Drug tests for welfare recipients?

[Guest tommy62]

There are some responses in this thread that do a good job of reflecting both sides of the argument but for the most part I think this is a good idea.

I just wish I had a dollar for every time DaveTN says "back when I was a cop" or "because I was a cop".

At least he doesn't say, "I remember one time at band camp."

[DaveTN]

I'm all for it but I suspect additional taxes will be needed to implement. A added bonus will be the libs will thow hissy fits.

The libs aren’t going to throw a fit. It’s going to create a whole new branch of state government. They live that kind of stuff.

[Guest bkelm18]

I don't see this as a violation of the 4th amendment. You have absolutely zero right to receive welfare. It is a privilege and a service provided by the gov't. If you were guaranteed a right to recieve welfare and they required you to take a drug test, then yes, that would be a violation of the 4th, but as I said, there is no such right. When you agree to work somewhere, you consent to a drug test if required in order to secure that employment. If you agree to receive benefits from the gov't, you should consent to a drug test as well. If you don't do drugs, this should not be an issue. I'd rather my tax dollars not be used to feed your drug addiction.

[Caster]

I'd rather my tax dollars not be used to feed your drug addiction.

I'll go one further and I am less inclined to gripe as much, if I knew there was an effort to keep druggies off welfare.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Get rid of those government "services" and don't bother with the drug tests.

[Guest bkelm18]

Get rid of those government "services" and don't bother with the drug tests.

I'd support that.

[Caster]

Get rid of those government "services" and don't bother with the drug tests.

Me too.

[kieefer]

Get rid of those government "services" and don't bother with the drug tests.

+1

Now there's a thought.

There will be someway to fraud and abuse it anyway.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Get rid of those government "services" and don't bother with the drug tests.

This^^^^^

I don't see this as a violation of the 4th amendment. You have absolutely zero right to receive welfare. It is a privilege and a service provided by the gov't. If you were guaranteed a right to recieve welfare and they required you to take a drug test, then yes, that would be a violation of the 4th, but as I said, there is no such right. When you agree to work somewhere, you consent to a drug test if required in order to secure that employment. If you agree to receive benefits from the gov't, you should consent to a drug test as well. If you don't do drugs, this should not be an issue. I'd rather my tax dollars not be used to feed your drug addiction.

I'm of the opinion that drug laws violate several clauses of the constitution, but that is another issue. Not that I'm pro-drug. I'm just anti-stupid and I am quite stupid enough without addling myself even further with drugs.

Am merely belaboring the point that what is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. If drug tests are desirable for po folks on the gov dole, then drug tests ought to be even more desirable for middle-class and rich folks sucking on the gov teat.

For instance, many homeowners receive more per year from the gov in Home Mortgage Interest Deduction than po folks collect in welfare checks. Why not require homeowners to P in a cup to qualify for the Mortgage Interest Deduction?

After all, welfare recipients don't get enough money to blow on large quantities of drugs, but middles and rich folk have lots of money to blow on drugs. Requiring any rich and middles receiving gov money, to P in the cup, would prevent vastly more of our tax money from being spent on illegal drugs.

Presuming that po folk P-ing in the cup is good, then rich folk P-ing in the cup would be even more gooder!

[DaveTN]

presuming that po folk P-ing in the cup is good, then rich folk P-ing in the cup would be even more gooder!

As you can see, once you agree that a government agent demanding a search without cause is legal; it opens up all kinds of new possibilities…. Doesn’t it?

Its how DUI check points got a stamp of approval. You don’t have a right to drive. How many times have you been told "Driving is a privilege"? How about excluding DUI questioning from the Miranda warning and your 5th amendment rights? I’m not saying these are bad things; I’m saying they go against the very core of the Constitution. These things happened for two reasons. One is the power of MADD. The other is that drunks aren’t a popular group for someone to stand up for, and even the drunks that these things were targeted at didn’t think they are in that group until they are standing at the side of the road in handcuffs.

There are many, many things that we can do to stop the drug problem instead of trampling on innocent people’s rights.

If you are worried about drugs, how about we go after the drug dealers? Let’s remove Constitutional rights from drug dealers. We have a hearing, either before a Judge or the Grand Jury. Once they determine there is enough evidence for charges; the suspect is stripped of all Constitutional rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, maybe if the bastiches in Congress and the

White House were subjected to their own damned

laws, we would have fewer of the stupid laws and

a different crop of lawmakers. But I guess we might

not have much to talk about then, now would we?

Just another brain fart.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raoul]

Well, maybe if the bastiches in Congress and the

White House were subjected to their own damned

laws, we would have fewer of the stupid laws and

a different crop of lawmakers. But I guess we might

not have much to talk about then, now would we?

Just another brain fart.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen to that

[kieefer]

Yes, this is the direction. More government is not the answer, that's the real reason we are in this heap of dodo anyway.

We become so complacent with what our elected officials can do it's past time to think outside the norm.

Thanks for eye opener.

As you can see, once you agree that a government agent demanding a search without cause is legal; it opens up all kinds of new possibilities…. Doesn’t it?

Its how DUI check points got a stamp of approval. You don’t have a right to drive. How many times have you been told "Driving is a privilege"? How about excluding DUI questioning from the Miranda warning and your 5th amendment rights? I’m not saying these are bad things; I’m saying they go against the very core of the Constitution. These things happened for two reasons. One is the power of MADD. The other is that drunks aren’t a popular group for someone to stand up for, and even the drunks that these things were targeted at didn’t think they are in that group until they are standing at the side of the road in handcuffs.

There are many, many things that we can do to stop the drug problem instead of trampling on innocent people’s rights.

If you are worried about drugs, how about we go after the drug dealers? Let’s remove Constitutional rights from drug dealers. We have a hearing, either before a Judge or the Grand Jury. Once they determine there is enough evidence for charges; the suspect is stripped of all Constitutional rights.

[JayC]

We are headed for destruction already. We can’t send our jobs overseas and stop the government handouts.

The rich people that call themselves Americans while sending our jobs off to other countries for higher profits don’t understand that they will not survive our economy crashing.

How about we just get the government off of businesses back... they might not have to send jobs overseas to compete.

In my field, outsourcing barely makes sense today... if labor was less expensive here in the states, it would be down right stupid to outsource.

Now, ask yourself how much government overhead is there on hiring you? Not just the plaining visible taxes, but all the crazy government paper and rules that makes it just that much more expensive to hire employees here...

If we would just get rid of the government overhead, everybody would enjoy much better employment opportunities.

[JayC]

You're making a critical mistake in your logic... People who receive a mortgage interest deduction aren't receiving a penny from Government. It's their money and the government is just stealing a little bit less from them.

Whereas somebody receiving welfare isn't paying income taxes. The government (ie you and me) are giving them free money.

There is a huge difference between not paying more in taxes and therefore keeping more of your own earned money, and getting money from the Government that you didn't earn.

This^^^^^

I'm of the opinion that drug laws violate several clauses of the constitution, but that is another issue. Not that I'm pro-drug. I'm just anti-stupid and I am quite stupid enough without addling myself even further with drugs.

Am merely belaboring the point that what is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. If drug tests are desirable for po folks on the gov dole, then drug tests ought to be even more desirable for middle-class and rich folks sucking on the gov teat.

For instance, many homeowners receive more per year from the gov in Home Mortgage Interest Deduction than po folks collect in welfare checks. Why not require homeowners to P in a cup to qualify for the Mortgage Interest Deduction?

After all, welfare recipients don't get enough money to blow on large quantities of drugs, but middles and rich folk have lots of money to blow on drugs. Requiring any rich and middles receiving gov money, to P in the cup, would prevent vastly more of our tax money from being spent on illegal drugs.

Presuming that po folk P-ing in the cup is good, then rich folk P-ing in the cup would be even more gooder!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

You're making a critical mistake in your logic... People who receive a mortgage interest deduction aren't receiving a penny from Government. It's their money and the government is just stealing a little bit less from them.

Whereas somebody receiving welfare isn't paying income taxes. The government (ie you and me) are giving them free money.

There is a huge difference between not paying more in taxes and therefore keeping more of your own earned money, and getting money from the Government that you didn't earn.

Hi JayC

I was playing devil's advocate. I am not a socialist and do not believe that all money belongs to the gov and we should be thankful if the gov allows us to keep any of it.

However, the home mortgage deduction really is another form of freeloading off the gov. I'm not calling people who take the deduction freeloaders, because they are just taking advantage of the law. (Just like welfare cases are just taking advantage of the law.)

Consider two unmarried single fellers, each making $100,000 per year. One guy is a renter but the other guy has a giant house he can just barely afford on a 30 years mortgage.

Ain't speculating on how much tax would be "reasonable" for this income bracket. Regardless whether the "reasonable" tax rate should be 1 percent or 99 percent--

Shouldn't both guy's "fair share of the public expense" be the same? However, the renter pays a bigger tax, and the homeowner pays a smaller tax. In effect, the renter is helping pay the homeowner's house payment, but the homeowner ain't helping pay the renter's lease payment. It really is a rather straightforward transfer of wealth from the renter, thru the gov, and into the homeowner's pocket.

If the homeowner is just barely able to afford that big house and couldn't own the house without the interest deduction, then the renter is MAKING IT POSSIBLE for the homeowner to buy the house. It might as well be straight out of the renter's pocket.

I'm not saying people ought not buy big houses and I don't care if some people want to pay most of their paycheck on a house payment. It is each person's biz what they do with their own money. The guy with the huge 30 year mortgage is just the most 'extreme' valid example of this gov-mediated wealth transfer.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would rather see them drug tested than not. My money that I worked hard for goes to these people so some, not all, can buy illegal drugs. We already limit the EBT cards to exclude unhealthy foods as well as cigarettes, alcohol and many other items. Why not limit the same money, just in a different form, so that it will only be used for legal and healthy purposes.

No one forced them into welfare, most see it as easy money so they can continue to be lazy. They were lazy in school and no child left behind let them. Now they can continue to be lazy in life and welfare will let them. What they don't realize is they have allowed themselves to be controlled and manipulated. The government promises them just enough to survive on as long as they don't try to be successful in life. It is nothing more than a means to control a segment of the population. There are a lot of people who are content with having nothing so long as they don't have to work and can continue to get that free check. I see people living in burned out trailers but as long as they don't have to work that is just fine by them.

I say take it all away and make them become successful in life. Funny how hunger will motivate people into action.

But if we must keep the system then drug test every person before receiving any benefits. A person that is truly in dire straights would glady piss in a cup to be able to get what they need to survive. Problem is most people confuse needs with wants. At Christmas look at the trees that have the names of families and what they say they need because they are so poor. Most are needing games for their X-Box or Playstation, or a new laptop, or a cell phone but very few have clothes or even food items listed. For me if it came down to me putting my name on a list in public the only things on there would be food items. But that is the entitlement crowd that thinks that they are entitled to the same things the rest of us have worked hard for. They blame anyone who has more than them but would gladly trade places and at the same time they would probably change their tune.

Dolomite

[1gewehr]

This is an interesting discussion. I'm seeing a lot of great points.

To add my $.02, I do not see it a Constitutional issue at all. It's a contractual issue. If person 'A' wants to receive some of the taxpayers' money, they have a contractual obligation to stay off illegal drugs. In order for person 'A' to certify himself as eligible to receive this money, he must agree to drug testing. If they flunk a drug test, they are no longer eligible to receive our money. Pretty simple.

I cannot let this flawed analogy stand.

However, the home mortgage deduction really is another form of freeloading off the gov. I'm not calling people who take the deduction freeloaders, because they are just taking advantage of the law. (Just like welfare cases are just taking advantage of the law.)

Consider two unmarried single fellers, each making $100,000 per year. One guy is a renter but the other guy has a giant house he can just barely afford on a 30 years mortgage.

Shouldn't both guy's "fair share of the public expense" be the same? However, the renter pays a bigger tax, and the homeowner pays a smaller tax. In effect, the renter is helping pay the homeowner's house payment, but the homeowner ain't helping pay the renter's lease payment. It really is a rather straightforward transfer of wealth from the renter, thru the gov, and into the homeowner's pocket.

If the homeowner is just barely able to afford that big house and couldn't own the house without the interest deduction, then the renter is MAKING IT POSSIBLE for the homeowner to buy the house. It might as well be straight out of the renter's pocket.

By passing tax exemptions, Congress declares that it favors some individuals over others. So they do not have the same 'fair share'. That is true of every exemption. Sure, I get a tax break for having a mortgage. Should I resent it that others get a huge deduction for having a bunch of children?

Second, It is not a straight transfer of funds no matter how you look at it. There is no such thing as a 'fair share' of taxes. There should be, as that is what the Constitution originally required. Article 1, section 9 states "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken". In other words, if Congress taxes citizens directly, it would have to be equal for EVERY person. That is why an income tax was un-Constitutional until the 16th Amendment was passed. Now Congress can exempt some people from paying the tax, and favor others at teh expense of a smaler percentage of the population.

According to your analogy, the bottom 49% of income earners are the worst free-loaders as they pay no income tax, and in many cases receive extra money. Is that fair?

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Isn’t this thread déjà vu all over again?

I’m against it. Drug testing people because they are poor, and with no probable cause is wrong.

However… the government is running it. So they can create a whole new state government office and staff it with welfare recipients that could not keep a job anywhere else. Then they would show the taxpayers how they are paying for less people on welfare. They won’t show them the costs they are paying for a useless new bureaucracy.

But it's ok to test our Soldiers in the military without Probably cause? Or federal Workers, or state workers? It is what is wrong with this country. Damn people think they are entitled to something. I think not only should they be drug tested they should have to work to get their welfare checks. Yeah that's right put them to work. Picking up trash, cleaning buildings, whatever needs to be done. That will accomplish two things. One they will be able to actually contribute to society and secondly will motivate them to get off the govment cheese. It's bad enough we have to pay for worthless people in capitol hill we have to pay for millions of Americans to abuse the system as well and take out hard earned money?

Edited June 7, 2011 by adamoxtwo

[DaveTN]

But it's ok to test our Soldiers in the military without Probably cause? Or federal Workers, or state workers?

No.

Did you read what I said?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I cannot let this flawed analogy stand.

By passing tax exemptions, Congress declares that it favors some individuals over others. So they do not have the same 'fair share'. That is true of every exemption. Sure, I get a tax break for having a mortgage. Should I resent it that others get a huge deduction for having a bunch of children?

Second, It is not a straight transfer of funds no matter how you look at it. There is no such thing as a 'fair share' of taxes. There should be, as that is what the Constitution originally required. Article 1, section 9 states "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken". In other words, if Congress taxes citizens directly, it would have to be equal for EVERY person. That is why an income tax was un-Constitutional until the 16th Amendment was passed. Now Congress can exempt some people from paying the tax, and favor others at the expense of a smaller percentage of the population.

Hi 1gewehr

Am not claiming anything about the tax code to be "fair". As you say, the gov has favorites. It would be nice if the code was "fair". However it is difficult to find agreement about what is fair. Regardless of how the tax law is written, numerous people will think it unfair.

In the previous example, to highlight a single favoritism, I used two single fellers with identical income. In a sane universe both of those guys would owe the same tax.

As you mention, there are other favoritisms such as childless folk paying more tax so parents can pay less tax. It is yer own biz whether you want to resent paying more tax so your neighbor with a big family can pay less. Maybe if we didn't have a child deduction, then you would be so generous that every year you would hand your neighbor a few thousand out of your pocket just to help out with his kids.

====

1. An honest but poor working man-- The gov says, "Tell ya what. We want you to have a place out of the rain, but since you don't hardly make any money we will rent to you a housing project apartment for $100 per month even though that apartment costs us $500 per month in amortization and maintenance."

The po man is paying his own rent by the sweat of his own brow. But the gov is basically "giving" the po man another $400. The po man gets a hell of a deal compliments of the gov.

2. An honest middle-income working man-- The gov says, "Tell ya what. We like our banker friends so much that we will give you a discount on your tax so you can buy more house and make our banker friends more money."

The middle-income man pays his house bill and tax bill by the sweat of his own brow, but the gov is "helping him out" with that tax discount. Just like the po man, he's getting a hell of a deal compliments of the gov. It is housing assistance for the non-poor, as long as the non-poor have a mortgage rather than a lease.

====

Assuming a mythical balanced budget economy devoid of Trillions of Fed Reserve "money out of nothing"--

SOMEBODY has to pay more tax so that the above fellers can receive housing assistance.

That middle-income homeowner guy has a renter counterpart somewhere who is paying more tax so that the homeowner can pay less.

If they eliminate the interest deduction and simultaneously lower the tax rate to assure the same Federal revenue-- Both the renter and the homeowner would get a tax break, but then the homeowner would have to pay for ALL of his house payment.

According to your analogy, the bottom 49% of income earners are the worst free-loaders as they pay no income tax, and in many cases receive extra money. Is that fair?

Slight Factual Quibble-- Most all working people pay income tax. It is a Federal flat income tax also known as social security/medicare. Even workers who receive earned income credit sufficient to offset FICA, they still pay the half of SS/Medicare covered by the employer.

The MAJORITY of FICA is paid by the poor and middles. The rich don't pay a big percentage of FICA total receipts. The gov spends that FICA as quick as they get it and would go broke without that FICA. FICA is a big chunk of federal receipts. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck-- FICA is income tax, not a retirement plan. Medicare is income tax, not retirement health insurance! All workers pay this flat tax.

[JayC]

Sorry, didn't mean to make it out like you're a socialist.

I disagree that taking any deduction (paying less in taxes) is ever freeloading... It's nothing like welfare where somebody who doesn't make their own money is given money by the government after taking it from productive members of society.

Where as in the situation you describe, both are paying more than their fair share, and neither are receiving any money they didn't earn from the government, only one is receiving a break in how much of his hard earned money he has to pay to the government to support freeloaders.

It's a huge difference... one is freeloading, the other is not.

Tax deductions don't redistribute wealth... Tax credits on the other hand are bad... if you made the example of a renter and a home buyer, and how the home buyer pays no taxes and still gets an $8k check back from the government, that is freeloading. But deductions aren't the same thing....

100% of the money earned by both people (in your example) belongs to them... where as somebody who receives welfare is getting somebody elses money.

Now, the entire tax deductions used to create social engineering business is sad... and the government shouldn't be in that business at all... but it's not freeloading to take advantage of tax deductions.

Hi JayC

I was playing devil's advocate. I am not a socialist and do not believe that all money belongs to the gov and we should be thankful if the gov allows us to keep any of it.

However, the home mortgage deduction really is another form of freeloading off the gov. I'm not calling people who take the deduction freeloaders, because they are just taking advantage of the law. (Just like welfare cases are just taking advantage of the law.)

Consider two unmarried single fellers, each making $100,000 per year. One guy is a renter but the other guy has a giant house he can just barely afford on a 30 years mortgage.

Ain't speculating on how much tax would be "reasonable" for this income bracket. Regardless whether the "reasonable" tax rate should be 1 percent or 99 percent--

Shouldn't both guy's "fair share of the public expense" be the same? However, the renter pays a bigger tax, and the homeowner pays a smaller tax. In effect, the renter is helping pay the homeowner's house payment, but the homeowner ain't helping pay the renter's lease payment. It really is a rather straightforward transfer of wealth from the renter, thru the gov, and into the homeowner's pocket.

If the homeowner is just barely able to afford that big house and couldn't own the house without the interest deduction, then the renter is MAKING IT POSSIBLE for the homeowner to buy the house. It might as well be straight out of the renter's pocket.

I'm not saying people ought not buy big houses and I don't care if some people want to pay most of their paycheck on a house payment. It is each person's biz what they do with their own money. The guy with the huge 30 year mortgage is just the most 'extreme' valid example of this gov-mediated wealth transfer.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sorry, didn't mean to make it out like you're a socialist.

I disagree that taking any deduction (paying less in taxes) is ever freeloading... It's nothing like welfare where somebody who doesn't make their own money is given money by the government after taking it from productive members of society.

Where as in the situation you describe, both are paying more than their fair share, and neither are receiving any money they didn't earn from the government, only one is receiving a break in how much of his hard earned money he has to pay to the government to support freeloaders.

It's a huge difference... one is freeloading, the other is not.

Tax deductions don't redistribute wealth... Tax credits on the other hand are bad... if you made the example of a renter and a home buyer, and how the home buyer pays no taxes and still gets an $8k check back from the government, that is freeloading. But deductions aren't the same thing....

100% of the money earned by both people (in your example) belongs to them... where as somebody who receives welfare is getting somebody elses money.

Now, the entire tax deductions used to create social engineering business is sad... and the government shouldn't be in that business at all... but it's not freeloading to take advantage of tax deductions.

Hi JayC

There is room for disagreement on the semantics.

Am not trying to be all moralistic about it. If I'm ever qualified to take a Home Mortgage Interest Deduction then I'll take it, but will also cheerfully admit I'm being an opportunistic freeloader by doing so.

When we bought our tiny house, we financed five years using retirement funds for collateral. We MAY have been able to claim a deduction, but since we OWNED the house clear from day one and the house wasn't collateral on a conventional mortgage, it seemed kinda risky. None of our details fit the quesitons that TurboTax was asking and I didn't feel like turning it into a science project. Anyway, the interest was rather low thataway and the deduction would not have been much.

We bought a second small house this year, but I suspect uncle sugar won't want to give a deduction on it either, because it isn't a primary residence.

Ain't saying people do anything wrong by legally gaming the system. Not many will turn down free money. If you make money, then it is income. If someone forgives your debt, then that is income too. A tax deduction is basically forgiven debt, even if you still have to pay bookoos of money to uncle sugar even after part of the debt has been forgiven.

Another silly analogy-- The boss calls 10 employees to a "meeting" at a restaurant. Everybody makes the same pay. Everybody eats the same group menu. When the boss divvies up the tab, he collects zero dollars from his lazy butt-kissing fishing buddy, five dollars from his other four favorites, and twenty dollars from his five least favorite employees. Everybody ought to have paid 12 bucks apiece if the boss had impartially divvied up the bill. Its not necessarily the favorite employees fault the boss likes them better! But on the other hand, it is pretty obvious some of the folks got a little bit of free lunch, and other folks got a little bit of the shaft.

[Mike.357]

I just don't see how this would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Probably for the same reason that I think Social Security and medicare and various welfare

type programs are unconstitutional. And those rapings of the constitution happened a long

time ago when few were watching or asking your question, Mike, which by the way should

always be the first question asked. "Is it constitutional?".