No Drug Tests For Food Stamp Recipients, Feds Tell Georgia

Here are the general powers:

I would believe you, but we have our for-profit wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror to consider.

You have to prove solving simple poverty doesn't provide for the general welfare. You may have an easier time proving our wars on those abstractions don't provide for the general welfare.

 

It can't be stolen money since the power to tax is clearly enumerated. It would be helpful if those of your point of view were more consistent.

 

They are paid for by taxes on businesses, business owned by the taxpayers and have been supplemented by federal tax dollars. And we are talking welfare money which is paid to people while they are supposed to be looking for gainful employment, the goal of welfare is to sustain them until the can find that gainful employment. If you think people haven't been giving up looking you are in a fantasy world.

So try again

If you are claiming the "illegal search", the Constitution has a prohibition against "unreasonable" search, there is nothing unreasonable about requiring someone who is collecting taxpayer money to live off of while they are supposed to be seeking gainful employment insuring the taxpayer they are prepared to accept gainful employment and can pass the necessary drug test to be gainfully employed. What exactly is unreasonable about that?

 

That's incorrect.

 

Right. So I take my $20 cash in that was intended for milk and meat before my food stamps arrived this morning, and now I use food stamps for the food and walk directly to aisle 2 and buy liquor with what was my food money.

Don't be naive about what's going on.

 

That's the point of food stamps. To make consumers out of people who wouldn't normally be consumers. It's why it benefits our economy and costs less than the amount we gain.

 

Broken window fallacy.

 

Unemployment and Welfare are different things and you seem to mix and match them at will, so big problem n your part. They are not funded the same and should not have the same guidelines. I have no problem testing anyone suspected of illegal drug, but only with probable cause, to test everyone is a huge waste of tax dollars and the gains have been minimal at best. I know that Cons believed, and some still do, that they were going to catch a large number of people using drugs while on Unemployment and Welfare and would be able to reduce the number of people getting benefits by a large margin, the reality is ithat where it has been tried it did nothing of the sort and now the Cons are doing a dance trying to explain their failure, nice try, but repeating the same action and expecting different results is the definition of insanity and we as taxpayers should say enough of the experiment it did not work as expected. As for people being test for employment leave that the companies hiring them, why test them when they will be tested again are hiring, double testing is ludicrous and not needed. Period.

 

Why do you believe that? Usually, the right insists on morals from the Iron Age that are nowhere enumerated in our supreme law of the land.

 

And there in lies the problem with your arguement, you believe that what you described is the norm and not the exception, psssst, you are wrong and unless you can prove otherwise you will remain wrong.

 

Really? Who is it that wants to pass laws on how we as free citizens act and behave in our own homes, who is that wants to pass laws and ammendments to the Constitution that descriminates against some within our society, who is that wants pot kept illegal even though there are several other legal drugs on the market that do far more harm, who is that wants to force women that gets pregnant to carry it within her whomb until birth with no exceptions, who is that wants businesses to be able to descriminate against anyone they deem undesirable in their own opinion. The list goes on and on and yet the Cons continue to claim they are for Less Government, do you really believe anyone but the sheeple already lapping up the koolaide are going to buy that?

 

They are both forms of government subsistence, both paid presumably while the person is seeking gainful employment to get off the dole. This has been even clearer the last few years with the 99 weeks of unemployment being paid.

Both should come under a drug testing program.

So what.

We can do it randomly and this is not a probable cause issue, this is a qualifying issue and it can save huge amounts of tax payer dollars.

Why do you keep spouting that fallacious argument. The goal is NOT to CATCH anyone. If they all pass the test and therefore are ready and able to accept a job and pass the drug test then it is being successful. If it means that no one on the dole is using taxpayer money to support their drug use, it is being successful.

It is perfectly reasonable to insure the persons collecting taxpayer money for the purpose of subsistence while they should be seeking employment are drug free so that they are immediately able to accept a job offer and pass the required drug test. What is unreasonable about that?

 

It should be unlawful to deny benefits in any at-will employment State simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.

 

It's not worth it. Finding a use for a guy hooked on drugs with no meaningful skills is hard enough. But with Obamacare and minimum wage going up, it's cheaper to provide the food stamps.



​

 

It isn't the fault of the left the right doesn't have a clue or a Cause regarding employment at will.

 

You really don't seem to know what that term means.



​

 

How would you know if you only have diversions instead of a sound line of reasoning and a rational argument to support your contention?

 

Ahh.of course,it's the republicans fault

 

What contention?


​

 

The power to tax is clearly enumerated...FOR THE CLEARLY ENUMERATED POWER ONLY.

You already had your lesson on the Constitution this life, you may resume licking the peanuts out of Obama's (*)(*)(*)(*). You've no need to return to the Mayor for additional permissions.

 

Really? The purpose of food stamps is to allow the useless the money to buy useless things, which they couldn't buy if they were forced into the awful burden of paying for their own food?

THAT'S what the Rodents beleive is the purpose of food stamps?

And the Americans thought they were being robbed at gunpoint to pay for food for the starving. It's soooo much BETTER to know that the Americans are being robbed so the useless don't have to forgo buying that booze to pay for their own food.

And let's discuss the economic benefit.

How much economic growth happens when a taxpayer is robbed of $100 to fund some useless welfare turd's drunken spree? The government steals $50 of that c-note, producing absolutely nothing.

The Obama voter gets the other half of that bill (that's $50, since you were probably wondering), and buys booze with it. What has the Obama voter created that doesn't get flushed down the toilet?

Compared to the victim, who was robbed of $100 he could have invested, saved for his child's education, or bought something nice for his (female) wife.

So, there's no positive economic processes happening because an Obama voter gets to spend money stolen from someone else.

 

There are no "general powers".

So much for your "argument". You seriously need to learn that your religion isn't reality.

 

Did you think we shell out billions of dollars a year for humanitarian purposes? To feel good about ourselves? No we do it because it creates jobs, lowers crimes, reduces blight and helps businesses retain customers in low income areas.

And let's discuss the economic benefit.

The economic benefit comes in because money tends to flow upward. Not trickle downward as Reaganomics suggests. A stable economy is one that ensures there are plenty of low end consumers, people shopping at wal-mart and the dollar store. That money gets sent to the businesses which get sent out to the middle class earners who buy from more expensive businesses. Those businesses pay out to upper class employees who buy from even richer businesses. And so on and so forth.

Without a constant influx of money into the poorest areas of the economy the cycle starts to shut down. The poor can't afford wal-mart anymore. The best they can do is survive off bread, rice and water. So wal-mart gets less money and pays it's employees less and hires less people. So those people don't buy as much from the places they shop and those places don't pay as much and don't hire as much. And so on and so forth.

The economy isn't about how much money is in it.

So a hundred dollars in the hands of a person making a million a year isn't the same as a hundred dollars in the hands of a person making 10k a year. Because in the hands of the person making 10k a year that hundred dollars will touch more hands as it goes up the economic chain. It will hit more businesses and hire more people and create more demand.

We don't have food stamps because we're a country of nice guys with big hearts who just want to feed the poor. We have food stamps to keep the consumer cycle flowing.

So you ask if I should be upset if someone on food stamps used money they would have spent on food on beer? Absolutely not. In fact I encourage it.

 

The one you claimed to have when writing what you did.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.

The power to tax is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

There is no general power to tax just to tax.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, there are; it is only those of your point of view who don't seem to understand our supreme law of the land.

The power to tax is qualified by the general powers to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

You people argue that irresponsible gun ownership is the normal and not the ususual (Rodent) exception, and make a determined effort to strip everyone of their Constitutional rights as a consequence.

The difference between how you people rape the Constitution and the Americans on the gun issue and how the Americans treat the parasites and leaches on welfare is that NOT ONE PERSON has a "right" to welfare.