I received the following letter to the editor of an Oregon Newspaper (I don't know which one)in a recent e-mail, and I thought it was a pretty unique idea. It came to me in the form of a newspaper clipping that was scanned and then sent to me in e-mail:
In case the text is too small for you to read, I have re-typed it out in it's entirety:
Don't help people sit on their rears
I have a question, not only for Douglas County, but for the entire state of Oregon. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to go earn it for them?
Please understand, I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt.
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Now, this is the kind of unique thinking I like! What if all of us like minded people copied and sent the same letter to our editors?
23 comments:
Mark,several years ago, somebody came up with the idea of having those, receiving welfare payments, be required to work so many hours a month for either the city, county or state, to "earn" the money they were receiving.
The majority of the population was in favor of this, but due to an outcry from the ACLU and various civil rights groups, (which were in the minority), claiming that such a thing was un-constitutional (say What?) and that it would be condoning slavery,(Huh?) It was never followed through on.
They were also going to institute urine testing for those receiving welfare, here in New York State, but that also was shot down because the bleeding heart liberals claimed it would be an invasion of privacy.
I think it is high time that we put the lunatics back in the assylum and take back control.
Hi Mark,
I like it. Make sure those receiving the checks are not habitual drug users... which many of them are. Also helps us support the biblical idea that if a man does not work, he shall not eat.
Blessings
If you stiop and think about it, it's crazy that we don't put more restrictions on welfare recipients...
Mark, due to twits like KEVRON, I have had to enable "COMMENT MODERATION". He does not comment for the sake of commenting, but rather to goad other bloggers into an argument with him. It is for this reason that his comments will never appear on my Blog. I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed twit.
And just to let him know, I do not make up stories for the sake of commenting.
Kevron, for all your demonstrations of how smart you think you are, you are obviously not very bright at all. What part of "I won't allow your comments on my blog" didn't you understand? Did you think I can't delete all your comments? I can and I did and I will delete all your comments. Forever.
Give it up, moron, you are not welcome here.
For those readers who don't know what's going on here or aren't familiar with the troll known as Kevron, he is an insignificant, arrogant, twisted, condescending, little troll with absolutely no original thoughts in his little pes brain.
His apparent purpose in life is to invade other people's blogs, and drop meaningless, mean spirited, sarcastic, off topic comments that have little or no relevance to the discussion.
I have decided to leave comment moderation off, though, because it will give my other readers a chance to see just how moronic and uninspired the little troll actually is.
But I have one request of my readers. In the future, starting now, just ignore anything the moron says. He exists only to insinuate his name in as many places as possible. He feeds off of sane people's outrage. If everyone ignores him completely, and refuses to acknowledge anything he says, he will get tired of being ignored and go away.
This is the last time I will acknowledge his existence, except to continue to delete everyone of his comments.
"Make sure those receiving the checks are not habitual drug users... which many of them are."
how many of them are, tim? would the savings in reduced benefits offset the cost of drug testing? would random testing (as many states have previously considered - and promptly discarded the notion) solve the problem? and what about 4th amendment rights? do welfare recipients surrender these rights simply because they require assistance? what part of the constitution would support the loss of these rights?
KEvron
OK. I re-enabled comment moderation because Kevron will just continue to post his stupid comments regardless of if we ignore him or not. He left about 4 more of the same comments he left before, and I had to delete them again.
I simply don't ha e time to sit and monitor my blog 24/7, to keep deleting him. I have a job. Apparently he doesn't or he wouldn't have time to waste leaving comments that will just be deleted anyway.
Hey! Perhaps that's why he is so against forcing welfare receipients to work or take urine tests! Maybe he is a welfare cheat himself. It is pretty obvious from his comments that he wouldn't be able to pass a drug screen.
Anyway, I left one of his comments up so all of you can go harrass him on his blog. Maybe he'll get the hint, but I sincerely doubt it. He is, after all, completely unhinged.
I did levae you all his IP address the other day. If any of you have the technological savvy to follow it up perhaps you can send him a hard drive killing virus or something.
After all, isn't he about the same thing as an unwanted spammer?
I doubt there is a court anywhere that would convict you for removing this scum from the internet, except for that Liberal court out in California.
The next e-mail I will get now, will be him trying to mock me, but I don't care. I delete everything he sends without reading it anyway. Once I see his name, which he proudly repeats ad nauseum, it gets deleted.
It's over Kevron. Go haunt someone else.
As I said, "The next e-mail I will get now, will be him trying to mock me"
Yep, I called it. But you won't see it cause I rejected it. Ha ha. Take that you moron!
Oh, and since Kev asked a slightly thoughtful question (only slightly), I will endeavor to address it.
He asks, "would the savings in reduced benefits offset the cost of drug testing? would random testing (as many states have previously considered - and promptly discarded the notion) solve the problem? and what about 4th amendment rights? do welfare recipients surrender these rights simply because they require assistance? what part of the constitution would support the loss of these rights?
First question. What a stupid question. Since about 90% of welfare cheats are drug abusers, yes. It would most certainly offset the costs of the drug screens. Imagine the average welfare check is $300.00 a month, and a random drug screen costs about $150.00 more or less. One random drugscreen, even if it costs over $300.00 is not done every month. That would negate the term "random". Therefore, the money saved by not paying welfare benefits to cheaters and drug abusers would offset the costs of the drugscreens. Duh!
2nd Question. Answerable by the first answer. Either they would quit abusing drugs for the most part, drug screen cheaters notwithstanding, or they would not get paid for being lazy.
3rd question. The 4th amendment? The 4th amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Exactly what part of that says it's against the law to administer drugscreens as a prerequisite for paying money to cheats? The part about probable cause?
4th question: I believe the issue addresses lazy people and not those who REQUIRE assistance. So, question answered.
5th question. Already answered in answer number 3. But lest you think I am dodging the question. Who says anyone has the right to defraud from the government?
A government, by the way that consists of me and most of those who are reading this, but probably not you. You sound like you might be one of those drug abusing welfare cheats yourself, Kev.
I don't want my taxes to support sponges like you and your druggie friends.
"Since about 90% of welfare cheats are drug abusers, yes."
Source?
I was going to send that to my local paper, but it had just as much chance of being published as my letter to them recommending Mayor Ray Nagin be invited to emcee our city's annual Chocolate Festival.
Dan, I don't know that for a fact. All I know is what I've seen with my own eyes. You know I once lived in public housing in a large midwest city. Out of hundreds of people living there on welfare, I know of only one neighbor that probably was not abusing alcohol or some other drugs, regularly. And that one was determined to get himself out of the projects by working hard, which he eventually did.
So, maybe 90% is not accurate. But I bet it's darn close. Anyway, there are enough of them abusing drugs to offset the costs.
Henry! I thought you stopped visiting. Welcome back.
We the PEOPLE of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain, and establish this CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Mudkitty,
Are you inferring that PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE means a welfare system such as the type this thread is discussing?
Nice try, Kev, but your MOD is well known, even when you use a different name. I will not publish your Liberal propoganda.
Of course welfare is guaranteed by the Constitution! What part don't you understand?! It's like 2001 all over again. You must concede, I am not one of Pope BENEDICT's hierarchy of Baptist employees!! Say no to SUVs and sleaze! Figuratively speaking, Smirkelgruber caused hurricane Katrina by gnawing the veterans in TAIWAN.
Obviously, the Constitution, which states in the preamble, that the mission of our government is to provide for the general welfare, means nothing to you people.
Grimeyfeline,
Don't your read your own postings?
"Promote" and "provide" are two different things. I even looked it up. Myriam-Webster has no connection between the two, except for a thesaurus offering of a definition for promote, "to provide publicity for" as in promoting an event or a concert. So to promote the general welfare does not mean to provide financial assistance. There is no Constitutional "right" to welfare assistance. I'm happy to think that there will always be something for the truly needy in this country, either through state or federal help, or by direct charitable contributions, or by private philanthropic endeavors. But the needy are not entitled to assistance by the feds.
But none of this is on topic. The point of the post was reforming the welfare that already exists so as not to be doling out dough to those who are NOT truly needy. Do you think someone who is poor because he is a lazy SOB who spends any cash he can get on drugs, booze, gambling or porn deserves your tax dollars through welfare? If so, find these dudes and give directly. The rest of us would rather that dude get nothing but the suffering he's chosen for himself. If he has an epiphany, he can get help through any of the storefront clinics that are set up to handle such as him.
No, promote is a marketing term, provide means exactly what it says.
What about the term "provide" do you not understand.
There is no preclusionary clause in the Constitution that states that our government shall not provide financial assistance to it's citizenry, if the people deem it necessary to promote the general welfare.
"What about the term "provide" do you not understand."
I understand the word perfectly. Are you now re-writing the preamble? You had it right the first time and put it in caps to highlight it: PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE
Then you change it to "provide for the general welfare". Which is it? Well, we know which it is, don't we? But you go ahead and pick one and we'll work from there.
In the meantime, why not answer the question I posed regarding the lazy cuss and whether he falls within your description of a legitimate welfare recipient? That was, after all, the point at which this thread was aimed.
Post a Comment