Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

No they just control a large faction of the government by way of the congressmen and women who are in their pockets along with other government officials at all levels that will do their biddings.

David I will give you an example as how the rich control the government at all levels even against the strong wishes of the local citizens.

Returning to Miami-Dade and the Marlins once more all the polls of the citizens at the time showed strong disfavor for taxpayers funding of the new Marlin Stadium.

The local politicians look hard at the government charter and declare that a public vote was not needed to approve the bonds fundings of the stadium in order to get around that little problem.

They were then taken to court and sadly the courts decided in the politicians favor.

As soon as possible recall petitions was files and the mayor and a council member lost their jobs by overwhelming votes of the citizens over this matter.

In the end however, the super rich Mr. Jeffrey Loria got to ripped off the taxpayers for an amount that not even a large army of welfare drug users could dream about.

We no longer had as government for and by the people we had a government for and by the super rich.

Hopefully this can be reverse without another violence revolution however only time will tell.

David in fact it is amusing to think that it is no longer a King who can now taxes us without our approval and again our will it is a damn owner of a baseball team that had that power.

At least in Miami-Dade he can and he did.

This is not accurate. Benjamin Carp, in his book "Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party and Making of America" made this assertion, well more accurately Carp states the Boston Tea Party was not exclusively about taxation without representation. In other words, the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation and expressing their disgust for the preference given to a British monopoly shipping tea to the colonies.

At best all he demonstrates is the Sons of Liberty in Pennsylvania and New York were upset with the Sons of Liberty in Massachusetts because they failed to previously enforce a tea boycott. The Sons of Liberty in Boston then can best be understood as acting to placate the Sons of Liberty in New York and Pennsylvania, as opposed to acting out of a desire to protect the interests of Dutch tea smugglers.

Furthermore, Samuel Adams, the prominent leader of the group of men who eventually would be responsible for the Boston Tea Party, held a series of meetings regarding the tea in port in the Boston harbor. Under English law, if the tea sitting in a colonial port on a ship was not unloaded or returned to the point of origin, or sent elsewhere, the tax on the tea needed to be paid. Samuel Adams and his cohorts did not want the governor of Massachusetts paying the tax, since they were after all asserting the tax violated their right of no taxation without representation.

Samuel Adams and his posse sent a letter to the governor of Massachusetts, then Francis Bernard, asking him to send the tea back to England. The governor refused Adams' request. As the 20 day deadline approached, Samuel Adams and others faced a dilemma because if the tea was still on the ship on the 20th day, the tax would have to be paid. So, to avoid having to pay any tax on the tea, a tax they were protesting, on the evening of the 19th day, the eve of the 20th day, they dumped the tea into Boston harbor. This act precluded paying the tax.

The American revolution was mainly motivated by George II having banned script money in the colonies and forced them to revert to a gold standard, crashing what had been the world's most vibrant economy into depression.

To the limited extent that I know these facts, it was a government that taxed u,
not the owner of an athletic team. The complaint shoud be mishandling of public funds.

If I am incorrect on the facts of the situation,
then please explain them.

Thank u for that information.
It sounds like thay DESERVED to lose their jobs.

Yes David they surely did deserved to loss their jobs but the problem is far greater then that.

The current government system and how we fund elections and the cost of access to the public media give far too must power/influence to the super rich compare to all the rest of us.

I do not think that the super rich should not have great influence in the public square however we had gone so far to the extreme that our Republic is beginning to resemble the Roman Republic near it end. With a ever smaller and less powerful middle class to act as a flywheel between the super rich and the poor.

The Rome mob that were control by bread and circus by the end of the Rome Republic was a few generations before the very backbone of that society.

They was the independent small land owners who supply the men to man the legions and they were loyal to Rome not any one leader. Their votes could not be purchase for bread or circus.

Then the upper class of the Roman society purchase the land and combine the small landholdings into great estates and ran those estates with slaves.

The gold and the slaves to created and run those estates for the upper class came from the victories of the legionnaires/farmers.

In any case there came to be no Rome small farmers IE no Rome middle class, the lower level Romans was depended on the upper class and was more then willing to sell their votes and the legions was man by mercenaries not farmers doing a tour in their military.

Whole legions were privately own at that point and not under the control of the state.

David in my opinion if we do not address the ever widening gap of wealth between the super rich and the rest of society our Republic will end in anything but name at best.

We are now seeing that one billionaire can override the wishes of millions of citizens even now.

Footnote the founding fathers model our system to a great degree on the Rome Republic model.

One of the most dangerous things about "Welfare drug testing" is the precedent that it sets in our minds. Encouraging us to look down on people who need help, or thinking of them as criminals. That is why the perfect response to such a suggestion is: "why not start with drug testing for our legislators & their lobbyists?"