Need Help on Welfare Debate

[Revolution0918]

a friend posted a on facebook about the few states that are now drug testing for welfare checks and asked if it was constitutional, i replied with this:
"Not unconstitutional, its under the 10th amendment, "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people." Thus its every states choice on what they want to do in this situation. Now you can argue what one person feels emotionally on the subject, but under the law of the land its legal." since there is no law on the books pertaining to this, it is the states right to decide for themselves what they feel is right. This is how MOST political issues are SUPPOSED to be decided, by the states, if it is not specifically described in the constitution. Just like same sex marriage is legal in one state, but not another.(not that that is a political issue, but it has been turned into one, the government has no rights over marriage and its a shame that it has become so politicized) The Constitution was set up so that voters could essentially "vote with their feet", if you didnt agree with New York's abortion and same sex marriage laws, you could move and they would lose the tax revenue.

After this a few more people commented, which i will post below, my question is: is it or isnt it?

JOHN: This is wrong in so many ways that I couldn't edit my response to fit the little box here. Illegal search without prior evidence and 5th amendment against self-incrimination are clearly violated.

ME:Ever been to an airport since 9/11? The federal gov and states forgot about the 5th amendment

JOHN: Any state law that violates the Federal Constitution (as decided by the Supeme Court) is void at the state level. We decided that at Apamadox (sp?) This test is for illegal drugs. Prescription addiction is far more pervasive. Also, FAA doesn't search for drugs, only for objects that endanger other passengers. Welfare is more than a safety net, it's also a demand-slide inhibitor for local retailers.

 

[Revolution0918]

JOHN: paying the unemployed injects money into the local economy so people can continue to buy food, pay bills, rent, etc. If the town mill, mine or factory closes then anyone working there has no more money to spend there. The town is evacuated and any investment in the town no longer provides a return. Businesses, banks and churches fail. Welfare-Unemployment payments slows (inhibits) that decay.

 

[jack555]

I think the important point is that welfare itself is unconstitutional so the whole debate is kind of silly. But the question is if we are going to have welfare is it an unreasonable search for e government to want to make sure you aren't abusing drugs if you are getting welfare but again it's confusing because welfare itself is unconstitutional.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

the guys last argument doesn't really make sense either. why would you want to subsidize a town with no way left of supporting its citizens? are towns not allowed to go defunct if there is nothing there for anyone? or does he expect any town ever settled to stay in existence through subsidy if necessary just because it has been settled?

i agree with his two points here though:

JOHN: This is wrong in so many ways that I couldn't edit my response to fit the little box here. Illegal search without prior evidence and 5th amendment against self-incrimination are clearly violated.

however, i don't agree with theft from me and other citizens to provide funds for welfare. i'll donate to the charity of my choice, thank you very much.

 

[Carehn]

I think the important point is that welfare itself is unconstitutional so the whole debate is kind of silly. But the question is if we are going to have welfare is it an unreasonable search for e government to want to make sure you aren't abusing drugs if you are getting welfare but again it's confusing because welfare itself is unconstitutional.

Yep.

The constitution does not work. It was a good idea but its not going to come back. You need to ask him if its ok for people to rob you and then if it is why do you fill its only ok if they don't smoke pot when not robbing you.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Privileges from the state with restrictions, then you don't agree with the restrictions but you still want the privileges.

 

[jack555]

Edit

 

[aGameOfThrones]

JOHN: paying the unemployed injects money into the local economy so people can continue to buy food, pay bills, rent, etc. If the town mill, mine or factory closes then anyone working there has no more money to spend there. The town is evacuated and any investment in the town no longer provides a return. Businesses, banks and churches fail. Welfare-Unemployment payments slows (inhibits) that decay.

"You can pay someone to dig a hole and pay someone else to fill it; the fact that nothing productive is taking place doesn’t matter. The spending alone will stimulate the economy." "when asking a Keynes about the long run, he was famous for responding , “In the long run we are all dead."

I remember hearing Peter Schiff saying something about, "say a shopkeeper has 4k in savings and had no business for a few days, the shopkeeper can simply give out his 4k in savings to people so they can shop at his store". It was something like that.

 

[DamianTV]

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

I dont think it matters if Snopes validates the story or not, there are excellent points to be had in it.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp



I dont think it matters if Snopes validates the story or not, there are excellent points to be had in it.

Sounds like this one The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

 

[wannaberocker]

That guy JOHN is a fuckin moron. He reminds me of this Chick who was on tv today saying that there are riots in london because England dosnt have enough welfare programs for the poor. England the whole country is a welfare program for cryin out loud.

But getting back to drug testing for welfare. Its constitutional because the states have a right to put in place laws that provent money for beng spent on things they see unfit (ie drugs). Also welfare is voluntary thing, i mean you dont have to go on welfare. So yes the state laws are constitutional.

 

[wannaberocker]

"You can pay someone to dig a hole and pay someone else to fill it; the fact that nothing productive is taking place doesn’t matter. The spending alone will stimulate the economy." "when asking a Keynes about the long run, he was famous for responding , “In the long run we are all dead."

I remember hearing Peter Schiff saying something about, "say a shopkeeper has 4k in savings and had no business for a few days, the shopkeeper can simply give out his 4k in savings to people so they can shop at his store". It was something like that.

Yes because at the end of it your shrinking the economic pie. Your taking individuals whos talents and resources might be used elsewhere and trying to limit them.