PDA

View Full Version : Government Intervention



tutall
11-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Just wanted to continue conversation from a closed thread...


Hilfiger1975 said this


But if we the people allow them to make it law to drug test welfare people is it gonna stop there? I think it's just another way for the government to get more control over the people one way or another...just my two pennies...here's a PRIME example i HAVE to wear a seat belt in my own car or i'll get a ticket...tell me honestly that is not controlling people...it's not like smoking where it's hurting people around you...just another way for the government to control ITS people...

This was posted in reference to drug testing walfare recipients....

Here is where the difference is for me.... I do get drug tested... It is a requirement of the firm I work for to recieved random drug tests. To keep my job, it isnt hard, I just cant smoke weed. How should that be any different from drug testing the population of people living off the government? Government officials in some positions get random drug tests to get the same money! Not only that but on welfare the government does have control of you... You hand in bank statements to them, Can only keep a small amount of money in your possesion, and generally live in housing under their control.... Not always but a large portion of people on Welfare (at least where I live) do. Generally you turn in copies of bills and receipts and they keep pretty good track of your larger possesions.

The seat belt thing I agree with you on... It is a money maker plain and simple. I get there is data from the insurance companies that say the general population will save money if seat belts are worn but like you said, cigs arent illegal and they do a whole lot more damage but the govt makes a ton of them as well. One part I will say though I agree with kids having to be put in approved seats/booster seats. Kids under the age of 6 or so cant defend themselves against idiot parents.

habsheaven
11-17-2011, 08:34 PM
I am not totally against the idea, but I have a couple of questions:

I assume your company pays for your drug testing, who pays to drug test welfare recipients?

What happens to the innocent kids that have their parent(s) suddenly cut off from benefits?

tutall
11-17-2011, 09:18 PM
I am not totally against the idea, but I have a couple of questions:

I assume your company pays for your drug testing, who pays to drug test welfare recipients?

What happens to the innocent kids that have their parent(s) suddenly cut off from benefits?

My company does pay for the drug tests... I would assume they have ran a costs analysist and have concluded this up front fee would cost them in the long run. As far as the innocent kids.... Do you think they are better off in a home where drugs could be abused? What happens to the kids now whos parents get caught with drugs or other issues? Im not even really for a one strike your out policy though. I would support more of a cutback. Obviously if you have enough money to buy weed to smoke you have more than you need. I would also say there would be a process to getting reinstated that would include things such as drug rehab or job training or some other methods like they use in courts now.

theonedru
11-17-2011, 09:24 PM
If your living on government assistance, with them paying all the facets for you to exist, why should they not be able to delve into your lifestyle and say what you can and cannot do with these FREE government funds? If you don't want them harking on you about stuff liek that then get off welfare and get a job, problem solved.... maybe they should make you volunteer a mandatory 40 hours a week to get your $

As for the silly seat belt argument

" i HAVE to wear a seat belt in my own car or i'll get a ticket.. "

Seriously if you don't know why you have to wear a seat belt when your in a car you should not be in a car and it has nothing to do with being a cash cow... Seriously people if your going to throw garbage facts like that around how do you expect people to take you seriously.

gladdyontherise
11-17-2011, 09:29 PM
People on government assitance take that money and buy drugs, I don't think its a stereotype. Not EVERYONE does that, but i'd be willing to bet between 40-60% do it.

However, people shouldn't do drugs or drink regardless. I don't care that its from its plant or whatever, it impairs you and you can put your life or more important, another persons life at risk if you get into a car impaired.

As for the "I have to wear a seatbelt or I get a ticket". Don't wear a seatbelt then, I hope you don't get in a car wreck though...I mean honestly, that is just ignorant.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 09:30 PM
If your living on government assistance, with them paying all the facets for you to exist, why should they not be able to delve into your lifestyle and say what you can and cannot do with these FREE government funds? If you don't want them harking on you about stuff liek that then get off welfare and get a job, problem solved.... maybe they should make you volunteer a mandatory 40 hours a week to get your $

As for the silly seat belt argument

" i HAVE to wear a seat belt in my own car or i'll get a ticket.. "

Seriously if you don't know why you have to wear a seat belt when your in a car you should not be in a car and it has nothing to do with being a cash cow... Seriously people if your going to throw garbage facts like that around how do you expect people to take you seriously.
Ya, because interwebz opinions are serious business...:rolleyes:

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:02 PM
People on government assitance take that money and buy drugs, I don't think its a stereotype. Not EVERYONE does that, but i'd be willing to bet between 40-60% do it.

However, people shouldn't do drugs or drink regardless. I don't care that its from its plant or whatever, it impairs you and you can put your life or more important, another persons life at risk if you get into a car impaired.

As for the "I have to wear a seatbelt or I get a ticket". Don't wear a seatbelt then, I hope you don't get in a car wreck though...I mean honestly, that is just ignorant.
I agree, passing judgement is VERY ignorant...let's just hope you never j-walk in your life, because a honest citizen might be hoping you get ran over by a car and pass judgement just like you...:winking0071:

gladdyontherise
11-17-2011, 10:07 PM
I agree, passing judgement is VERY ignorant...

You continue to make no sense in your reponses to me...

Dont wear a seatbelt, I don't care, you wear a seatbelt for safety, if you want to risk your life, thats your business.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:09 PM
You continue to make no sense in your reponses to me...

Dont wear a seatbelt, I don't care, you wear a seatbelt for safety, if you want to risk your life, thats your business.
I'm making sense you just can't comprehend what i'm saying...do you honestly think i care about your opinion i was taking about the government not you...

gladdyontherise
11-17-2011, 10:12 PM
I'm making sense you just can't comprehend what i'm saying...do you honestly think i care about your opinion i was taking about the government not you...

Everyone can see the same thing i'm seeing right now. Do what you have to do, slugger.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:13 PM
Everyone can see the same thing i'm seeing right now. Do what you have to do, slugger.
Thank you, i appreciate that...:winking0071:

habsheaven
11-17-2011, 10:16 PM
My company does pay for the drug tests... I would assume they have ran a costs analysist and have concluded this up front fee would cost them in the long run. As far as the innocent kids.... Do you think they are better off in a home where drugs could be abused? What happens to the kids now whos parents get caught with drugs or other issues? Im not even really for a one strike your out policy though. I would support more of a cutback. Obviously if you have enough money to buy weed to smoke you have more than you need. I would also say there would be a process to getting reinstated that would include things such as drug rehab or job training or some other methods like they use in courts now.

It's not a matter of where they are better off. Of course they are better off in a clean, healthy environment. My point is this: drug-using parents collecting welfare is probably a lot LESS expensive on the system than kicking the adults off of welfare and having to find placements for the children who now have NO ONE able to look after them.

habsheaven
11-17-2011, 10:21 PM
You continue to make no sense in your reponses to me...

Dont wear a seatbelt, I don't care, you wear a seatbelt for safety, if you want to risk your life, thats your business.

This is exactly what the "seatbelt" issue is about. It's not about whether or not you should be wearing it, it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to MAKE you wear it. That's why it was compared to cigarettes. We all know that they are unhealthy but you do not see the government restricting access to them. Why on earth does the government care about your safety in one regard and not the other? It certainly doesn't sound like a "silly seatbelt argument" to me.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:23 PM
This is exactly what the "seatbelt" issue is about. It's not about whether or not you should be wearing it, it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to MAKE you wear it. That's why it was compared to cigarettes. We all know that they are unhealthy but you do not see the government restricting access to them. Why on earth does the government care about your safety in one regard and not the other? It certainly doesn't sound like a "silly seatbelt argument" to me.
Thank you...let's just hope EVERYONE see's this like WE see this...the government's history shows that they love to take a little bit here and there...when does it stop? It's not going to stop if people slowly let them take every right we have away...i mean eating a double cheeseburger and a large chocolate shake at McDonald's isn't safe for you either, is that next? The government don't care about the MANY that are homeless in this country, but they want to dictate and worry about who wears a seatbelt in this country...maybe people should look at the rich history of the US government and truly ask themselves, "does the government truly care about my safety?"

gladdyontherise
11-17-2011, 10:41 PM
This is exactly what the "seatbelt" issue is about. It's not about whether or not you should be wearing it, it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to MAKE you wear it. That's why it was compared to cigarettes. We all know that they are unhealthy but you do not see the government restricting access to them. Why on earth does the government care about your safety in one regard and not the other? It certainly doesn't sound like a "silly seatbelt argument" to me.

I don't think people should smoke cigarettes, its a disgusting habit and most who smoke always make excuses on why they need to. I'd like to think people have common sense to know smoking can kill you and not wearing a seatbell can kill you as well but lots of people don't have that common sense.

I know in the state of Michigan if you are over 16 you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you are in the backseat though.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:45 PM
I don't think people should smoke cigarettes, its a disgusting habit and most who smoke always make excuses on why they need to. I'd like to think people have common sense to know smoking can kill you and not wearing a seatbell can kill you as well but lots of people don't have that common sense.

I know in the state of Michigan if you are over 16 you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you are in the backseat though.
Walking your doggy across the street can kill you too...do you want the government to control that too? There is numerous things in this world that can kill you, but isn't that a right you have if it's not harming anyone to do what you like? Swallowing too much toothpaste can kill you too...so should the government control that too? I can think of about a million things in this world that can kill you, but why doesn't the government care about those?

Starving and being homeless in American can kill you too...but that's also common sense too, BTW...

gladdyontherise
11-17-2011, 10:47 PM
Walking your doggy across the street can kill you too...do you want the government to control that too? There is numerous things in this world that can kill you, but isn't that a right you have if it's not harming anyone to do what you like? Swallowing too much toothpaste can kill you too...so should the government control that too? I can think of about a million things in this world that can kill you, but why doesn't the government care about those?

You realize how silly it is to compare these things?

I thought you didnt care about my opinions, so why keep responding?

Again folks, common sense.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:51 PM
You realize how silly it is to compare these things?

I thought you didnt care about my opinions, so why keep responding?

Again folks, common sense.
So you are the leading authority on what's important that kill's you and what's not? I think you place your opinion too high once again...

I don't care about your opinions honestly...i'm just amazed at how naive you are...you are in no place to tell people about common sense trust me...:winking0071:

gladdyontherise
11-17-2011, 10:53 PM
So you are the leading authority on what's important that kill's you and what's not? I think you place your opinion too high once again...

I don't care about your opinions honestly...i'm just amazed at how naive you are...you are in no place to tell people about common sense trust me...:winking0071:

Hey, if you want to believe walking your dog across the street is the same as driving/riding in the car with no seatbelt on, more power to you. All these things you accuse me of though are just you trying to cause issues, so more power to you.

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 10:56 PM
Hey, if you want to believe walking your dog across the street is the same as driving/riding in the car with no seatbelt on, more power to you. All these things you accuse me of though are just you trying to cause issues, so more power to you.
I think Habs pointed out clearly what my point was, but conveniently you didn't post a response on that...I'm not accusing you of anything, it's all here for EVERYONE to see it...:winking0071:

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 11:00 PM
This is exactly what the "seatbelt" issue is about. It's not about whether or not you should be wearing it, it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to MAKE you wear it. That's why it was compared to cigarettes. We all know that they are unhealthy but you do not see the government restricting access to them. Why on earth does the government care about your safety in one regard and not the other? It certainly doesn't sound like a "silly seatbelt argument" to me.


I don't think people should smoke cigarettes, its a disgusting habit and most who smoke always make excuses on why they need to. I'd like to think people have common sense to know smoking can kill you and not wearing a seatbell can kill you as well but lots of people don't have that common sense.

I know in the state of Michigan if you are over 16 you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you are in the backseat though.

This was your statement to Habs...which pretty says both things will kill you. Now can you answer the rest of the post?

theonedru
11-17-2011, 11:14 PM
Walking your doggy across the street can kill you too...do you want the government to control that too? There is numerous things in this world that can kill you, but isn't that a right you have if it's not harming anyone to do what you like? Swallowing too much toothpaste can kill you too...so should the government control that too? I can think of about a million things in this world that can kill you, but why doesn't the government care about those?

Starving and being homeless in American can kill you too...but that's also common sense too, BTW...

Ok enough not wearing your seat belt can cause you to exit the vehicle at an accelerated speed during an accident and can make you a danger to others around possibly causing injuries or death, hence why your required to wear a seat belt as you stay within the vehicle. Now that you know 1 of many logical reasons to wear one we will not have to hear this argument again in a thread where it doesn't belong and we can stick to orig topic

Hilfiger1975
11-17-2011, 11:22 PM
Ok enough not wearing your seat belt can cause you to exit the vehicle at an accelerated speed during an accident and can make you a danger to others around possibly causing injuries or death, hence why your required to wear a seat belt as you stay within the vehicle. Now that you know 1 of many logical reasons to wear one we will not have to hear this argument again in a thread where it doesn't belong and we can stick to orig topic
There is also documented accidents where seat belts have killed people also...just an FYI...but you are right WE should stay on topic...and the topic of this thread is government intervention...and the government intervening with seat belts should follow underneath that...

tutall
11-17-2011, 11:28 PM
It's not a matter of where they are better off. Of course they are better off in a clean, healthy environment. My point is this: drug-using parents collecting welfare is probably a lot LESS expensive on the system than kicking the adults off of welfare and having to find placements for the children who now have NO ONE able to look after them.

I agree with you... But I guess my point was eventually, chances are those kids are going to end up with someone other than the parents anyways (either physically or financially speaking)... Whether the state pays for it now or later someone is going to.

tutall
11-17-2011, 11:32 PM
Ok enough not wearing your seat belt can cause you to exit the vehicle at an accelerated speed during an accident and can make you a danger to others around possibly causing injuries or death, hence why your required to wear a seat belt as you stay within the vehicle. Now that you know 1 of many logical reasons to wear one we will not have to hear this argument again in a thread where it doesn't belong and we can stick to orig topic

So... Are you for a complete smoking ban? I am positive smoking creates far more deaths per year than not wearing a seat belt... Im not saying it isnt logical to wear a seat belt... Im simply stating it shouldnt be up to the government to tell me to wear it.... And you exiting the vehicle causing damage to another person is far far down the list of reasons it is the law.... Most of the law is because of the money it supposedly saves people in Insurance costs because of the deaths averted from wearing them. I have never heard of a single instance of a person flying from a vehicle causing an injury to someone they struck

duane1969
11-17-2011, 11:37 PM
The welfare department pays. What does a drug test costs? $50? $75? The first welfare check that one person loses will cover the costs of the test for several people. If just one of every ten people...

theonedru
11-17-2011, 11:43 PM
There are more than a few cases in the Seattle area of people selling their food stamps here to buy drugs and such.

duane1969
11-17-2011, 11:45 PM
There are more than a few cases in the Seattle area of people selling their food stamps here to buy drugs and such.

I know it happens. That is why follow up testing and the 2nd offense/3rd offense are needed.

tutall
11-18-2011, 12:02 AM
In Indiana food stamps and other benefits come on a debit card... Companies are required to check ID with every state issued card that comes through. If a company swipes that card for anyone other than the name imprinted on the card they face stiff fines. I know it isnt perfect as you can go out, buy the stuff, then sell it or whatever but it is a better system than most and at least requires them to be at the store seeing what they are buying and choosing to give it away for drugs or whatever.

duane1969
11-18-2011, 07:30 AM
In Indiana food stamps and other benefits come on a debit card... Companies are required to check ID with every state issued card that comes through. If a company swipes that card for anyone other than the name imprinted on the card they face stiff fines. I know it isnt perfect as you can go out, buy the stuff, then sell it or whatever but it is a better system than most and at least requires them to be at the store seeing what they are buying and choosing to give it away for drugs or whatever.

They use a card here too. I know of at least one woman who got busted buying food stamps at a discount rate. She would swipe their card like they had bought $100 in groceries and then give them like $50 or $75 in cash back. It happens but that is almost out of the control of the government.

If taking away the cash benefits doesn't work then harsher methods are called for. Forced rehab, work requirements, incarceration, etc. are options.

habsheaven
11-18-2011, 08:27 AM
As I said before, I am not totally against the idea. I am just trying to open up a discussion on what the consequences of this may be (the pros and cons if you will). All too often, most people take...

mrveggieman
11-18-2011, 12:01 PM
Duane bought up some good ideas. But IMO the gov't is ok with the welfare system just the way it is. They know that some people on welfare think that they are getting over on the sytem by not working and using some of the gov't money to by drugs and booze. Little do they realize that is exactly what the gov't wants them to do. If you look at our society the gap between haves and have nots is widening at an alarming rate. If the gov't can pay someone a few dollars per month not to get educated and to sit on their chops eating, smoking, drinking and otherwise wasting their life away that is one less family that has a chance to make something out of their lives and more wealth that will be kept with the chosen few and not shared with someone who could have worked went to school and made something out of their lives. I have had this argument with people that I knew on welfare and of course it fell on deaf ears. If you are on welfare the best way to get over on the system is to stop drinking and smoking, go to school take as many classes as you can, get a degree and or a trade and start a business of your own so you can make some real money and stop being a slave to the gov't.

mrveggieman
11-18-2011, 12:29 PM
Also in the orginal thread that I posted no one mentioned that the state of Georgia was introducing a bill that would put "In God we trust" on all liscence plates or pay $1 for a sticker to cover it up. Now first of all I do believe in God and $1 may only be a trivial amount but this is a clear violation of the first amendment as well as the lemon test. The is a clear endorsemnt of religion namely judeau/christian religion. If someone dosent agree with christanity why should they have to pay the state any amount to remove the state's illegal endorsement of religion from their liscence plates? Also if a state decided to put in Allah we trust would everyone be ok with that? Look I think that having a religion can be a good think I just don't want the gov't illegally adding their two cents and forcing people to pay them not to give their opinions.

duane1969
11-18-2011, 12:51 PM
Also in the orginal thread that I posted no one mentioned that the state of Georgia was introducing a bill that would put "In God we trust" on all liscence plates or pay $1 for a sticker to cover it up. Now first of all I do believe in God and $1 may only be a trivial amount but this is a clear violation of the first amendment as well as the lemon test. The is a clear endorsemnt of religion namely judeau/christian religion. If someone dosent agree with christanity why should they have to pay the state any amount to remove the state's illegal endorsement of religion from their liscence plates? Also if a state decided to put in Allah we trust would everyone be ok with that? Look I think that having a religion can be a good think I just want the gov't illegally adding their two cents and forcing people to pay them not to give their opinions.

The term "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion so the Lemon test does not apply. If it did the Lemon test could be used to take the term off of money and out of the US motto.

However, I can see where non-Christians would be unhappy with it and I see no intrinsic value to having it be mandatory on license plates. Why not just make it an optional plate and let people have the option to have that plate version?

mrveggieman
11-18-2011, 01:07 PM
The term "In God We Trust" does not establish a state religion so the Lemon test does not apply. If it did the Lemon test could be used to take the term off of money and out of the US motto.

However, I can see where non-Christians would be unhappy with it and I see no intrinsic value to having it be mandatory on license plates. Why not just make it an optional plate and let people have the option to have that plate version?


They already do have the option to request an In God we trust liscence plate. That is fine on the surface but the problem with that is that you cannot order a in buddah/allah/confucious/flying spaghetti monster/etc we trust liscence plate. What the state does for one region or religious way of thinking they must do for another religion or religious philosophy otherwise the gov't which by law must remain religiously neutral appears to being showing bias infavor of all those who refer to their deity as God which are clearly jews and christians.

duane1969
11-18-2011, 01:11 PM
They already do have the option to request an In God we trust liscence plate. That is fine on the surface but the problem with that is that you cannot order a in buddah/allah/confucious/flying spaghetti monster/etc we trust liscence plate. What the state does for one region or religious way of thinking they must do for another religion or religious philosophy otherwise the gov't which by law must remain religiously neutral appears to being showing bias infavor of all those who refer to their deity as God which are clearly jews and christians.

The problem is that the term "In God We Trust" is the United States motto. They can offer it without matching it with other religions.

If they offered a plate with a cross on it and it quoted John 3:16 or some other verse then they could be expected to offer plates with the Jewish star or the Islamic star and crescent and pertinent verses or quotes.

mrveggieman
11-18-2011, 01:17 PM
The problem is that the term "In God We Trust" is the United States motto. They can offer it without matching it with other religions.

If they offered a plate with a cross on it and it quoted John 3:16 or some other verse then they could be expected to offer plates with the Jewish star or the Islamic star and crescent and pertinent verses or quotes.


You are right but it is still cutting it real close on the states end. I have no problem with the state charging extra for the optional in god we trust plates but I have a problem with charging someone not to have it on theirs.