Members Moustache_Bash Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 This is exactly what I was thinking. Also, it seems like many here are scholars in the field of social assistance/programs, and or social workers. It's just a discussion, man. Pewt just made a shin-ei/wattson that's purdy good. Go post in there, since you don't care about this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tashiattack Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 I don't mean to come off like a sheltered dick, but I'd think if one were on welfare the person would have bigger problems than to be inebriated whilst putting food on the table. Like, one would be more worried about surviving/living than getting trashed/high/whatever. Unfortunately, many people do not see it this way, and automatically assume that anyone on social assistance is somehow "scum" or "lazy." Although I can disagree on many things with this author, he makes a good point: http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members claytonjohn18 Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Depends on how much it would cost the rest of us. If they give out less welfare money, it would more than likely pay for the cost of testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted July 29, 2011 Author Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Not when there's bigger issues (like the debt ceiling / national debt) to worry about right now. good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 You don't think the national debt is an issue? Over 14 trillion dollars and rising? Not a problem? Or is it the debt limit ceiling that you don't think is a problem? Or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Moustache_Bash Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Unfortunately, many people do not see it this way, and automatically assume that anyone on social assistance is somehow "scum" or "lazy." Although I can disagree on many things with this author, he makes a good point: http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm Yeah, I think the guys general idea is pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted July 29, 2011 Author Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 You don't think the national debt is an issue? Over 14 trillion dollars and rising? Not a problem? Or is it the debt limit ceiling that you don't think is a problem? Or both? no problem at all for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 9520575 Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Thanks folks for the lame political forum. There is a political forum here or else where. {censored} music I suppose. {censored} it. bye-bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Parah Salin Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Wait, does this mean students who get grants should be drug tested as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted July 29, 2011 Author Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Wait, does this mean students who get grants should be drug tested as well? seems only fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 yes, but at the same time, should they also be allowed to buy alcohol? i smoke weed and alcohol {censored}s me up far worse. they should get food stamps that only allow them to buy the {censored} they need. not want. and all food stamps should only be useable by the person they are meant for. this way they cant sell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Holy Schnikes Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Yes, test them. I see constant abuse of the system, pretty frustrating if you deal with it day to day on the job. Sucks being stuck at work listening to some asshole (who has no job and lives off govt checks) bitch. No one appreciates free {censored}. It would be far less expensive to foot the bill for urine tests as welfare recipient rates would fall dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tashiattack Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 yes, but at the same time, should they also be allowed to buy alcohol? i smoke weed and alcohol {censored}s me up far worse. they should get food stamps that only allow them to buy the {censored} they need. not want. and all food stamps should only be useable by the person they are meant for. this way they cant sell them. So, why not dictate what food and how much food they need as well? How far will you go with this? Ever tried living on food stamps? A friend of mine went through some serious mental illness and had no choice but to go on social assistance for almost 2 years. How much did she make? Less than 400$ a month. She was barley able to pay for rent and groceries (Try looking for a decent place for less than 400$ in a big city). Where people get the idea that welfare recipients are somehow "leeching" off the system blows my mind. There are tons of cases here where women with children (many of whom who require assistance due to spousal abuse, unemployment, and so on) received less than 600$ a month. Some of these women have even gone as far as suicide because social assistance was not enough. For a bunch of pro-capitalist anti-government types here, the totalitarian logic seems to be on par with their communist adversaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Oh I get it now. It's a troll thread. How droll. I played my Dunlop classic fuzz a lot today. It's a great pedal! It's my first regular fuzz face, and they are really versatile. I put it before my pork loin, and the slight mid/bass boost the latter gives it is totally great. Effects pedals are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members conky Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 You don't think the national debt is an issue? Over 14 trillion dollars and rising? Not a problem? Or is it the debt limit ceiling that you don't think is a problem? Or both? The national debt wouldn't be so high if they stopped giving money away to the people who don't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lucid origami Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 I think every car should have a piss plunger under the steering wheel. This could be used to make sure all drivers are sober when they drive but I really just think it would be convenient during long drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lucid origami Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 The national debt wouldn't be so high if they stopped giving money away to the people who don't need it. Government cheese doesn't grow on trees in Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SnowViking Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 This is like reading a Daily Mail article - in the UK we have this paper to help deflect the right-wingers away from the true causes of national problems/debt - and of course make them feel self-righteous. In other words a load of bollocks. America is built on huge income inequalities - and probably 25% of the population has some sort of chemical dependence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sardocasm Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 this is america. only the wealthy should be allowed to have any fun. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lucid origami Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 I don't see the 'poor people are gross' option in the thread poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Operator Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 The national debt wouldn't be so high if they stopped giving money away to the people who don't need it. Like massive corporations and the rich? Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrtC8wP_bFI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Wait, does this mean students who get grants should be drug tested as well?Yup - everyone.Except the politicians. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IRG Posted July 29, 2011 Members Share Posted July 29, 2011 Eh, I dunno. How about all of the corporate welfare we give out, can the CEOs and their board of trustees all be drug tested too? And since they have so many billions of our dollars invested, I think they should also be screened for high cholesterol and annual physical exams should be mandatory too. Hey, as long as they get tax subsidies and are deemed to be such important people in society, we really can't afford to have them be in poor health, whether it's the high end coke they're using, or those cholesterol laden lunches they get (for free). Only seems fair, right? But how about instead of drug screening all of the poor people, which by the way, is a segment of society that uses illegal drugs no more in terms of % than the middle or upper class, we just do away with these stupid, draconian drug laws. It isn't working, it never worked, and it serves no purpose. So what if some poor slob wants to get high, what do I really care? He's so miserable, at least this is the one thing in life that makes him (temporarily) happy. Why take that away from him/her? By doing away with these stupid drug laws, we will save billions, maybe trillions, by reducing a large segment of population that are in prisons, less prisons (which by the way, are increasing becoming a great for profit scam by charging more than the government does for the same services, and doing a poorer job at the same time. Except for the wealthy at the top of the pyramid of these companies, they are doing very well, thanks to "outsourcing" good paying public jobs. ANd at the same time, we'll actually create revenue, a lot of it, by taxing the sale of drugs. Forgot where and when I saw this, but the second most profitable crop in California after corn is marijuana. And it's not being taxed. Think the CA schools could probably benefit from this? THink the overcrowding in prisons could benefit from this? Yes and Yes. So sure, let's think small, and let's {censored} the poor some more by making them be drug tested for the small little amount of change we give them. Makes perfect sense. But how dare we tax the rich for doing the same thing. Now that is a travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Drifter182 Posted July 30, 2011 Members Share Posted July 30, 2011 While I agree with you IRG, I do have to point out that the major flaw in your thesis is that you are refering to reefer specifically, whereas there are many other drugs that can be abused besides that. (although {censored} yeah it should just be legalized/taxed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.