By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party
In the state of Florida, those who wish to receive welfare benefits must now submit to voluntary drug testing. Those who test positive for illegal substances must submit to rehab or lose their benefits for a year.
This legislation is now being pushed in Oklahoma, and I wonder if it would be a good move for California as well.
Asking people who receive their living from the government to take drug tests is already carried out and legally established. Federal employees are often tested, as well as private sector workers. As an Army Reservist I get routinely tested as well. If I ever decide I don’t want to submit to the testing, I can make sure not to re-enlist. I’ve never felt that this was a violation of my constitutional rights.
If we can constitutionally test federal employees, we can constitutionally test those who receive money for doing nothing.
What about the cost though? Drug tests do cost money. I would be curious to find out how much it would cost to carry this out. I would particularly like to see the cost difference from having government employees vs. a private company do this as well. Ultimately though, I think it will pencil out. Consider that California, with only 12% of the the US population, carries over 30% of the national welfare burden. We’re subsidizing other states by supporting people who migrated here for better benefits.
I have a huge hunch that if we carried out drug testing of welfare recipients, we would see a sizeable cost savings from those who test positive or who refuse to be tested. Given the recent scandals of welfare ATM cards being used at casinos and strip clubs, I’m sure the numbers are there.
Ultimately though, this is something that should be done for the betterment of our communities and a better world for the children. If mandatory drug testing could save just one kid from the horrors of living with drug-abusing parents, it would be worth the extra efforts to carry this out.
I’m looking forward to hearing thoughts from our Post Scripts readers on this subject.
YES…a thousand times over YES!!!!
I am so confused.
I thought you didn’t want to spend any money on these people. Us progressives are all for running the druggies through rehab as many times as it takes but, up to now, the taxpayers (‘specially the Republican ones) have flatly refused to finance any such undertaking.
Yes Libby you are confused!
This is an excellent idea. Requiring drug testing to determine eligibility for welfare would probably save the state a pile of money as so many users would find themselves on the streets, out of luck, with their lives firmly placed in their own hands (sink or swim, baby, sink or swim)! They would quickly feel the need to come to choice.
Meanwhile welfare dollars saved could be better spent on the truly needy.
I would be interested to know whether it would be fiscally feasable to spend welfare revenues on boot camp/vocational training for the able bodied who sign up for welfare. Instead of handing them a ticket to permanent dependency it seems to me our dollars might be better spent making these folk into productive, contributing citizens. Nothing like discipline and a work training program to prepare people for adulthood. (We used to do this at home) Drug testing would be required here too!
It is always smart to incentivize toward responsible, adult behavior.
Libby I did say I’d like to see the costs involved, and that the number of drug users who simply refuse or move away would help offset the costs.
I don’t think it’s compassionate to take people without hope and stick them on government subsistence with no chance of getting ahead. That’s why I’m asking if we should do this or not.
Drug rehab already exists, as does welfare. I’m sure the two could be combined, especially if bureacrats were kept out of the mix, at an affordable level.
If we could just get a Governor and Legislature that wasn’t anti-job we could regrow our economy and have more revenue to pay for these kinds of changes.
We are already spending the money doesn’t it make sense to spend it training people and requiring that they become productive rather than throwing it, and them, down a the dependency rat hole?
There are so many ideas that would cut our welfare rolls, induce productivity and self respect, and hopefully encourage marriage (rather than single mothers having babies by different sperm donors).
Preconceived ideas of the conservative mind always lead to confusion…lol.
Good post, by the way!
Drug testing for welfare recipients? That may not be a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all.
But how about drug testing for politicians? I think that might have even a more significant effect.
I agree, we should test people applying for welfare. The only problem is, the innocent children would suffer from loss of benefits. However, this could be off-set in the long run if you conservatives would support birth control instead of closing down womens health centers. No, I’m not neccesarily talking about abortion, (although first trimester abortions make sense to me)I’m talking about giving women better access to birth control as well as….taking a big breath here…..passing out free condoms in high schools. Get some of these dead beat parents to quit having babies and yes, test them. Please don’t come back with “just say no”. Doesn’t work for drugs and it doesn’t work for sex.
Evidently Joe actually believes that (take a big breath) passing out free condoms in high schools and government programs supporting birth control makes a a damn bit of difference to welfare numbers.
Joe, I’d bet you that more often than not access to birth control isn’t the main cause of unwanted pregnancies but failure to properly and responsibly use birth control that’s the problem. Giving out more free birth control won’t help a female that forgets to take the pills. If she’s not adult enough to avoid pregnancy free stuff won’t do the trick.
I wish I could help you on the “just say no” thing but I firmly believe that a society that holds firmly to higher morals and ideals, realizing that they will never be met perfectly, is a lot more likely to produce fewer “problem” children than one that encourages, condones, excuses and pays for all the vices that add to disfunctional behavior.
I’m not naive enough to think that you can tell a druggie “just say no” and the job is done. That was never what what was meant in the first place. The slogan reflects an ideal.
I do think that the majority of citizens will come to the place where they say, “No more!” and refuse to subsidize bad behavior and in so doing will begin to establish for younger generations a better way to live.
How did we get to this place? We got here by dropping all social stop signs. Kids today have no adult support to grow up, to make wise choices, to think anything is expected of them. I see so many young people who are completely lost and looking for guidance and yes…AUTHORITY. They talk a hip game but down deep most of them wish that someone would make them do what is right and teach them how to become responsible healthy productive men and women.
When I read the piece in the London paper that referred to the young street thugs as “feral” it really struck a chord with me. We have relieved ourselves of all responsihbility in raising the next generations. Too many adults now choose to remain children themselves, becoming friends with their kids and the students they are charged with raising up to be adults. We leave them to their own devices and teach them by our own behaviors and by what we allow that anything goes, that having fun is what’s important, that being involved in the self is important…that sex and being thought of as sexy is thge most important thing on the list of things to do…my God no wonder kids feel like they’ve been dumped and like they have no futures worth living…no wonder they look to others to take care of their needs.
Sorry…rambling now. Thanks for your thoughts, Joe. Your heart certainly seems to be in the right place, but somebody has got to say enough! I guess I’m one of the ones willing to do it.
Joe,
I’ve thought about the possiblity that kids whose parents are drug users would lose benefits. But think about it further. If those parents get help we’ll be saving those kids. If they refuse they’ll have less options to cover their trail and likely those kids will get rescued. Still, it’s a tough call of whether to look the other way and let them suffer in drug homes or crack down and risk them starving. The answer is to get our country off of drugs once and for all.
As for birth control, what good is it when young women now actually plan to get pregnant so they can get on welfare?
BTW, nice to see you commenting again. I read your final post and understand the dilemma. People in business are under fire from every direction and politics is just one more area you can tick people off. I like to think that we should chose who to do business with based on the quality/value of their product/service.
At my work recently I had a man tell me about Florida making this mandatory and I was amazed. Why don’t more states adopt this? There are so many people in the state of California that are heavy drug users that are on welfare. Addicts will do anything to get their fix and money from the government is the easiest way. In the long run it will help the state save money! Also, California needs to do a better job enforcing the rules of welfare and unemployment. Recently I had a roommate who was receiving unemployment from the government. He was not looking for a job and was even offered one at Safeway. He turned down the job because he was receiving more from the government. I know that in the state of New York, they are much more strict and they make sure that those on unemployment are constantly looking for a job, California needs to buckle down and take this sort of thing more seriously. I have to take a quotation from the movie, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, California has made more mistakes than Yogi Bera reciting Shakespeare.
“let them die, and decrease the surplus population.”
sorry, couldn’t help quoting my favorite line from my favorite book.
And then there’s this:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
I don’t believe in using a help program as a club, sorry. I’ve known so many people stuck on welfare – yeah, stuck. No money, no resources, your kids are hungry, you can’t get any job – what would you say to people like that if they refused to get help because it’s demeaning and demoralizing? You’d take their kids away, wouldn’t you?
When my mom was out of a job and applied for unemployment, they sent the welfare workers around. They showed up at 7 in the morning. We were just getting out of bed, and my mom was still in bed, very depressed. We were puttering around getting ready for school when a strange man and two women appeared at the door. They barged in and started poking through the kitchen as my mom stumbled out putting on her bathrobe. We were horrified that this man would see our mother in her nightgown. They started badgering my mom about what food was in the house, and the bottle of brandy on the top cabinet over the stove. God forbid! My mom informed them that she had not applied for welfare benefits, and they acted as though she had committed a crime – “how will you feed these little girls!?! Why aren’t you dressed?”
My mom invited them to leave, then stood shaking, chain-smoked a few cigarettes, and then called my gramma and bawled for half an hour. Then she told us we didn’t have to go to school, we were going to gramma’s. Later she told us, she was afraid the welfare people were going to take us away because she didn’t have any job. My mother was terrified. You had to have known my mother to know the significance of that – nothing scared my mother, not hellfire or damnation, but she was afraid the welfare people would take her children away.
It’s so easy to judge, isn’t it? Everybody on welfare is a leach, eh? Well cut the program then, let them die. But quit demeaning people and treating them like trash because they extend a hand for help.
You are literally throwing the babies out with the bathwater, and plenty of decent adults as well.
Pie, seriously? Are you freeking joking?
Jonathan Swift, the Ann Coulter of his day?
Juanita what those bureaucratic jerks did to your mom should be illegal. What business did thay have pushing into your home…and who sent them? If she was on unemployment and looking for work they had no business doing that. Did you have a busybody neighbor?
Obviously there are times when people legitimastely need help. Family and church are the best places but when that isn’t possible the government help they receive should include incentives and assistance to improive their ability to find a job.
A business friendly environment would create a stronger economy with plenty of jobs…that’s one thing government could do to help…GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Pie I like the drug testing for politicians idea…the government requires me to have a drug free workplace…I’d like to know that those making the laws that restrict my business are at least clear of mind when they do so…lol!
Maybe Joe nees a repeat:
Evidently Joe actually believes that (take a big breath) passing out free condoms in high schools and government programs supporting birth control makes a a damn bit of difference to welfare numbers.
No, I am not kidding. Those programs have had little to no effect on welfare numbers. Do you have any good evidence to the contrary Joe? If yes, I would like to take a look at it.
Boy, so many thought on this.
I absolutely agree those receiving any govt aid should be tested for drug use, if those that are funding it are required to be tested. Only fair and equitable. Right?
For a long time I have said we should not be paying for drug users drug habits and with tighter regulations it can only help get them off of the drugs. If they do test positive a required six week program, similar to a fire science academy that my son just completed, should be required to continue their benefits. (It was based on a military boot camp and he said was the hardest thing he has ever done in his life.) And they would be required to go through this program every time they test positive. Plus, wed have trained volunteer fire fighters available if needed.
If there are children involved under the age of 18 they should become wards of the state and a conservator assigned to guarantee they are properly cared for. The conservator will make sure the funds are going toward the childs housing, food, clothing, education, etc. The children can stay in the home as long as they are cared for, if not they are removed. There are state and private conservators available now. (I dealt with conservators for several of my students.)
There are also very good church-based rehab programs that provide housing, guidance, work and job training and educational requirements that have a very high success rate. Ive seen the success of these programs too. (One of my students went through the House of Grace program in San Jose and her husband went through a similar one for men. After graduation she got a very good paying job, he became a counselor in the program, they got their children back, bought a home and had the most wonderful house warming and celebration of life party I have ever been to.)
The only drawback I see to this is if getting the money they need to support their drug habit from us becomes harder they will turn to robbing and burglary and our crime rate will rise and our jails will become fuller. That is why I am saying the boot camp/fire fighter-type training would be mandatory for all offenders.
This actually sounds like a good idea to me, at least at first glance. Like others, I wonder if such a thing would be a help or a hindrance for the children, and if it would be more cost effective. But I am open to seeing how this works in Florida.
Pie Guevara: “Evidently Joe actually believes that (take a big breath) passing out free condoms in high schools and government programs supporting birth control makes a a damn bit of difference to welfare numbers.”
Perhaps that’s because Joe has looked at the stats that show areas with easier access to birth control have lower rates of teen pregnancy, which correlates with less people on welfare. As a bonus, it also correlates with fewer abortions.
Tina: “Jonathan Swift, the Ann Coulter of his day?”
LOL, no, Tina. You see, when Jonathan Swift suggested letting the poor starve, he didn’t actually mean it. Ann Coulter does. Swift would be more comparable to Steven Colbert.
Juanita, that was a very powerful story, thank you for sharing. I can see where your compassion comes from.
Conner: “Also, California needs to do a better job enforcing the rules of welfare and unemployment. Recently I had a roommate who was receiving unemployment from the government. He was not looking for a job and was even offered one at Safeway. He turned down the job because he was receiving more from the government.”
Does Safeway really pay that little? It’s hard to blame your roommate for doing what would make him the most money. If he’s honestly making more on unemployment, than perhaps the executives of Safeway should consider paying their workers a decent wage.
Pie, maybe we are having a little miscommunication here….You say, “Those programs have had little to no effect on welfare numbers.” That may be true but I wasn’t talking about the effect they have had, I’m talking about how effective they could be if we got behind them 100%. Do you deny that republicans are against funding womens health clinics? They have systematically been shuting down in states that lean conservative. As for free condoms getting handed out in high schools (by request), there have only been a couple of schools that have tried this program. I’m saying that if republicans could restrain from imposing their Christian moralities on everybody else, and encourage healthy methods of birth control(something more than just teaching abstinence), perhaps these programs would have a chance to make a difference. Over-population is the next global crisis on the horizen.
Re: Joe Shaw’s: Pie, maybe we are having a little miscommunication here…
Nope.
I asked a simple question, you have responded with your usual load of slanted, politically motivated, partisan gobbledygook misinformation.
No miscommunication there. I get you exactly. Ineffective, publicly funded programs are OK as long as they make Joe Shaw feel good.
No, I wasn’t freaking joking.
Misinformation? Really? Well, let me try another angle….as a liberal, I support programs that save more money in the long run than they cost. Funding womens health clinics is one such program. If you can’t understand how those numbers might work out in the bigger picture then you need to practice up on your basic arithmatic. One last comment for you pie….why are you always so quick to get nasty with me? Does it really upset you that much when somebody disagrees with you? And I’m curious about something else….are you a man or a woman? I understand that you are too frightened to use your real name, but maybe you would be willing to at least share you gender?
Chris: “You see, when Jonathan Swift suggested letting the poor starve, he didn’t actually mean it. Ann Coulter does. Swift would be more comparable to Steven Colbert.”
Only a progressive would make the stupid assumption!
“If he’s honestly making more on unemployment, than perhaps the executives of Safeway should consider paying their workers a decent wage.”
OMG
Joe: ” Do you deny that republicans are against funding womens health clinics?”
Some Christians, Republicans and others are against using tax money to fund birth control and especially abortions. So?
The problem is that government is not the answer to this problem and when we make them the answer we have division and conflict.
There are plenty of wealthy progressives that could privately grant money to whatever programs or clinics they think are wise and good to keep them running. It’s not a matter of whether or not women should get services but who should pay.
By the way, what ever happened to “I am woman hear me roar?”…I thought by now women wouldn’t need, or accept, help of this kind. Independence was the game wasn’t it?
This is really about control. If government is in charge we are forced to pay for whatever government decides. I think citizens should be able to decline support for such things. I’ll bet there are certain programs or practices the left would rather not support with tax dollars…religious training is one.
Private clinics would serve everyone well.
Tina, my statement about Coulter was neither stupid nor an assumption. It is a valid conclusion based on her entire writing and speaking career.
And what’s the “OMG” for? Do you honestly think someone making more on unemployment than he would make if he were to take a job should follow the path of least income just out of principle? People gotta eat, Tina. Unemployment does not pay much, and if Safeway is paying even less, there is clearly a problem there.
Joe, try not to get too worked up over Pie’s petty insults. He’s not worth it.
“Do you deny that republicans are against funding womens health clinics?” Question, would that be Health… or Death clinics you refer too?
Re Joe Shaw’s: “as a liberal, I support programs that save more money in the long run than they cost.”
Uh, no you don’t. You support ineffective programs that feel good to feel good liberals like Joe Shaw. I asked for some evidence. I am willing to be convinced.
I am being nasty? To challenge you is being nasty? Well excuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Sheesh. I posed a simple question and you try to make it about my character. Typical lib.
OK, I’ll try one last time —
Evidently Joe actually believes that (take a big breath) passing out free condoms in high schools and government programs supporting birth control makes a damn bit of difference to welfare numbers.
No, I am not kidding. Those programs have had little to no effect on welfare numbers. Do you have any good evidence to the contrary Joe? If yes, I would like to take a look at it.
Re Bloodlust Chris’: “Joe, try not to get too worked up over Pie’s petty insults.”
This from the guy who went ballistic on me for using his own silly tactics against him. Bloodlust Chris characterizes me as a bigot and a liar and I don’t get worked up over it. Not at all.
Hey Joe, by all means take Bloodlust Chris’ advice.
The worst I did was (hold your breath) posit a question and call you a typical lib.
Dang, I must be one heck of as petty insulter. Forgive me, Joe.
And Joe I don’t mind one bit that you have dodged the question and have tried to play the usual tedious left wing rhetorical game. Not a bit. It speaks volumes. You speak volumes. Bloodlust Chris speaks volumes.
Granted, all unintentional and oblivious volumes, but volumes nonetheless.
Pie Guevara: “Sheesh. I posed a simple question and you try to make it about my character. Typical lib.”
You are irony deficient, Pie. You are the one who brought up Joe’s character when you wrote:
“I asked a simple question, you have responded with your usual load of slanted, politically motivated, partisan gobbledygook misinformation.
No miscommunication there. I get you exactly. Ineffective, publicly funded programs are OK as long as they make Joe Shaw feel good.”
You constantly do this to me, too, and it’s really obnoxious. There is a difference between challenging someone and being a total dick.
FYI – Juanita’s quote: “Let them die and decrease the surplus population.” was by Ebenezer Scrooge, not Johnathan Swift.
Chris, as I read Pie’s various responces I can clearly see that he/she loves the tit for tat game. It does get boring very quickly. One last point to Pie….I don’t need to spend time googleing government studies to know that preventing unwanted pregnancies saves the taxpayer money. And to PS….Death clinics? Ok, that’s fair. But like I said before, I believe all abortions should be carried out in the first trimester. I know we all see this issue differently and I don’t think we really want to get into the abortion thing.
Chris: “Do you honestly think someone making more on unemployment than he would make if he were to take a job should follow the path of least income just out of principle?”
No…I think he should make a wise decision and take a job with some potential for advancement…unemployment benefits won’t (usually) last forever and don’t offer any possibility for advancement. Also the example given was a person who was not looking for work…I think looking for work is a requirement when you accept unemployment. Unemployment is insurance; when it is abused the cost for everyone else goes UP.
“Unemployment does not pay much, and if Safeway is paying even less, there is clearly a problem there.”
Common, Chris…remember minimum wage? Safeway is paying sufficiently for an entry level job…it may have been they couldn’t guarantee enough hours at first. But taking the job still would have been the better choice, followed by being an employee Safeway quickly sees as valuable.
The guy was getting paid not to work and he took the easy path.
Sue thanks for identifying the character, Scrooge, who spoke those horribly memorable words.
The URL under the quote, http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html …leads to a spoof of similar flavor by Jonathan Swift
Wow, Joe and Bloodlust Chris are playing Tag Team! Should I break out my tights and big time wrestling shoes?
Please note:
Not in one of Bloodlust Chris’ or Joe Shaw’s silly posts above has either addressed the question I posed.
Just to drive the point home, in case anyone might have missed it —
I asked a simple question. Joe Shaw and Bloodlust Chris have responded with their usual load of slanted, politically motivated, partisan gobbledygook and misinformation.
Add to that the pathetic personal attack attempts to assassinate my character.
So it goes.
Here is the question, once again —
Evidently Joe actually believes that (take a big breath) passing out free condoms in high schools and government programs supporting birth control makes a a damn bit of difference to welfare numbers.
No, I am not kidding. Those programs have had little to no effect on welfare numbers. Do you have any good evidence to the contrary Joe? If yes, I would like to take a look at it.
Do libs hate questions or what??? Just like Dick Durbin, a simple question tweaks them to no end. The sheer effrontery! Hot dang, am I a baaaaad wittle boy or what? I questioned a lib!
Pie, here is an article on a recent study from the Institute of Medicine. Although it does not give exact numbers, it makes a point….I think
A New Report Recommends Free Birth Control for All Women Under Health Care Law
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:23pm by Madeleine Morgenstern. Insurance companies should provide free birth control, sexually transmitted infection counseling and HIV screening to all women under the new health care law, a new report from the independent Institute of Medicine said Tuesday.
Under the institutes recommendations, all Food and Drug Administration-approved birth control methods including the morning after pill and sterilization procedures would be completely covered for women of reproductive ability as preventive health services, with no co-payments or deductibles.
Women would also receive insurance-covered breastfeeding consulting and equipment, gestational diabetes screening, human papillomavirus testing and domestic violence counseling, all at no cost.
In making its recommendations, the report cited the number of unintended pregnancies in the U.S., the risk such pregnancies pose to the mother and baby, and the direct medical costs involved:
Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Unintended pregnancy also increases the risk of babies being born preterm or at a low birth weight, both of which raise their chances of health and developmental problems.
The Department of Health and Human Services commissioned the panel to help it determine coverage regulations, but is not required to adopt any of its recommendations. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is reviewing the report and will make a final decision soon, according to a statement.
Sebelius called the report historic and based on science and existing literature.
“Those programs have had little to no effect on welfare numbers.”
Prove it. Let’s see a study? Some stats? You haven’t got any; you won’t be able to find any … because, while out of wedlock births are way up (you superfluous being, you), the welfare mother numbers are way down.
Joe: “…all at no cost”
Oh somebody will pay for the services. Doctors will receive less for the services if Medicade or Medicare are the insurers so they will be forced to bill private payers more. Private insurance premiums will go up. Since services will be free women will avail themselves of those services more often creating greater demand, and costs will continue to rise.
Women are not liberated or independent they have just transferred their dependency from husbands and fathers to government and with it all sense of responsibility and consequence disappears.
“Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy.”
ALL of this is a result of creating social conditions that absolve women (and men) of the costs and consequence of their choices and behaviors.
This is a lesson in how to create an infantile society. In sixty years we have managed to almost completely destroy the nobility, character and dignity of our children. How long till there are not enough people willing to work in order to pay for this enormous and growing social state? How many services will be deemed necessary to be free before all is said and done and how many treatments or segments of society will be deemed not worthy to treat in order to pay for the free services? How long till the men and women who work to pay for this give up join those on the dole…turning to alcohol and drugs to numb the sense of hopelessness?
“Sebelius called the report ‘historic’ and ‘based on science and existing literature.’
Yes…they said this woukld be the justification for all policy and procedures in this adminisrations HHS (and EPA) decisions. Its so incredibly antiseptic sounding isn’t it? So very smart…who could question it?
Well, at least Joe made an attempt. His response has, of course, addresses absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of handing out condoms to high school students and government programs supporting birth control making a bit difference to welfare numbers.
Regarding the notion that “Insurance companies should provide free birth control, sexually transmitted infection counseling and HIV screening to all women under the new health care law …”
Should insurance companies also provide free colon and prostate exams to prevent cancer in men, free heart and artery examinations to prevent stokes and heart disease in men, free dental exams to prevent tooth and jaw infection in men?
Should they, Joe?
Libby here you go:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/19/out-of-wedlock-birthrate-out-of-control/
http://blogs.blackvoices.com/2010/09/27/out-of-wedlock-births-it-s-not-simply-about-marriage-and-baby-mam/
Not all of these women are on welfare but quite a few are. Black women face the terrible stat that there are few available black men suitable for marriage. Too many born in poverty, in single parent homes end up uneducated, drug addicted, or in prison.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/09/07/Single-mothers-a-growing-US-concern/UPI-13291220810191/
Latest birth stats are here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/fertility/data/cps/2010.html
Pie: “This from the guy who went ballistic on me for using his own silly tactics against him.”
What tactics would those be? I certainly didn’t give you a nonsensical nickname. I haven’t claimed you’ve said the exact opposite of things you’ve actually said, as you have done to me. I haven’t called you a “typical conservative.” I haven’t claimed to know exactly what goes on in your mind.
Your tactics are your own.
As for why I didn’t cite any evidence earlier, I figured “easier access to birth control = less out of wedlock pregnancies = less people on welfare” was a pretty common sense equation. Also, didn’t you tell me once to look up claims you made for myself? It must be easy to find which states are most progressive when it comes to access to birth control, and even easier to find which states have the most out of wedlock births and highest numbers of people on welfare.
YES YES YES!!!!!
IF I HAVE TO DRUG TEST TO GET A FREAKIN JOB {NOT SIT ON MY A$$ AND COLLECT MONEY} THEN THE ONES SITTING ON THEIR A$$ SHOULD DRUG TEST TO COLLECT MONEY! FAIR IS FAIR!!!!!
Ya know, I must have really touched a nerve with Bloodlust Chris by using his own silly tactics on him. He still hasn’t got over it. Poor ol’ Bloodlust may never get over it.
Nevertheless Bloodlust still skirts the issue. I do somewhat admire his tenacity in that department. Like Joe and Libby, he wants to make this about me.
As best as I can determine, passing out condoms in high schools and government programs supporting women’s health issues have had little to no effect on welfare numbers or the birth rate for single out of wedlock mothers.
Bloodlust and his “liberal” sidekicks, the always effervescent Libby and Joe Shaw, now seem to think that I should prove a negative.
This is lib think, pure and simpleton.
Nope folks, that is not how it works. At least not logically or reasonably. If publicly funded programs are worthy they must prove themselves worthy, not the other way around.
Let me rephrase that, if publicly funded programs are worthy they SHOULD prove themselves worthy, not the other way around. But that is not how it government works. Government (at least in this state) is all about creating bureaucratic dynasties, ridiculously inflated salaries, and golden pension plans filled with well meaning people passing out condoms to teenagers.
No Joe, it has nothing to do with Republicans forcing their “morality” on others, you twit. It has everything to do with ineffective, bone-head, feel good liberal programs that, for instance, hand out clean needles to addicts which ends up only increasing the number of dirty needles being used on the street.
In any case, here we have yet another example of feel good libs feeling good about public money wasted on programs that show no evidence of having a significant impact on welfare numbers or bastards.
they need to close them legs