What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pro Life - Anti Welfare (1 Viewer)

I'm glad we get this debate yet again around here.

IMO, killing babies has nothing to do with welfare. With that said, I'm out,  as this thread will produce nothing worthy of anyone's time. 

 
proninja said:
It depends on what you mean by pro life. 

If you mean you want to reduce abortion, then not wanting to provide financial support to vulnerable young mothers is indeed a bit of a contradiction, as financial considerations loom large in the decision to have or not have an abortion for many women.

If it means you don't actually care about reducing abortion, you just want to make it illegal so you can hold a position of moral superiority and prove how you belong to your tribe, then no, not at 

I have always been pro life for my circumstances but I would never put my ideals on anyone else.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This might seem odd but my dad wanted my sister to have an abortion.  She didn't and my niece works for planned parenthood.

 
bigbottom said:
The word welfare, as well as the constitutional purpose of promoting it, actually appear in the text of the Constitution. 
Click to expand...


General Welfare.  Which would mean creating environment where people can be healthy and successful.  It is a bit of a stretch to make that into providing for individuals.  

 
I dont have any other thread to post this in and I dont want to start a new thread to ask (probably a dumb) a question.

What is the argument "AGAINST" drug testing for people receiving welfare. 

I cant think of one reason we shouldnt do it.

 
jon_mx said:
General Welfare.  Which would mean creating environment where people can be healthy and successful.  It is a bit of a stretch to make that into providing for individuals.  
Click to expand...
And in this case would specifically point to the mother/hosts welfare. Particularly as she is the only citizen in the equation.

 
jon_mx said:
General Welfare.  Which would mean creating environment where people can be healthy and successful.  It is a bit of a stretch to make that into providing for individuals.  
Click to expand...
Not at all. There is a long line of federal case law and Supreme Court precedent indicating the welfare spending falls comfortably within the constitutional authority granted to the federal government.

Now, if you want to argue that welfare spending is a bad idea, or bad policy, have at it.  That is a subject that is certainly up for debate. But if someone is going to assert that being "anti-welfare best represents the constitutional position," I'm going to need some convincing.

 
derek245583 said:
I dont have any other thread to post this in and I dont want to start a new thread to ask (probably a dumb) a question.

What is the argument "AGAINST" drug testing for people receiving welfare. 

I cant think of one reason we shouldnt do it.
Click to expand...
The significant cost that would dwarf any savings from disqualified recipients many times over.  (At least according to stats I recall reading.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've long wished the Democrats would just say "yeah we are pro gun and anti-abortion now."   

I lean mostly left but those issues I am definitely against the democrat platform.

 
Welfare is not even possible under a constitutional gold or similar honest money standard, the theft is too obvious and the debt not tolerated.  The only reason we have welfare as we know it today is because the money has since been socialized and the theft is hidden from view.  But as we all know under socialism the money eventually runs out.   That will be a really bad day for the welfare dependents.  

 
bigbottom said:
Not at all. There is a long line of federal case law and Supreme Court precedent indicating the welfare spending falls comfortably within the constitutional authority granted to the federal government.

Now, if you want to argue that welfare spending is a bad idea, or bad policy, have at it.  That is a subject that is certainly up for debate. But if someone is going to assert that being "anti-welfare best represents the constitutional position," I'm going to need some convincing.
Click to expand...
Thats something that bothers me, Supreme Court has ruled Congress has the constitutional power to spend and go into debt, basically it seems Congress can do anything it wants as long as it's spending and going into debt, but I think we can all agree that implied in the original constitution if Congress goes INTO debt it was for a good cause and eventually they would go OUT of debt and not straight to bankruptcy.  That's not how we operate now.  We go into debt and have no intention of ever paying debt back.  In fact by design we can't pay the debt back.  The debt is going to keep accumulating and as long as we can keep making interest payments the train stays on the rails.

 
spreagle said:
Thats something that bothers me, Supreme Court has ruled Congress has the constitutional power to spend and go into debt, basically it seems Congress can do anything it wants as long as it's spending and going into debt, but I think we can all agree that implied in the original constitution if Congress goes INTO debt it was for a good cause and eventually they would go OUT of debt and not straight to bankruptcy.  That's not how we operate now.  We go into debt and have no intention of ever paying debt back.  In fact by design we can't pay the debt back.  The debt is going to keep accumulating and as long as we can keep making interest payments the train stays on the rails.
Click to expand...
We were debt free deficit free as recently as 2001.  That's only 15 years ago.

Know what happened in 2001/2002?  Fell under a complete Republican control of the Presidency, Senate and House.  :yucky:

*corrected.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there's one conservative argument that I "get", it's abortion.  I would be labeled pro-choice, but I understand why others are pro-life. 

I don't, however, understand why a society as rich as ours should tell people to go eff themselves and 'get a job'.  Is there fraud and abuse in the system, sure.  But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I hear people say, "go get a job" and I hear white, middle class privilege.

Case in point:  I went to dinner with a specialty pharmacist my business partners and I were trying to drum up capital from.  He went on and on about his conservative views and how he's sick of paying for the lazies and they need to put in the hard work like he's done to get where he is (his Ferrari was parked outside).  Within a year, he's being investigated by the government for charging $10,000 a pop for some specialty face cream.  So not only was his lavish success a function of being relatively lucky to have fallen into an opportunity in a very specialized field, but it's also potentially because of fraud.   

For every case of lazy, there are a bunch of others trying to fight an uphill climb with the deck stacked against them.  Not all of them become success stories, as much as you 'American Dream' types seem to believe.      

 
Just for the record, the types of welfare we're talking about are farm subsidies and tax breaks for the oil companies, right?   

 
derek245583 said:
I dont have any other thread to post this in and I dont want to start a new thread to ask (probably a dumb) a question.

What is the argument "AGAINST" drug testing for people receiving welfare. 

I cant think of one reason we shouldnt do it.
Click to expand...
I believe North Carolina did/does test welfare recipients and found their welfare recipient population tested positive for drug use at a rate well below the average?  Too lazy to find link.

 
matuski said:
I believe North Carolina did/does test welfare recipients and found their welfare recipient population tested positive for drug use at a rate well below the average?  Too lazy to find link.
Click to expand...
That is interesting. I would not have guessed that.

 
derek245583 said:
That is interesting. I would not have guessed that.
Click to expand...
Why guess at that?  I mean, if someone is pushing for something like this - wouldn't they take the time to know this kind of thing?

The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

 
Crockett on the unconstitutionality of using public money for charity.  An oldie and longie but goodie.  This is all about the spirit of the original constitution if anyone still cares about it, not about more recent myriad Supreme Court rulings that have usurped the meaning of the original constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

 
derek245583 said:
That is interesting. I would not have guessed that.
Click to expand...
It appears on a cursory search my info was wrong.

They are testing any referrals with a drug history.  Could have sworn I read an article stating what I posted.  Like I said.. I'll put more effort into a search after my coffee.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Why guess at that?  I mean, if someone is pushing for something like this - wouldn't they take the time to know this kind of thing?

The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.
Click to expand...


I guess at a lot of things I dont know

The weather, who is going to win the super bowl, what would happen if we raised taxes, what would happen if we went to guarenteed basic income, what would happen if got rid of the electoral college.

Ill stop doing that. Cool?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
We were debt free as recently as 2001.  That's only 15 years ago.

Know what happened in 2001/2002?  Fell under a complete Republican control of the Presidency, Senate and House.  :yucky:
Click to expand...
The last time the US was debt free was 1835-1836

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
We were debt free as recently as 2001.  That's only 15 years ago.

Know what happened in 2001/2002?  Fell under a complete Republican control of the Presidency, Senate and House.  :yucky:
Click to expand...
The last time the US was debt free was 1836. That's only 180 years ago.

 
No. Guess at those  other things fine.

But burdening undue hardships at others and then wanting to spend government money on it... take a minute.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
We were debt free as recently as 2001.  That's only 15 years ago.

Know what happened in 2001/2002?  Fell under a complete Republican control of the Presidency, Senate and House.  :yucky:
Click to expand...
Deficit free not counting social securiy for one year maybe, not debt free.  The debt actually kept growing.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminalxylem
Unclaimed life insurance
Replies
28
Views
806
fatness
fatness
FarFromHome
2025 Pre Census Survey
Replies
10
Views
258
Gatorade
Gatorade
Witz
Alien Life?
Replies
5
Views
366
HellToupee
HellToupee

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top