Romney: Welfare drug testing is ‘an excellent idea’
- Tweet
- 6 Comments
In a recent interview with a news station in Georgia, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he supports laws requiring welfare beneficiaries to take drug tests.
When asked about such a law making its way through the Georgia Legislature, Romney told an NBC affiliate that the law is “a great idea.”
“States will deal with drug testing with welfare recipients, but my own view it’s a great idea,” he said. “People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits — we should make sure they are not using the money for drugs. I think it’s an excellent idea.”
Florida passed a law last year that required welfare beneficiaries to take drug tests before receiving benefits, but it was subsequently blocked by a judge. Despite claims by lawmakers in Florida that supported the law, the rate of people failing the drug tests was lower than drug use in the general population. In the few months since the law was put in place, the state has actually lost money in its implementation.
How about drug testing Republicans?
john f.:If I was still an active mbemer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would indeed be averse to him becoming the most recognized public face of the faith. First, he would further reinforce the stereotype that LDS are, as Seth so well put it, narrow-minded conservative throwbacks. Given that I did not fit that stereotype while I was an active mbemer of the LDS church, I hate to see that stereotype reinforced on a rather grand scale. Second, he has repeatedly changed his publicly-stated views on a variety of issues, each time conveniently to fit the demographic wherein he is running for office. He has done this so often, that I am unable to conclude that he is an honest man. I would be concerned that he might commit an unethical act, which would, due to his position, reflect badly upon the LDS church.Third, he has made more than one public statement which I would frankly expect faithful LDS to find offensive. Take, for example, his public joke that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and another woman, etc. Take, for another example, his recent comment that he couldn’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy. I don’t care that the majority of modern LDS would probably leave the church if plural marriage came back. Romney has shown, by his words, that he is completely willing to mock and/or repudiate principles which have been sacred to mbemers of the LDS church, not to mention his own ancestors. This one makes me angry even as a FORMER mbemer of the LDS church.Fourth, Romney represents the so-called gospel of prosperity, which is already far too rampant in LDS culture. Seeing an extremely wealthy mbemer of the church elevated to such a position would only exacerbate that problem, I believe.Fifth, Romney’s political views are, in my opinion, incongruent with those of a person who allegedly believes the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired.I could go on, but this should be enough to make it clear that I’m not making a mere knee-jerk reaction here.
Bill and ESO, it wasn’t that long ago that Hillary was touted as being so ilnglnieett that she was claimed to be the smartest woman in America.ESO, being an academic does not equate to being smart. A lot of professors are not smart , and tons of idiots have college degrees, even from Harvard. The things you mentioned are accomplishments, but not necessarily indicative of intelligence.Seriously, if you want intelligence and political competence, and someone who has a team that has a track record of getting things done, vote for Hillary. However, I seriously disagree with what she wants to implement: socialism and statism.Obama has proven himself to be a demagogue, much like Jimmy Carter, saying things that people want to hear, and getting them emotionally worked up with a well-crafted turn of a phrase. His theme of regime change even harkens back to Jimmy Carter’s message at the time Gerald Ford finished out Nixon’s second term. Obama is essentially recycling the political playbook of Jimmy Carter. It sounds all too familiar. (I voted in the 1976 presidential election.)Bill, if McCain is elected, I’ll blame republicans, but not conservatives for the 4 years of screw-ups. But I’ll especially blame McCain for collaborating with liberals. Republicans and conservatives are no longer synonymous.In the end, I’ll probably vote for the well-meaning idiot over the smart evil one. So relax, it looks like I’ll vote for your guy.
What exactly is wrong with drug testing people who are receiving government aid?
Bill wrote: Bookslinger, I done2€™t think the Obama campaign is the first thing the pshrae e2€œregime changee2€9d brings to mind. In terms of US politics during this campaign season, Obama and his campaigners are sure trying hard to make sure that those two things are synonymous. His main theme in the primary seems to be I’m not the Clintons, I’m an outsider’. And it appears that his theme in the general will be I’m not the Bushes, I’m an outsider’. Gee, just like Jimmy Carter’s theme, I’m a Washington-outsider. Oh, and by the way, any slurs I either specified or implied towards Obama were my own analysis/conclusions based on listening to him and his ads, and comparing them to the politics I’ve observed over the last 32 years; and did not come from listening to any other common-tators.He’s slicker than Slick Willie, but not as bright.He’s about as clueless on economics and international politics as Carter, and also not as bright as Carter, either.But I’ll probably vote for him, because I prefer stupid over evil.Also, note that any slurs specified or implied toward Obama are no where near as mean spirited as what the left wing has heaved at Bush.I would rather have a liberal president who campaigned as a liberal, than a liberal president who kept calling himself a conservative.It may be a moot point. It could come down to the super-delegates to determine who gets the dem nomination. there is the possibility that even though if Obama wins the majority of the pledged delegates, that Hillary will put the super-delegates into play in order to claim the nomination. I don’t know how that’s going to work out.But I do expect real fireworks in the dem convention. Wowza, it’s going to be history-making! Make sure you videotape (or record on DVD) as many hours of the dem convention as you can. Fireworks, I tell ya.
I didn’t know anything about Cindy McCain’s bacukrognd before I put up this thread. It doesn’t sound like John McCain was faithful to his first set of marriage vows. That’s a personal matter but the kind that matters. Also, I didn’t know about Cindy McCain’s history of addiction and possibly theft(?). I’ll have to read more about her. She’s not looking like someone I’d want to see as the nations First Lady.Those kinds of concerns would push me more in the direction of Obama.I disagree with those who say abortion is a non-issue. I think it is something that should be considered, even seriously considered. However, I also agree with the point that there are many other issues that should be considered as well and that as an issue abortion shouldn’t be solely decisive. Other political issues have considerable ethical weight to them as well.Also, I think a candidate can simultaneously be anti-abortion and lack character and/or morals. Being the anti-abortion candidate does not automatically grant a status of righteousness, intelligence, sanity or good character.So just because a particular candidate waves the anti-abortion flag doesn’t mean he/she should automatically win a vote. There’s a lot more involved in whoever ends up being president of this country.Many years ago, I used to feel abortion was such a huge issue that it dwarfed all others. However, over time, I came to the conclusion that abortion (though serious) does not always equate with murder though I do think late-term abortions may equate with murder or are close enough.
