I don't see how you get from point A to point B.

The argument they're making is that if you get money from the government without working for it, you should have to take a drug test.

I get financial benefit from the government every time I take public transportation or borrow a book from the library or drink water from my public tap or use a park. Or, more directly, I get thousands of dollars off on my taxes because I pay a mortgage and I get a deduction for that.

But I don't have to take a drug test to justify receiving that tax deduction, or using my library card.

In essence, there's a presumption that people on unemployment or welfare are criminals or addicts, and Those People do not deserve government support. Apparently we should let them starve and sleep outdoors because they have drug habits (or have taken drugs recreationally).

That's what I thought you were saying, but I don't see how one couldn't support a drug test specifically for receiving welfare. But if they're using that blanket argument, then, no, it doesn't work.

In essence, there's a presumption that people on unemployment or welfare are criminals or addicts, and Those People do not deserve government support.

Right, that's clearly their position.

I don't see how one couldn't support a drug test specifically for receiving welfare

I don't support it because as soon as you start poking at the logic behind it, it falls down. No other recipients of government funds (like NHS grants or student loans or FHA mortgages or or or--) are required to take drug tests. Just welfare recipients.

So it must be because they're poor. Or possibly black. And therefore presumed to be criminal.

The thing is, there really is barely "welfare" any more. There's TANF, which is a benefit for children - you have to have children under 18 to qualify, and in my state you can receive it as 18 months in a row, 4 years maximum over a lifetime. I looked up the numbers once, and in my high-poverty city of 100,000 there are like 1200 people who get it, and the benefits are incredibly low.

I can't find just Athens right now, but of the 9,829,211 people who live in GA about 38,000 of them get TANF. 00.38%.

Which is even worse, really--penalizing the children because the parent might take drugs?

Also, in GA in 2009, the maximum monthly TANF benefit was $280. Live on that, eh? Even with food stamps (EBT) and subsidized housing. It hasn't been raised since 1998. Nobody is on welfare for fun.

Speaking of used cars, my mom, after years of talking about it and test driving cars (she makes a hobby of it) FINALLY bought a new car today, an 09 CRV with 16K miles for around $20K. Sticker shock to me, but she's done her research and knew what she wanted.

To my great amusement, she queried my brother and I (him, I understand. Me, nsm) on the candidates. My brother said they were all a good bet, but ranked them for her. Of course, she went with his lowest rank. Which is what his wife did too. But then, my mom and SIL have other criteria, thinks like handling and visibility. Whereas my brother looks more mechanically, engine overkill, can he work on it....

Told mom she and SIL were going to give him a complex. His advice IS spot on, purely in $$ and mechanics. But other things matter too, such as not finding comfort/design things that make you hate the car. He'd drive a tank if it was cheap and easy to fix. Hell, he doesn't have working ac in any of his cars. And they are LOUD AS SHIT.

I was just listening to a Fresh Air where they were talking about a group that was against ALL TAXES. People are craxy-- like, are they against roads, and garbage pickup?

People are craxy-- like, are they against roads, and garbage pickup?

Nah, they are just against paying for them. See also: teachers, police, fire dept, medicine

If you'll value it, you'll pay for it, to the degree that you value it. And private fire-protection brigades were put out of business because some of them would hold the owner of a burning house up for more money at the scene.

History, people, it's worth reading.