Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on December 13, 2011

Click here to view bill details.

This seems reasonable and fair.

 

Being poor does not, or should not, imply someone is a criminal. The only test for receiving public assistance should be a financial means test.

 Having a job shouldn't imply criminal activity either! But yet I have to be tested to WORK for my money. I'm sure there are those who truely need assistance. But unfortunately there are also those who abuse the system. Perhaps this is a way to separate the two. I'm kind of suprised this isn't already the law. Then again, we did just finish 8 years of Granholm. If we are going to violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and test those who work for a living, then we should test those who receive our tax dollars as well. Either that, or we abide by the Constitution (there's a concept) and test nobody. It's wrong to pick and choose, it has to be all or nothing.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Employment requires you perform a task for your employer, and your employer has a right to make sure you are capable. Collecting social assistance doesn't require you do anything. Rather, it requires you be poor enough to need it. I repeat, financial means should be the only test for being on welfare.

 

gypsy:

Collecting social assistance doesn't require you do anything.

Exactly! You have all day to sit around and smoke weed and/or crack. I don't want to pay for that persons lifestyle. Someone who legitimately needs it, yes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You are assuming people on welfare are also on drugs. It is law enforcement's job to catch criminals. I'm sure you've heard of the "War on Drugs". Social assistance programs are there to provide basic living requirements for the poor, not to police poor people. Leave that to the experts.

 The "War on Drugs" is a friggin' joke and anyone of reasonable intelligence knows that. That being said, I'm more intrested in fairness. I haven't touched marijuana since high school. But I believe that it is not any more or less harmful than alcohol. The difference is I can knock back a few cold ones on a Saturday night and still perform my job on Monday. The guy who chooses weed over beer can't. Not because he is unable to do so but because marijuana can stay in your system for up to a month. And if that employee is hit with a random drug test, bye-bye job! The 4th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits illegal search and seizure. Showing up for work on Monday does not warrant you worthy of having your rights violated. But if the gov't is footing the bill, I believe that's different.

Do you remember Tom Green from Utah? He was a Mormon who had 29 kids with 6 wives. He was always complaining about the gov't interfering with his life. Yet he did not work and he had no problem taking gov't money to pay for his 29 kids. Not all Mormons believe in plural marriage, but the ones that do are not allowed to have more wives or kids than they can afford to take care of. They are forbidden from stretching themselves beyond their means and Mr. Green broke the rules of his own religion. I believe he was imprisoned for child endangerment/neglect.

I agree with you on the merits of the "war on drugs". Maybe you didn't perceive my sarcasm. Apparently you don't see the distinction between a private business demanding certain requirements from it's employees, and a branch of government violating constitutional rights.

 As soon as some adult, if there is one in our "legislature", sees to it that mandatory frug testing of all members, and I mean ALL members,is enacted and they start peeing in a bottle for drug testing will I even entertain the thought of such silliness. As it is now darn few of them could blow less than point one on any given morning.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Welfare was created back when the husband was the breadwinner and the wife was the homemaker. If the husband died unexpectedly, welfare was there to help the wife pay for the care of the children. But unfortunately as soon as the gov't creates a "free money" program, abuse of such program is never far behind. Until Clinton and Gingrich reformed welfare, having more kids meant getting a bigger check! Therefore there were those who were having kids just to get paid! This was getting to costly therefore reform was necessary. This bill isn't meant to discriminate, it's meant to curb gov't spending in tough economic times. 

There are ways to curb government spending without infringing on our constitutional right to privacy.

 Gypsymoth............when a citizen is dipping into the trough that is funded by the taxpayers, the taxpayers have every right to demand where their money is being spent..............unless you are a socialsit, Barack Obama supporter..............then all spending becomes the way of doing business.............ala........Solyndra and 11 more bankrupt companies coming down the pike.

Actually, individual taxpayers don't, and never did have a right to demand where their money is spent. Try that on your income tax this year. Let me know how it works out for you?

gypsy:

I agree with you on the merits of the "war on drugs". Maybe you didn't perceive my sarcasm. Apparently you don't see the distinction between a private business demanding certain requirements from it's employees, and a branch of government violating constitutional rights.

 

 What I don't see is how you assume everyone on welfare is a victim. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, there are some parasites out there? About 20 years ago they busted a "welfare ring" between Benton Harbor, Mi., Gary, In., Chicago Il., and Milwaukee, Wi. These welfare recipients had created a network between these 4 Lake Michigan cities to get checks from 4 different states! They had time to do that but apparently had no time to look for a job! You can't even blame the economy, it was good at the time.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If you are irresponsible and choose to drink and drive, or commit other crimes, the price you pay is your loss freedom by losing your license or going to jail. If you live with your parents you have less responsibility, therefore you also have less freedom. If you are unwilling or unable to handle your responsibility, that you created for yourself, by having kids you cannot afford to take care of. And you choose to let the gov't take care of your financial responsibility, why shouldn't the price of that free money be a loss of freedom? Don't you want to be certain that this money is only going to those who truely need it?

gypsy:

There are ways to curb government spending without infringing on our constitutional right to privacy.

 

 Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If you are irresponsible and choose to drink and drive, or commit another crime, the price you pay is a loss of freedom in the form of losing your license or going to jail. When you were a teenager and lived with your parents you had less responsibility, therefore also less freedom. Whenever the gov't takes care of your responsibility, the price is ALWAYS a loss of freedom! Isn't that what the Democrat party is all about?

Believe it or not, not everyone on welfare is a victim. There are some parasites out there. Why not be certain that only those who truely need help get help?

gypsy:

There are ways to curb government spending without infringing on our constitutional right to privacy.

 

 Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If you are irresponsible and drink and drive, or commit any other crime, the price you pay is a loss of freedom in the form of losing your license or going to jail. When you were a teenager living with your parents you had less responsibility, therefore also less freedom. Whenever the gov't assumes your responsibility, the price paid is ALWAYS a loss of freedom! Isn't that what the Democrat party is all about?

Believe it or not, not everyone on welfare is a victim. There are those who abuse it. Don't you want to be certain that only those who truely need it get it?

gypsy:

There are ways to curb government spending without infringing on our constitutional right to privacy.

 

 I wish the moderator understood the constitutional right of free speech!

gypsy:

There are ways to curb government spending without infringing on our constitutional right to privacy.

Whenever the gov't assumes your responsibilities the price paid is ALWAYS a loss of freedom. I thought that's what the Democrat party was all about. 

 I've always thought we collectively elected  people to represent our interests. Allowing individuals to make determinations of what they would allow or disallow come tax time lead to anarchy?

I am inclined to believe some people think they would prefer anarchy to democracy.

 You are a wise man.

Amazing how this passed which affects the 'poor' and 'underpriviledged' while not adding that LEGISLATORS should also be tested! Betcha there's allot of 'smoke' in Lansing between sessions along with 'vicodin' use for those who are disabled and in pain. I know that Mr. Damrow is 'disabled' and I'm betting his pain sometimes reaches the level where prescription painkillers are needed. I'm sure other legislators use 'drugs' (legal or not) to help them cope with the pressures of the job.

How about a program to help these folks get cured before throwing them and their chiuldren to the wolves.

Compassion, compassion - not rejection!

I`m not sure if this drug testing is violating or not or private life, but I think is important to take care of our health. A friend of mine had candida infection and she went to a doctor to get a candida treatment after she had some ugly complications.

When a person receives welfare payments from the government, paid for by the taxpayers and the taxpayers want drug testing on these recipients then it should be passed. Welfare recipients can have all the drugs they want but not paid for by the public from public funds.

Requiring drug testing to get assistance is making the assumption people are poor because they are drug addicts. A person is poor for many reasons. Being judged a criminal because of your poverty is just plain wrong. It's the job of the police to catch criminals, not social workers.