damn poor conpared to most of the people on this site, many of whom have $60k boats, lake houses, and many other luxuries that I don't have and likely never will have. I don't expect to lose my job next week but you never know what might happen so always keep my resume updated and "out there". I get calls about jobs all the time and know that I shouldn't have much trouble finding something comparable to what I do now.

I can also coast for at least a year on my own without sweating about money, just in my emergency fund and not cutting into what I have saved for a down payment on a lake house (my dream) and that's maintaining my same lifestyle now, putting gas in my boat whenever I want, etc. It's not my problem that other people are not responsible. If all honesty if I lost my job tomorrow I'd probably go on unemployment until November, buy half an acre and a single wide on a lake in South Carolina and enjoy the rest of my summer spending every day riding behind my boat while getting a job lined up for the end of the season. This is feasible not because I make a lot of money but because I have self control and save towards my goals.

When you get down to it people can survive on a very small amount of money. You don't need to eat like a king, and you certainly don't need things like TV, air conditioning, cell phones, and many other luxuries that most people consider necessities. The best option is to simply not take anything from those who earn for the purpose of redistribution to those who don't. Doesn't matter if it's their own fault or not that they are out of work. A job is not a right. Food is not a right. Shelter is not a right.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-02-2011, 4:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I suppose children of poor parents can't be helped because food isn't important.
Food is not a right. It is a violation of my rights to steal from me to provide food to another man (or child). On a related note, I have never turned away anyone who has asked or begged me for food, no matter how unsavory they may appear. It's not in my heart to turn away anyone who is hungry.
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 4:27 PM Reply   
I would agree with that statement.
Old    SamIngram            06-02-2011, 4:29 PM Reply   
One thing about charity and welfare that I find interesting... When I choose to help someone, out of my own free will, I feel good and am compelled to help more people. When I am forced to help someone, through programs like welfare, etc..., I do not feel good about it and want the program to end.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-02-2011, 5:23 PM Reply   
Sam, I was saving space. What in Section 8 deems that it is illegal to provide government assistance? Let's say welfare ended today. Would your taxes be lowered? Would it make you feel better on the inside if Congress chose to allocate that money to build a giant bonfire and then pissed all over it to extinguish the flames?

"It was specifically spelled out by the authors of the Constitution that welfare and charity provided by the Federal Government would be illegal."

This is your opinion and interpretation. If it is "specifically spelled out" then it should be easily identifiable.

Cory, no one is stealing from you. You make X amount of dollars and pay Y amount of taxes. In the eighties, Reagan chose to build a laser defense system using taxpayer dollars that couldn't shoot down a bottle rocket. Is that unconstitutional, were anyone's rights violated?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-02-2011, 6:30 PM Reply   
Jeremy, you are not providing any arguments evidence or even opinions as to how theft is not a violation of one's rights. Please clarify how theft is not a violation of my rights.

As for the "star wars" laser defense system, yes people's rights were violated when money was stolen from them for that purpose. Theft is theft. The federal government has a very narrow scope of legal activities. How did people survive before 1913?
Old    J D (jeff_mn)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-03-2011, 6:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Jeff, you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever read the Constitution? It is not a living document and I am not using it as one, nor would I refer to it as one. You are the reason why we are in the trouble that we are in. If you read my previous post you would understand why it is silly to suggest that I have an option of moving.

.
Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Yeah buddy, I'M the one who is the "reason we are in trouble"... The hardworking, over educated father who pays his taxes, does his OWN job, minds his OWN business and trusts in our elected government officials to do THEIR job.

I'm the reason..

Not the gun toting hippy know it all dickbag on WakeWorld popping off at the mouth like he's the end all, be all second coming of George Washington..

I'm the problem.. Not you..

Got it
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 6:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Not the gun toting hippy know it all dickbag on WakeWorld popping off at the mouth like he's the end all, be all second coming of George Washington..
Awesome.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-03-2011, 7:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Jeremy, you are not providing any arguments evidence or even opinions as to how theft is not a violation of one's rights. Please clarify how theft is not a violation of my rights.
Because it's only theft philosophically. If other people's philosophy say's it's not theft then it isn't to them. Legally it's not theft. And that's the final word until the law is changed.
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 8:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_mn View Post
Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Yeah buddy, I'M the one who is the "reason we are in trouble"... The hardworking, over educated father who pays his taxes, does his OWN job, minds his OWN business and trusts in our elected government officials to do THEIR job.

I'm the reason..

Not the gun toting hippy know it all dickbag on WakeWorld popping off at the mouth like he's the end all, be all second coming of George Washington..

I'm the problem.. Not you..

Got it
Nice language dude! You should be dad of the year!

Homie? Nice... sounds "over educated" to me...

Last edited by SamIngram; 06-03-2011 at 9:04 AM.
Old    J D (jeff_mn)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-03-2011, 9:37 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Nice language dude! You should be dad of the year!

Homie? Nice... sounds "over educated" to me...

Thank god my kid is only 4 months old and kid read WakeWorld yet, huh?

homie

Last edited by jeff_mn; 06-03-2011 at 9:39 AM. Reason: awesomeness
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 9:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Thank god my kid is only 4 months old and kid read WakeWorld yet, huh?
WAIT WAIT WAIT, your kid is 4 months and CANNOT READ! You are a terrible parent.... whats taking so long?!

Quote:
Last edited by jeff_mn; Today at 8:39 AM. Reason: awesomeness
Awesome.
Old    Danny (rubin)      Join Date: May 2006       06-03-2011, 10:18 AM Reply   
All religion BS aside...and whether or not you agree with welfare in the first place. How could anyone argue that drug testing for welfare recipients is a bad thing?
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 10:21 AM Reply   
Based on your other posts I'm surprised you haven't tried to pull any Wolfpack Jiu Jitsu on me or tried to wash my mouth out with Fight Soap. I'm so sorry, and you and your sidekick really showed me! Now get back to work so you can pay that $15/hr nanny! I truly hope you hire someone to teach your kid about the constitution... maybe you will learn something in the process.

Last edited by SamIngram; 06-03-2011 at 10:30 AM.
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 10:36 AM Reply   
I can not win with you guys, you know everything and I know nothing. I just hope that when your kid grows up he has some basic freedoms left to enjoy.

John Adams to Abigail Adams – July 7, 1775

Your Description of the Distresses of the worthy Inhabitants of Boston, and the other Sea Port Towns, is enough to melt an Heart of Stone. Our Consolation must be this, my dear, that Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it…

I am forever yours —

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:20 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us