Welfare Reform part II

[Icymudpuppy]

Okay, it has been 24 hours since the first thread Here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=259626) regarding proposals to install into a bill to reform welfare with a goal of reduction towards eventual elimination of the welfare state.

Please vote above, and add your suggestions to proposals below. Poll will close in 24 hours. Mods, please close the old thread.

The final results from 43 votes are..

Regarding Mandatory Drug testings.
18 of 43 (41.86%) in favor
14 of 43 (32.56%) opposed
11 of 43 (25.58%) undecided
Results not conclusive. Question will be modified with suggestions from previous thread to combat the addiction problems endemic among welfare recipients which cause enormous waste to public resources.

Regarding Birth Control.
8 of 43 (18.60%) in favor
23 of 43 (53.49%) opposed
12 of 43 (27.91%) undecided
Results conclusively opposed. New methods of combating rampant breeding and multigenerational dependency among welfare dependents as suggested in the thread will be proposed.

Regarding Voting Restrictions.
14 of 43 (32.56%) in favor
18 of 43 (41.86%) opposed
11 of 43 (25.58%) undecided
Results not conclusive. Question will be reproposed with suggested modifications from thread to combat system dependents from voting for representatives that will give them more benefits.

Regarding citizen only restriction to combat the problem of noncitizens receiving benefits.
32 of 43 (74.42%) in favor
6 of 43 (13.95%) opposed
5 of 43 (11.63%) undecided
Results conclusive. Citizens only. Question will remain with clarification to try and eliminate undecided votes.

[Icymudpuppy]

Took a while to post the poll, so those of you who perused the old results can vote again in the new poll.

MODS... PLEASE CLOSE THE OLD THREAD.

[pcosmar]

Damn,

:(

Years of government "service" is apparent.

Just end welfare, :cool:

[Icymudpuppy]

Mr. Osmar, if you had looked at the previous thread, you would have seen that I am trying to do away with welfare altogether, but I recognize that pulling the plug is too extreme to pass even Wyoming's state legislature. So, these are suggested reforms to restrict it and make it distasteful enough to reduce the number of people on the dole with the long term goal of making it go away altogether. We can change things, but we have to be diplomatic about it. I am compiling a list of reforms that could be proposed as a bill in legislative bodies around the country and hoping to get some assistance from my fellow RPF'ers by their suggestions and support.

TPTB work in small increments. Lets do the same. I would rather avoid an armed revolution after an economic collapse if possible.

[pcosmar]

Mr. Osmar, if you had looked at the previous thread, you would have seen that I am trying to do away with welfare altogether, but I recognize that pulling the plug is too extreme to pass even Wyoming's state legislature. So, these are suggested reforms to restrict it and make it distasteful enough to reduce the number of people on the dole with the long term goal of making it go away altogether. We can change things, but we have to be diplomatic about it. I am compiling a list of reforms that could be proposed as a bill in legislative bodies around the country and hoping to get some assistance from my fellow RPF'ers by their suggestions and support.

TPTB work in small increments. Lets do the same. I would rather avoid an armed revolution after an economic collapse if possible.
I did, and I voted in it. none of it would make a damn bit of difference.
It will only end with the collapse of the economy.
As far as changing various and sundry rules and regulations, phffft.
Folks that game the system will only find new and more profitable way to game it.
I agree that we can't just end it. Not till there is no more money to support it.
Want to end it sooner. Crash the system.
:(

[QueenB4Liberty]

I agree with all of that, except restricting people's voting privileges.

[Icymudpuppy]

I agree with all of that, except restricting people's voting privileges.

Perhaps you could suggest a way to prevent welfare staters from "Getting out the welfare vote".

[Anti Federalist]

Dupe post, disregard

[Anti Federalist]

I agree with all of that, except restricting people's voting privileges.

Why?

I'd rather see a voting "privilege" restricted rather than one of the fundamental rights i.e.: the 4th and 5th Amendments WRT to mandatory drug testing.

Nowhere in the bill of rights does it state that there is god given right to vote (for your slavemaster) that government cannot restrict.

It does say your have a right to be secure in your person from unreasonable, warrantless searches and a right not to testify against yourself, both of which are violated by mandatory drug testing.

[Icymudpuppy]

AF, the test is to get benefits, not go to jail.

[Anti Federalist]

AF, the test is to get benefits, not go to jail.

Icy, understood, but do honestly think that "mission creep" would not set in and people would start getting arrested within a year or two of this program being in effect?

[Vessol]

Welfare will collapse, whether by choice or through overburdening.

[Icymudpuppy]

Icy, understood, but do honestly think that "mission creep" would not set in and people would start getting arrested within a year or two of this program being in effect?

Yeah, it's a difficult situation. Maybe they should stay off the state handouts if they don't want state interference.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Why?

I'd rather see a voting "privilege" restricted rather than one of the fundamental rights i.e.: the 4th and 5th Amendments WRT to mandatory drug testing.

Nowhere in the bill of rights does it state that there is god given right to vote (for your slavemaster) that government cannot restrict.

It does say your have a right to be secure in your person from unreasonable, warrantless searches and a right not to testify against yourself, both of which are violated by mandatory drug testing.

There will always be people who think that the government should give out public assistance, and they'll keep voting for it. And there are many people who don't receive government assistance with these beliefs. You might as well go back to only property owning males can vote if you want to put some type of restriction on voting. Or I guess a voting test which I've seen you suggest before isn't a bad idea.

But it's not like voting actually changes things in the first place, anyhow. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

But it's not like voting actually changes things in the first place, anyhow. ;)

Can't argue that. ;)

Maybe if the egalitarian ranks were thinned out a little bit and a voting pool of informed citizens took it's place, maybe things would change.

Which is why that will never happen.

Sort of like fully informed jury pools.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, it's a difficult situation. Maybe they should stay off the state handouts if they don't want state interference.

I'm forced to drug test in my line of work, with criminal sanctions possible if tested positive.

It is an insane violation of my rights.

I cannot, for any reason, in good conscience, suggest others be subjected to it as well.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah, the way I see it we're pretty fucked. :(

Just have to wait until the thing collapses and hope for the best.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, the way I see it we're pretty fucked. :(

Just have to wait until the thing collapses and hope for the best.

Pete already said it.

Crash the System

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm forced to drug test in my line of work, with criminal sanctions possible if tested positive.

It is an insane violation of my rights.

I cannot, for any reason, in good conscience, suggest others be subjected to it as well.

So you're against drug testing period? Whether it's a private company or the government doing it? Because there are some instances on the job that I just wouldn't want an employee to be under the influence at.

[Anti Federalist]

So you're against drug testing period? Whether it's a private company or the government doing it? Because there are some instances on the job that I just wouldn't want an employee to be under the influence at.

Mine is government mandated, and reported to government, thus there is the possibility of criminal sanctions.

A gross violation 4th and 5th Amendment protections.

A private company doing it? Eh, I suppose it's their right to do so, but I wouldn't support that business or do business with them, same about private business discrimination.

[Danke]

You might as well go back to only property owning males can vote if you want to put some type of restriction on voting.

If they did that I might consider becoming a voter once again.

[Danke]

So you're against drug testing period? Whether it's a private company or the government doing it? Because there are some instances on the job that I just wouldn't want an employee to be under the influence at.

Drug tests do not have anything to do with being at work "under the influence."

[Kylie]

So you're against drug testing period? Whether it's a private company or the government doing it? Because there are some instances on the job that I just wouldn't want an employee to be under the influence at.



You are posing the same backwards logic that the cops do in order to set up roadblocks. Pre-emptive measures that violate my rights.

If there is an accident and property or personal damage is done, then this a drug test may come into play. And if you get popped...well, you knew when you were hired what you signed up for. But until that time comes, an employer have no right to what I do and say while I'm not on your dime.

[libertybrewcity]

Instead of a regressive child option which doesn't make sense, why not add an option so new children wouldn't receive any benefits?

Or how about we just end welfare altogether except in certain circumstances like disability.

[Koz]

Why?

I'd rather see a voting "privilege" restricted rather than one of the fundamental rights i.e.: the 4th and 5th Amendments WRT to mandatory drug testing.

Nowhere in the bill of rights does it state that there is god given right to vote (for your slavemaster) that government cannot restrict.

It does say your have a right to be secure in your person from unreasonable, warrantless searches and a right not to testify against yourself, both of which are violated by mandatory drug testing.

I have gone round and round with this one in my mind and I agree with you, but I also know that the people on the public dole are not required to take welfare. It's like drug testing at work, people are not required to have a job, but most companies drug test and you give it to them voluntarily to get something you want.

[RedStripe]

haha abolishing welfare for the poor before abolishing welfare for the rich?

Sorry, no way.

[Humanae Libertas]

The problem with this is, is that you guys want more government to stop public handouts or assistance. That is going completely backwards.

How would the state enforce birth control, voting rights denied etc., without MORE bureaucracy? That simply cannot happen.

Abolish it all together.

[QueenB4Liberty]

You are posing the same backwards logic that the cops do in order to set up roadblocks. Pre-emptive measures that violate my rights.

If there is an accident and property or personal damage is done, then this a drug test may come into play. And if you get popped...well, you knew when you were hired what you signed up for. But until that time comes, an employer have no right to what I do and say while I'm not on your dime.

So it's fine to smoke a joint before working with children, heavy machinery, small pets, etc.? It's not a violation of your rights as an employee. It's more of a contract in my opinion. I don't mind a drug test before employment at certain jobs.

[Stary Hickory]

Get rid of it completely, and I also picked every option that makes it harder and makes the payouts less.

I want it gone. It's immoral and people are abusing it left and right.

[Anti Federalist]

So it's fine to smoke a joint before working with children, heavy machinery, small pets, etc.? It's not a violation of your rights as an employee. It's more of a contract in my opinion. I don't mind a drug test before employment at certain jobs.

What if I told you that a joint smoked two weeks ago would land you jail, but you can be in control of 30,000 tons of steel and on Prozac?

[Anti Federalist]

I have gone round and round with this one in my mind and I agree with you, but I also know that the people on the public dole are not required to take welfare. It's like drug testing at work, people are not required to have a job, but most companies drug test and you give it to them voluntarily to get something you want.

The "well the companies do it as part of your job, if you don't like it quit, you don't have to have a job, so sit sown and shut up" argument doesn't cut much mustard with me, it only illustrates the tyranny of big business rather than government.

Sure, you don't have to have a job, feel free to become a vagrant, live on the streets and get arrested.

If it's an accepted norm that government can tell a business what it can pay and who it can hire and who it can fire and force it to become a tax collector, then I say my rights apply on work and off, especially in cases like mine, where positive results don't just get you fired but get you reported to law enforcement for possible prosecution.

The only people I'd be in favor of piss testing is Congress, the Executive and the Judicial branches.

[tnvoter]

If you accept welfare, you've already give your financial decisions over to the state.