Comments for Piss poor proposal propelled at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 29 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Wed, 22 May 2013 04:36:47 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17737 Welfare receipents are not known as being motivated, not a one of the bunch, excuse me! Motivated peeps are the working stiffs who individually, choose who they elect to office, welfare receipients vote for a continuation of their welfare benefits, there is only one issue important to a welfare receipient, and that is, his check. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Mon, 16 May 2011 08:22:19 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17736 "Pot is demotivating; that's the last thing a welfare receipient needs." Touche....excellent point. - ragin_cajun Mon, 16 May 2011 08:11:44 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17731 Pot is demotivating; that's the last thing a welfare receipient needs. - realitycheck Mon, 16 May 2011 07:12:32 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17726 Corporate CEOs who take our money should take piss tests. - Kate Sun, 15 May 2011 18:51:41 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17692 Resident don't be so queer, SS benefits & Unemployment benefits are paid to recepients from a souce which had input from those same recepients who are eligible to receive BC it is their FNG money in the pot to begin with,,,DUH ! AND BABYMAMAS, should be restricted to one baby on welfare benefits and self, until the child begins Kindergarten. Never again not for a second little one or the following 8 or 9 as is usually the casefile. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Fri, 13 May 2011 14:50:08 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17687 Be careful what you wish for. You too might be laid off. Burn through your life savings, your retiremnet only to end up on food stamps, LaChips, etc. Being that in Cajun country, alcohol is no big deal, could you not have a beer while eating boiled crawfish? a glass of wine with dinner? - Southsider Fri, 13 May 2011 13:48:06 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17677 Pelican has hit on it. If we're gonna have welfare, and we all agree that welfare recipients should be getting on their feet while they're on the dole, then government needs to set guardrails and enforce and verify. If, on the other hand, that enforcement is too expensive or it's impractical, then we should admit that government can't do it and end the welfare programs. Both are reasonable, the second I'd preferable. But to say that welfare recipients can't live lives of debauchery, do nothing to enforce the policy, and keep sending checks-- that's unreasonable. To say that working men and women in the private sector will be subject to government mandated drug testing, but that government employees and dependents for some reason are exempt, is also unreasonable. - ragin_cajun Fri, 13 May 2011 09:17:13 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17674 Resident -- "Ragin, you're making a different argument." -- uhhh...that's your MO, not mine. I am not making a different argument. Welfare recipients should be getting their life together, not getting wasted. It is perfectly reasonable for government to verify that recipients are clean. Although I think drugs are more debilitating than alcohol, I think government instituting a no alcohol policy for recipients is perfectly reasonable, too. And it follows that if they did institute such a policy, they'd verify and enforce it. If welfare recipients don't like it, then they can find some other benefactor. Or they can follow the rules. What's unreasonable about that? With freedom comes responsibility. - ragin_cajun Fri, 13 May 2011 07:46:09 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17673 written by Layne St.Julien "How about those who receive Social Security? Disability payments? Federal grants for research? " ----------------------- Following St. Julien's comments, on this subject and others, his theory is money shall be taken from those earn it and given to those who don't. No questions ask. The reason is those who earn it are criminals. - Bow Tox Fri, 13 May 2011 07:34:11 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17670 If welfare abuse is a problem, then abolish the welfare state. Don't reach deeper into our pockets to pay drug testing companies. This is a bunch of nonsense. - Dead Pelican Fri, 13 May 2011 07:18:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17667 Ragin, you're making a different argument. I agree that welfare recipients should not be using drugs or drinking, because presumably they should be trying to get a job. It angers me too that some people who are perfectly capable of working instead live off of taxpayer money. By the way, do we actually have a definition of "welfare" to use in this discussion? Is it unemployment benefits (which expire)? Is it poor mothers with a bunch of kids? What exactly are we talking about? With your line of reasoning, two questions arise. Should alcohol testing be included? Is it the role of government to legislate morality by cutting people off of welfare who use drugs or alcohol? Also, might it be better to put drug and alcohol users in a rehab program instead of cutting them off? The whole thing just seems rather harsh. And looking at who designed the bill and his district, I would not be surprised to learn that this is motivated purely by politics (whipping up constituents' emotions). - Resident Fri, 13 May 2011 06:45:28 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17659 " Walter, shame, shame, a poor choice of words, this choice of word brings to mmind a looney commentor of yore, " Walter, a more copecetic and adjectucive choice of a word would have been, " pot, " pot poor proposal propelled. This choice would have left you with a somewhat semblance of class, and leave you remaining as a refined maestro descriptor of verbose. Take note my frien, tis not to late for refinement. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Fri, 13 May 2011 02:40:50 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17658 Resident & Ragin_Cajun, at different ends of the spectrum, and each with merit. "And what about alcohol----"Welfare is intended to be a hand up. The government in its attempt to reduce the use of a non-generating-government-tax product by the populace, and in its effort to increase the imbibement of a taxable product by the populace producing more money in the governments coffers, hell never mind how many deaths, alcohol causes each day. Alcohol is generating money for the government coffers, unlike Marijuana which is not generating money for the government due to it not being a taxed product, and as we all are aware of the fact that " Marijuana is enjoyed only by welfare receipents, who do not pay taxes. It is fair that the govenment in its "Big Brother mentality, instituite a drug screen program and screen every welfare recepient who exists on the government cuff, and we could get all the young 17-40 year old welfare family dependants off the streets during the hours of 8-5 to lessen the littering of paperbags with empty wine bottles on the property of their fellow tax-paying neighbors. In an effort to reduce the cost of doing business in the professional level, we should not have to screen any professional, not any professional who pays his due taxes and does not receive a welfare check, this would be in line with the governments tax-break to all professionals who earn in excess of $ 250,000.00 yearly, said professionals should not have to subject their person to any restrictions in their " pursuit of happiness, as they are tax-paying citizens, and as we all know professionals are productive peeps, and " we do not use drugs, HIC, its fiva ahclock sum whar. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Fri, 13 May 2011 02:25:29 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17656 I really believe any and all explanations would never be satisfactory for you Layne St. Julian, you have a mental block. Social Security recepients are really being returned a portion of the money they invested in a "PISS POOR INVESTMENT PLAN, without interest, and which the "government steals from like a teamsters members union-fund at their lowlying discretion. Aw,ya probably could'nt pass a negative drug screen, hah. - NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN Fri, 13 May 2011 01:34:34 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17649 Why only 20% of recipients; why not 100% of welfare recipients shall take drug screens? This guy WP has lost his marbles if he ever had any to begin with. It's people like WP that give ligitimacy to all the right leaners. - toomuchinformation Thu, 12 May 2011 18:46:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17648 " The logic is not there to support the law" Sure it is. Welfare is intended to be a "hand up, not a hand out". If a person is getting high, they are obviously not getting their life back together. It doesn't matter whether they bought the drugs with tax dollars or not. Don't you think that somebody who's on welfare should refrain from smoking pot with their brother? Or tossing back cold ones at the point? Also, I don't think the supporters in here are running on emotion. Some of them have made some very reasonable points--SPSharky and James Melancon, for example. - ragin_cajun Thu, 12 May 2011 16:26:49 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17647 Testing positive for an illegal drug does not necessarily mean that the person is using welfare money to buy drugs. The logic is not there to support the law. You could cut someone off of welfare if they took a hit off a joint from their brother. LaBruzzo and the supporters in here are running on emotion, not rationality. And what about alcohol? Should they be tested for alcohol use? - Resident Thu, 12 May 2011 15:30:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17643 Great idea! - James Rogers Thu, 12 May 2011 15:05:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17642 Piss Poor? Let me tell you what's piss poor! Someone using welfare (that is taxpayer money my boy!) money to buy drugs! Many professionals have to take drug tests. And my man, they have professional welfare recipients who are using my tax dollars to by drugs. Now that is PissPoor & that PISSES ME OFF!! - The Original Northsidian Thu, 12 May 2011 14:43:00 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8286-piss-poor-proposal-propelled#comment-17639 Your trashy publication has just lost my (considerable) advertising dollar. Sorry, Indy, you're just too much on the left for this advertiser. - JAnderson Thu, 12 May 2011 14:20:52 +0100