Government Intervention

[habsheaven]

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 tested loses their welfare it won't take long for the other nine test costs to be covered.

First I will say that it is the responsibility of the parents to worry about feeding their kids, not the government's. Expecting the govt to keep putting money in the hands of drug abusing parents because of the children is misguided.

With that said, for a first offense I would only take the cash assistance, not the food stamps, medical care or housing assistance. Taking the cash would at least make it difficult to buy drugs. Second offense the kids are taken for 90 days while they go thru forced rehab. After they return they get the kids and their welfare back minus the cash assistance. Third offense, they lose custody of the kids, are charged with appropriate criminal offenses and incarcerated. When they are released they are required to find work and repay all assistance that they received and are required to pay child support.

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 a simplistic approach to the problem. Your ideas Duane are what need to be discussed.

[mrveggieman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.