Quoting khigh:" What the federal government is supposed to spend money on is all listed in the Constitution. You think ... [snip!] ... on welfare. I personally think a yearly budget of any money over ZERO by the fed (not the states) is too much for welfare."
Not my point. I'm saying in the grand scheme of things, social welfare programs are the least of our concerns, and to "bully" them by telling them what they can and cannot do, in exchange for benefits, is ridiculous. I think it's absolutely lovely that we cater to our OWN citizens that are in need -but I don't think that means we need to mandate that they give up their own rights as individual. It may not say that we have to spend any money on them in the constitution, but the constitution was implemented to protect the rights of individuals, and THAT INCLUDES the impoverished. That's why I said, it's a grey area. Are they not entitled to the same rights as the middle class or the rich? That seems more than unfair. What else will we seek to take away from them? And why is it okay for the government to use our money to pay for their bloated lifestyles, yet all the attention seems to be focused upon using the impoverished as an economic scapegoat? It's bullsmurf.
As I stated earlier, I don't think we can control how a person lives, no matter what we try and take away from them. Spending money on nutrition classes is a joke, as was implementing a drug testing system for those receiving benefits. We need to reform the food that is manufactured to the masses, that is much more of an issue than a few mandated classes on nutrition. Most of the food in grocery stores is disgusting, and should not be eaten whatsoever. Not even the "healthy" food. It's a joke.