I recently received a email with a copy of a article ,in an Oregon newspaper, that was sent in by a reader. It stated that he worked and got paid for his time. He paid taxes on his income and the government spent his tax dollars as they saw fit. To qualify for and to keep his job he was required to pass drug tests from time to time. His question was ,that since he had to pass drug tests to make the money, shouldn't the recipients of welfare and other such programs have to pass a drug test to receive his tax dollars.
Interesting question.....
i think they should make drug tests only for people on welfare rather than people who are "sick(drug addiction, alcholic problem, or whatever)" that at least are willing to cooperate with society, by at least attempting to get a job. I mean, if someone has an addictive problem, they might as well kill themselves or get on welfare, cause they can't get a job, no matter how much they need it.
I have no problem drug testing welfare recipients, along with federal contractors and their employees, elected officials and their staffs, bureaucrats, etc. They are all receiving our tax dollars and we shouldn't set a double standard, should we?
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
What's good for the goose is good for the gander .... I just posted the original to see what would happen, but your idea makes sense.
i totally agree with you, Mark Greene.
Irony Alert! Irony Alert!
At least irony is what I read in Mark's message.
If you're going to require drug testing for people on welfare (and before you do, you should read the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, the supreme law of our land) because they receive tax dollars, then you should also require drug testing of others receiving tax dollars to be consistent.
That's "federal contractors and their employees" -- just about every employee of a large American corporation.
"Elected officials and their staffs" -- another large chunk of the American population
"Bureaucrats" -- anybody who works for the government, yet another large chunk of the American population
as well, as, may I add:
Ranchers, Farmers, Miners and their employees -- since they receive tax dollars through subsidies
Retirees -- since they receive Medicare benefits -- tax dollars
College Students receiving student loans and grants -- your tax dollars at work!
Small Business owners and employees -- beneficiaries of government programs again!
In short, just about every citizen of the United States of America.
Mark's strategy is called reductio ad absurdum -- extend an argument to its logical conclusion, have everybody recognize its absurdity, and thereby get everybody to recognize that the original argument was flawed.
Mark, did I read your comment correctly?
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
A tax deduction is the same thing as payment in effect, so we also need to test homeowners and anybody who donates money to charity. Because churches receive the biggest tax deduction of all, we need to test anybody who receives anything from a church.
Everybody should also have a GPS-linked device placed in their car that does not allow them to speed.
All of their children should have to take daily breathalyzers.
Health costs rise because we have so many overweight citizens. Let's deport everybody more than fifteen pounds overweight.
I'm tired of paying for public schools. Let's eliminate kids. And don't get me started on old people.
Why should people in Afghanistan get to live under Sharia Law but not Americans? Let's adopt the slogan "Be Perfect or Die!"
If your living off the state of government, then by GOD, you need to take a grug test, each and every month. UN-ANNOUNCED!!! Your living off MY money and I say yes to the drug test. There were enough jerks living off Katrena money, that was arrested for drug trafficing. These people were buying drugs with the money the Uncle Sam gave them to live on. Gripes My Ass!!
WWW.Tee4President.US
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
The Constitution does not control voter qualification. If you receive a check directly from the fed gov't, you can't vote in a fed election. If you receive a check directly from the state gov't, you can't vote in a state election.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury—with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship.”
–Alexander Tyler (in England 400 years ago)
-
If we are going to standardize Drivers Licenses, this is the place to do it. If you are required to, get and eye test and wear glasses if needed, if you cannot drink and drive. If there are warnings on our prescriptions, why should someone who uses drugs be allowed be allowed to drive?
I see this as an opportunity to spend even more money on a failing system. Drug tests aren't free and we need to spend our tax dollars on more important things right now.
While I agree with the basic premise of the idea it smacks too much of "big brother" for my tastes. Personally I want less government not more.
Lets worry about proper allocation of welfare funds first. Besides, drug tests can be cheated, and WILL be cheated.
=€K=
I know when Hillary was asked about this on one of the televised Democratic debates she got the "Oh, why would you dare to suggest such an autrocity!" look on her face, and then explained why it was wrong.
I would test the Welfare "recipiants". Obvioulsy it would cost too much money to test students, farmers, gov't employees, etc. (& of course testing politicians would be a bad idea considering how many of them are drugies). However, Welfare 'Recipiants' are costing the goverment money, and, in turn ,you and I.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine