What do you think Romney and the Republican controlled House and Senate should work on first?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Actually, I'm against that wall. The point was that the Feds are free to build it on Federal land, notwithstanding the reality that Federal land really belongs to the states and the people.

In several ways, the wall is causing more problems than it's correcting, sigh man.

Unless we get other priorities straightened out first, we're not far off from the day that wall is going to be used for keeping people in, not out.

[bsd058 296]

mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients,

I'll probably get flak for this...

Drug testing someone because they aren't bringing in any money... How often should we infringe on the rights of the poor to their reasonable privacy?

Does a person give up their legal rights just because they are poor and are in need of assistance? What if the person who was searched didn't want their medical records released to police authorities because they were embarrassed about a certain condition they had? Should they starve until the tests come back? Shoudl they be subjected to the embarrassment of suspicion when their only "crime" was being poor? Subjecting them to drug tests would divulge their private conditions. Now we would be forcing them to share their medical records because they are in need of food and money.

I think mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients would subject them to being treated like suspects. But they aren't suspects. Adn they shouldn't have to give up their rights to receive support from the state.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want drugs on the streets.

I just think if we subject poor people to mandatory drug tests in order to get money from the state, that the state is forcing them to give up their rights because of the fact that they are poor. Without suspicion of drug abuse. This is real class discrimination.

Edited October 31, 2012 by bsd058

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I'll probably get flak for this...

Drug testing someone because they aren't bringing in any money... How often should we infringe on the rights of the poor to their reasonable privacy?

Does a person give up their legal rights just because they are poor and are in need of assistance? What if the person who was searched didn't want their medical records released to police authorities because they were embarrassed about a certain condition they had? Should they starve until the tests come back? Shoudl they be subjected to the embarrassment of suspicion when their only "crime" was being poor? Subjecting them to drug tests would divulge their private conditions. Now we would be forcing them to share their medical records because they are in need of food and money.

I think mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients would subject them to being treated like suspects. But they aren't suspects. Adn they shouldn't have to give up their rights to receive support from the state.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want drugs on the streets.

I just think if we subject poor people to mandatory drug tests in order to get money from the state, that the state is forcing them to give up their rights because of the fact that they are poor. Without suspicion of drug abuse. This is real class discrimination.

You want tax payers $$$$ then you should be subject to drug testing. If you have a prescription from a doctor then bring it with you. If you do drugs which most likely means your spending money on said drugs then don't expect to receive tax payer dollars. The government gets it's money from the people, not the other way around. That money is supposed to be for keeping the government running and protecting this nation. Why should anyone's money go to help someone's drug habit? None of us were put on this planet to support other peoples drug habit.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There's a few things that bother me and one of them is people against a country controlling it's own borders. A country they choose to live in no less.

But controlling borders from what? What is the point of putting up a fence that will not work? How is that "protecting our borders?" #######, the French learned that about the Maginot wall 70 years ago!

The "problem" is economic. US employers are exploiting illegal aliens for profit because they are less expensive to hire than legal workers and the risk if they get caught it so minor. We need to punish employers so they stop exploiting illegals. Then take the walls down because we don't want to interfere with them running home when they are released from slavery!

[james&olya 1,121]

You want tax payers $$$$ then you should be subject to drug testing. If you have a prescription from a doctor then bring it with you. If you do drugs which most likely means your spending money on said drugs then don't expect to receive tax payer dollars. The government gets it's money from the people, not the other way around. That money is supposed to be for keeping the government running and protecting this nation. Why should anyone's money go to help someone's drug habit? None of us were put on this planet to support other peoples drug habit.

Better yet, let's have mandatory drug testing for all elected officials and candidates for office!

Florida did have drug testing at one point. They were catching very few people with drugs in their system. I heard it was less than 2%. The stereotype of people getting government benefits and using them to get high seems not to be true most of the time.

Sorry for bringing actual facts to P&R!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I'll probably get flak for this...

Drug testing someone because they aren't bringing in any money... How often should we infringe on the rights of the poor to their reasonable privacy?

Does a person give up their legal rights just because they are poor and are in need of assistance? What if the person who was searched didn't want their medical records released to police authorities because they were embarrassed about a certain condition they had? Should they starve until the tests come back? Shoudl they be subjected to the embarrassment of suspicion when their only "crime" was being poor? Subjecting them to drug tests would divulge their private conditions. Now we would be forcing them to share their medical records because they are in need of food and money.

I think mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients would subject them to being treated like suspects. But they aren't suspects. Adn they shouldn't have to give up their rights to receive support from the state.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want drugs on the streets.

I just think if we subject poor people to mandatory drug tests in order to get money from the state, that the state is forcing them to give up their rights because of the fact that they are poor. Without suspicion of drug abuse. This is real class discrimination.

I am subject to random drug tests to get the money I work 50+ hours a week. Somehow you think it is unfair to subject the people who don't work for my money to have to do the same thing .. HMMM

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

But controlling borders from what? What is the point of putting up a fence that will not work? How is that "protecting our borders?" #######, the French learned that about the Maginot wall 70 years ago!

The "problem" is economic. US employers are exploiting illegal aliens for profit because they are less expensive to hire than legal workers and the risk if they get caught it so minor. We need to punish employers so they stop exploiting illegals. Then take the walls down because we don't want to interfere with them running home when they are released from slavery!

Amen. I started using E-verify several years ago. Did you know this. It is illegal to use E-verify to check an Employee already working for you.

How about this.

First offense - 3000 per person

Second----20,000 dollars and misdemeanor charge

third -100,000 per offense and felony charge

Guess what. No more illegals. No fence, No border patrol no nothing

[Karee 4,191]

Amen. I started using E-verify several years ago. Did you know this. It is illegal to use E-verify to check an Employee already working for you.

How about this.

First offense - 3000 per person

Second----20,000 dollars and misdemeanor charge

third -100,000 per offense and felony charge

Guess what. No more illegals. No fence, No border patrol no nothing

#######? What's the reasoning behind that?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

#######? What's the reasoning behind that?

Do you mean why can't an employer use E-verify with already existing employees? No idea why they have that messed up rule. That one needs to be changed for sure.

[Karee 4,191]

Do you mean why can't an employer use E-verify with already existing employees? No idea why they have that messed up rule. That one needs to be changed for sure.

Yeah I don't get it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yeah I don't get it.

Because they don't want companies going on a witch hunt. I guess they figure you are already grandfathered in .

Yeah I don't get it.

Yes but its the law. I have access to the database.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll probably get flak for this...

Drug testing someone because they aren't bringing in any money... How often should we infringe on the rights of the poor to their reasonable privacy?

That's just one of the concerns. The other is that contrary to right wing nut belief, people on public assistance are actually less likely to use drugs than the general population. They've done this mandatory drug testing here in FL and it costs a lot more to do the tests than what is saved in denied benefits. The usage rates are far below averages of the state population. It's just more smoke and mirrors on the right. More big government that they continue to advocate while claiming to be against big government.

[Ban Hammer 13,567]

I am subject to random drug tests to get the money I work 50+ hours a week. Somehow you think it is unfair to subject the people who don't work for my money to have to do the same thing .. HMMM

i too am subject to random drug tests to earn it - why shouldn't someone who gets my redistributed paycheck have to take one to receive it?

[james&olya 1,121]

i too am subject to random drug tests to earn it - why shouldn't someone who gets my redistributed paycheck have to take one to receive it?

If it costs more to administer a drug testing program than it will save in benefits denied why do you want to do it? Is your outlook on life really that punitive?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

If it costs more to administer a drug testing program than it will save in benefits denied why do you want to do it? Is your outlook on life really that punitive?

Better yet lets just cut off welfare all together. Think of the money saved. They didn't have welfare programs 60 years ago so why should they have them now?