Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97
I think the states should administer it. I do agree with a safety net as many people don't have family that will or can assist. But I also believe family should take care of family first when possible.
But it should be limited with requirements attached. No I do not believe in drug testing to recieve it. I am always for freedom and will always hold the position that if are to live amongst each other then we shouldn't set rules for others just because we may have a belief.
Most people on welfare are not drug addicts. Sure some are but so are some business owners. Should government do drug tests on business owners before they get a business license?
it's a slippery slope so be careful how you answer.
back to the topic.
By the time you administer welfare from a federal level, too much money is lost in administrative costs and the feds use it as noose in far too many instances. states are either independent or they aren't, can't have it both ways.
|
Too your first statment. " many people don't have family that will or can assist". Why is this? What happend to the families in America since th e1960's? COul dit be that Welfare and other socila programs ahve supplanted family in the support role?
And Business owners, in many case, must have drug testing as part for their employment contract. Either due to Federal law involved in doing business with the Government or for Health insurance reasons. My last three jobs I and everyone else were required to take urine tests
Having any government involvement in any program promotes corruption in the government. Just look at the Welfare system today. It started out as a noble idea and has turned into a gold mine of power for politicians and business.
Government is almost always the problem, very rarely the solution.