GOP Bill Seeks To Force Welfare Applicants To Waive 4th Amendment Rights

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Mar 5, 2013.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Oy. I might be willing to listen to reasonable arguments on why we should do this but with several states having done this and saved no money, caught a handful of drug users and didn't reduce the number of applicants.

    How does not allowing assistance to the needy (regardless of drug use) make the situation any better?

    Link
     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    This won't hold up in courts as soon as the ACLU gets their lawyers in the fracas .
     
  3. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    If it gets out of committee, I can see it passing the House but it would be DOA in the Senate.
     
  4. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #4
    Without getting all automatically red faced angry like some here tend to do, can someone rationally explain to me why someone receiving government assistance (ie, money from me and you) shouldn't be held to a higher standard and stay drug free while they are on the dole?

    ----------

    What isn't DOA in the Senate these days?
     
  5. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #5
    I will as soon as you can explain to me why the CEO's of the bailed out companies didn't have to take piss tests.
     
  6. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #6
    Mostly because just about every company that was bailed out had to be done because they had gotten so large that if they failed the consequences would have been so far reaching that it would have brought down the entire world economy (in theory).

    I'm not saying that's necessarily true (I still think we should have let some of those companies go through bankruptcy), but that would be the general logic behind that boondoggle. At the very least, the boards of those companies should have been forced to bring in new chief executives as a condition of receiving those funds.
     
  7. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #7
    That didn't explain why they didn't have to take piss tests.
     
  8. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #8
    I gave you the best reasoning I can come up with in hopes of getting a response to the original question. As far as I know, pee tests were not even discussed. So you'd have to take that topic up with your Congressman.
     
  9. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    So you're saying if you're rich it's not required but if you're poor it is ?

    That should answer your question.
     
  10. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #10
    I'm saying the more ingrained in our economic system a company is the less likely it is that the government will allow it to fail.
     
  11. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11
    Why should someone needing assistance be held to a standard higher than the rest of us, all who receive government benefits in one way or another? And like I said in the OP, there's no evidence that this is a problem.
     
  12. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    What does allowing a company to fail have to do with piss tests ?
     
  13. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #13
    Sure we all benefit from highways and national defense, but not all of us are getting a check each month. Certainly there is a difference between the two.


    Because if we're tying whether or not they get government assistance to whether or not the CEO fails a drug test then I'm assuming that some of those companies would not have received government assistance and, as a result, failed.
     
  14. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #14
    If Republicans think anyone receiving government money should have to take random drug tests then every elected official on the government payroll, military contractor and executive of wall street banks who received bailout money should have to take the same tests.

    Laws should be applied equally. Not just targeting the poor.
     
  15. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #15
    Not the worst idea I've ever heard.
     
  16. Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #16
    Let's also add Oil and Energy companies that receive corporate welfare. Lets randomly drug test their executives to.
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    How about instead of this nonsense law that serves no purpose other than try to put more people in for-profit prisons for drug offenses that don't hurt anyone but themselves, we take the money used on this and the "war on drugs" and put it towards education and health programs to keep people away from drugs and help them get a job and provide for themselves?

    This proposal won't help the problem, it will only make it worse.
     
  18. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #18
    This is a solution (to feed our rabid base) looking for a problem. The notion that we have hordes of people using this money to buy drugs is ridiculous. Look at Appendix 1 to see the maximum benefits for a single parent with 2 kids. Appendix 2 shows that TANF benefits are well, well, well below the poverty level.

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3625
     
  19. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #19
    I'm okay with drug testing of recipients in principle, but in practice it's been a waste of money - the amount they save by not giving money to people who fail the drug test is nowhere near the amount spent on the testing.

    If they were to test only people suspected of using, it might make more sense. But then there's a good chance for probable cause, and no 4th amendment issues.

    Because I can't use the funding given to schools, or roads, or military protection, to buy drugs. If they wanted to test me before I receive unemployment benefits, they can whip out their flask and I'll whip out my tool and fill it up. It's the same principle at that point.
     
  20. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #20
    I used to date this girl whose dad owned a liquor store in low income part of town that they lived in. The beginning of the month was always his busy stretch. Why's that? Because that's when everyone in the area got their welfare checks. He made money both cashing the checks and then for the first week of the month, when his regulars spent like it was their job on stuff in the store.

    He made enough in that first week to get him through the rest of the month most times.

    Are there plenty of people on the dole that are in a rough spot and just need some assistance to get through a downturn? Sure. Plenty of good folks out there that just need some help....and I'm all for helping them. At the end of the day something like this could end up helping the views that many have about people who receive government assistance. If we could do more to ensure that the recipients aren't wasting away the cash we'd probably have a lot less people whining and moaning about how the government is spending their revenue when it comes to social programs.
     
  21. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #21
    I just can't fathom why the GOP thinks the solution to help someone with a drug problem is to cut off all their assistance and force them and their families to lose their homes and end up living on the streets.

    GOP is so disconnected with reality.

    I wouldn't oppose a system that tested people receiving government benefits and helped them in to a program to get over their problems and turn their life around but all they want to do with this bill is cut them off and then say "**** em".

    No wonder why so many people think Republicans are too selfish.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    There are two important questions that need to be addressed. The first is, what's the practical cost of limiting all transactions to some kind of EBT system that would then be tracked and analyzed to ensure that people aren't buying liquor or drugs (or anything else they might enjoy)? And, how much do we limit this? Should welfare users be allowed to buy tickets for movies, a round of bowling, or for that matter a coca-cola?


    The second issue is really the liberty issue. How much do we want to institute social control—not to mention whatever sideways black-market arises from such a system—on people because they're down and out and we want to punish them for their sins.

    If you want to get people out of the system, consider rehab, job training, and education programs. If you want to hit someone poor with a rock, don't create a huge and intrusive government system to overlay and audit a system that is built around the idea of letting people pay the rent when they lose their job.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Why does it matter what drugs someone takes on the weekend?

    If they are lazy about getting a job that is a problem - drugs or no drugs.

    The only thing a drugs test is useful for is getting them treatment. But just asking should be more effective as you are showing them some level of respect.
     
  24. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    Emphasis on respect.

    This GOP bill removes any respect the poor have left.
     
  25. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    Fine, then every Wall Street Banker, federal contractor and all the others that benefit from federal 'charity' should also be held to the same standards .
     

Share This Page