Texas advances bill to require drug screening for welfare

[mookiemookie]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/27/17489469-texas-advances-bill-to-require-drug-screening-for-welfare?lite

First off, the Fourth Amendment says the government can't search you without probable cause. So now we're saying that if you're on welfare, that's a criminal behavior that opens you up to governmental search?

So now you say I'm a bleeding heart liberal with a soft spot for welfare queens? Ok, let's talk about it in terms that the Tea Party loooooves to harp on. Government spending.

Let's talk money and math. How many drug addicts do you think you're going to catch here out of all the welfare recipients tested? 20%? 10%? 1%?

Let's look at Florida, where a similar law was put into place:

For a cautionary tale, just look to Florida. In 2011, the state passed a law requiring all welfare recipients to be tested before they received help. Applicants had to come up with the $30 to $35 for the test; only those who passed would be reimbursed.

It turned out that of the 4,086 who took the tests, only 108 — just 2.6 percent — failed, most for marijuana. That’s far below the 6 percent state average of Floridians who use drugs. (An analysis by the state showed that the drug testing requirement didn’t tamp down applications.)

Not only was Florida left with mud on its face; it also had a small hole in its pocket. At about $35 per test, the state had to reimburse $118,140. After deducting the “savings” from the 108 who did not receive benefits, Florida lost $45,780.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130326-editorial-no-drug-tests-for-welfare-texas-should-heed-floridas-lesson.ece

:damn: And not to mention that a federal appeals court struck down Florida's law.

Waste of my taxpayer dollars. :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, the amendments have been ignored for the past four years. What's another one being ignored?

[Skybird]

People must learn to take responsibility for themselves. Public money should not be spend for paying the consummation of drugs. I am for solidarity when somebody gets into trouble and falls down the social ladder due to accident, bad fate, disease. But it should be solidarity that shows in helping him to help himself. Not for sitting at home, taking other people's money and spending it for tons of softdrinks, cigarettes and huge flatscreen TVs.

Or worse: buying drugs. Maybe even trading them? Social wellfare to criminals? No inviting prospect for me. At best considering it for a program to help people abandoning the drug or criminal scene. Help them to help themselves.

Violating this principle - see Europe where it leads. It sends the social security system over the fiscal cliff. People in Europe do not want to realize it, but the simple truth is: the ambitious, excessive social wellfare state a la Europe, has failed. It is unsustainable and non-affordable over the long term. We wanted too much, we lost reasonable standards and sense of proportion.

[August]

Well, the amendments have been ignored for the past four years. What's another one being ignored?

Exactly. If they can infringe on the American peoples right to keep and bear arms they can certainly infringe on any other right with impunity.

[Tchocky]

What a load of silliness.

[GoldenRivet]

I have to consent to a drug test to draw my paycheck... whats the difference???

I move to pass a law to defund welfare and redirect those funds to a more useful end.

[Tchocky]

I have to consent to a drug test to draw my paycheck... whats the difference???

I'm drug-tested fairly often for work. No big deal, there's an actual solid reason for that, whereas this idea just seems silly.

To me, this idea is more about whipping up anti-welfare-cheat feeling rather than er, whatever it's supposed to be doing.

It can't be about making sure taxpayer's money isn't spent on drugs. If that were the idea, then you'd have to take a drug test to qualify for tax credits, qualify for electric car purchase credit, get health insurance for your kids in some cases. It goes on and on.

Oh yeah, and drug tests for everyone in the public sector before they get paid. So it's not about keeping money from druggies. It's about looking like you're getting tough on "takers".

[mookiemookie]

People must learn to take responsibility for themselves. Public money should not be spend for paying the consummation of drugs.

Great. And exactly how many taxpayer dollars are you willing to spend to prove that point? We need politicians that will think fiscally and pragmatically, not ideologically.

So it's not about keeping money from druggies. It's about looking like you're getting tough on "takers".

Exactly. It's a stunt for politicians to use in their next election campaign. And the taxpayer is the one footing the bill for it, because it ends up costing the state thousands of dollars. It's asinine.

[AVGWarhawk]

I move to pass a law to defund welfare and redirect those funds to a more useful end.

You like riots, huh? :hmmm:

[GoldenRivet]

You like riots, huh? :hmmm:

They're ok with me. I'm sufficiently armed.

I don't know what America has against work, I completely fail to understand why we not only condone laziness and sloth and hind tit feeding within our populace... But we openly and actively go out if our way to promote it.

Pathetic

If Texas defunded welfare all those leeches would move to Louisiana or Oklahoma. I say push em up north lol

[Glock30Eric]

They're ok with me. I'm sufficiently armed.

I don't know what America has against work, I completely fail to understand why we not only condone laziness and sloth and hind tit feeding within our populace... But we openly and actively go out if our way to promote it.

Pathetic

If Texas defunded welfare all those leeches would move to Louisiana or Oklahoma. I say push em up north lol

I second that idea.

[Wolferz]

Great. More social experimentation known as dipping the public toe into the waters of a police state. Blind leading the blind. Corrupt assisting the corrupt by making the poor into the scapegoats for their own thievery using alleged drug addiction as the reasoning for a crackdown on the poor. It's pathetic how reasonably intelligent citizens can be so easily brainwashed by government propaganda.
In essence, I consider forced drug testing an unlawful act of illegal search without a warrant. Corporate America can get away with it by simply printing the rule in their employee handbook. But, no government entity can use it for any reason because it's unconstitutional!
Replacing the carrot with a stick will not motivate the mule to pull the cart.
The real welfare queens in this country are not poor. If the states and the feds want to save some money they should first cut their own exorbitant salaries, privileges and perks. Trim the fat out of every agency, then go after the poor.
Probably won't need to if that gets done.

[August]

Nobody is forcing them to undergo drug testing. Accepting public assistance is a voluntary act just like accepting employment with a private company. You want the money you pee in the cup.

[Aramike]

Nobody is forcing them to undergo drug testing. Accepting public assistance is a voluntary act just like accepting employment with a private company. You want the money you pee in the cup.Precisely.

Now to address Mookie's point regarding the cost: on the surface, it may cost more, but there may be savings here that are difficult to detect. For one, if this can deter welfare recipients from using drugs, this may make them more confident in passing employer screenings. For another, how many hospital emergency room beds which are not paid for will be freed by additional healthy immune systems, less drug-related illnesses, fewer drug-related accidents, etc?

I think that perhaps you're looking at this the wrong way, as though it's supposed to be a measure to kick drug users off of the welfare rolls. I see it differently, as I've first hand witnessed the rampant drug use in the low-income welfare community: it's yet another incentive to get people clean, healthy, and employable.

Returning to self-sufficiency is what welfare is about - not merely a substitute for a real, earned paycheck.

[CaptainHaplo]

First off, the Fourth Amendment says the government can't search you without probable cause.

No violation of the 4th amendment as applying for welfare is not mandated by the government. It is done by choice, and thus its requirements fall under said choice.

Let's talk money and math. How many drug addicts do you think you're going to catch here out of all the welfare recipients tested? 20%? 10%? 1%?
Let's look at Florida, where a similar law was put into place:
Waste of my taxpayer dollars. :nope:

What the premise of "how many are you going to catch" fails to take into account is simple - how many people heard about the law, knew they would be tested - and knew they would fail? How many didn't even apply because of it? More than enough to make up that $118k for sure.

Something to think about.....

[August]

Returning to self-sufficiency is what welfare is about - not merely a substitute for a real, earned paycheck.

Fewer junkies sucking up welfare money means more that will be available to the really deserving.

[Aramike]

Fewer junkies sucking up welfare money means more that will be available to the really deserving.Indeed. Along with that is the hope for fewer junkies period.

[Tchocky]

It might be worth pointing out - again - that when research was carried out on this subject the level of drug use for welfare recipients was less than half of that of the regular population.

The way some of you guys are talking you'd think drugs were a mandatory accompaniment to welfare.

They're ok with me. I'm sufficiently armed.

I don't know what America has against work, I completely fail to understand why we not only condone laziness and sloth and hind tit feeding within our populace...

To paraphrase - I don't know what some Americans seem to have against their own countrymen. You would only have a problem with riots if you yourself weren't carrying a gun. Good grief.

[mookiemookie]

? How many didn't even apply because of it? More than enough to make up that $118k for sure.



Read the article:

(An analysis by the state showed that the drug testing requirement didn’t tamp down applications.)

As for it not being a violation - well, you're wrong. It's irrelevant whether someone is going to apply for welfare voluntarily or not. It's a government service that is provided to someone that's paid for by their tax dollars. The judge who blocked the law found the same:

"In October, a federal judge in Orlando temporarily blocked the state of Florida from conducting drug tests on welfare applicants. U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven wrote in her ruling that drug tests are “well established” as a means of search under the Fourth Amendment and that the state had not demonstrated a substantial need to justify “suspicionless” drug testing. "

The mere act of applying for welfare is not a crime worthy enough of a government search of your person.

[Onkel Neal]

Nothing in this country will ever be fixed or improved, we will always have people fighting against it.

[mookiemookie]

Nothing in this country will ever be fixed or improved, we will always have people fighting against it.

Improving and fixing the welfare system is a great goal. This is not the way to do it, however. It's childish and simplistic thinking that wastes taxpayer dollars.

[AVGWarhawk]

Nothing in this country will ever be fixed or improved, we will always have people fighting against it.

Never a truer statement. It is the nature of the beast as it were. The people need to change. Was the stigmata of welfare different 60 years ago compared to today?

[Onkel Neal]

Improving and fixing the welfare system is a great goal. This is not the way to do it, however. It's childish and simplistic thinking that wastes taxpayer dollars.

Oh, sure, because we know 99% of welfare recipients would pass the drug test. People who work have to pass drug screening to pay taxes for those who take welfare.

[Tchocky]

97% for marijuana. At least in the Florida study.

[mookiemookie]

Oh, sure, because we know 99% of welfare recipients would pass the drug test. People who work have to pass drug screening to pay taxes for those who take welfare.

A private employer is not the same as the government, though. And at least in Florida it was 97.6 percent of people who passed the test.

This is a classic boondoggle project thats entire premise rests on the perception that all public assistance recipients are a bunch of lazy minorities who spend every day doing drugs.

Apparently when we get down to the dollars and cents of it, that doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that people would defend wasting government money to try and prove this when it's already been disproven is a stupid idea. Of course thinking differently would involve people putting some thought into it and possibly changing their worldview, and that may be too much to ask of those unwilling or incapable of doing so.

[Herr-Berbunch]

10-drug instant result (5 mins) cup test - $6.95. Somebody, once again in government, needs to learn to write contracts/purchase orders - they could've been making a public profit. :-?

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, let's change our worldview and not be stupid, top of my priority list.

And who the hell said anything about "minorities"? Don't throw the race card in this.:nope:

[mookiemookie]

Yes, let's change our worldview and not be stupid, top of my priority list.

I try to live by the philosophy of always be learning and always be challenging what you know to be true. :up:

[Onkel Neal]

I try to live by the philosophy of always be learning and always be challenging what you know to be true. :up:

I'm pretty sure everybody thinks that way (whether they actually practice it or not...). And thanks for challenging what I know to be true. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

This is a classic boondoggle project thats entire premise rests on the perception that all public assistance recipients are a bunch of lazy minorities who spend every day doing drugs.



Not in my family(wife's side). These folks are white and largely alcoholics. No boondoggle. Just Boones Farm. Enjoy your day. :up:

http://completeoutrageredux.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/boones.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

Improving and fixing the welfare system is a great goal. This is not the way to do it, however. It's childish and simplistic thinking that wastes taxpayer dollars.
Actually the Founding Fathers believed that Federal welfare was unconstitutional.

James Madison even believed that Federally funded schools were a subversion of what the U.S. Government was meant to do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903629/posts

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791
Jefferson was arguing against the constitutionality of Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a National Bank, but his thoughts on other areas of Federal dabbling are obvious.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

And some later presidents:

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money." - Congressman David Crockett, 1830.

All the above quotes are from this article:
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

A short article by a man for whom I have the utmost respect:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/detective.html

I believe that all public welfare and health care issues should be the provenance of the States, not the Federal Government.

[Skybird]

Governments are monopolists, monopolists in making laws that result in private property being declared public property and taking away form the former original owner ("taxes"). Like all monopolists, they have an inbuilt tendency for expansion, and must sooner or later collide with monopolists of the same type from other regions/nations. Therefore there is the tendency towards growing centralization and forming of fewer, increasingly powerful monopolists, and in the end only one monopolist will remain: the world government. Here people will have ended up in a society where they can no longer vote with their feet against their government, because this one government rules everywhere and the same law restrictions and taxes apply to everybody, everywhere. Such a state will be the implementation of the socialistic utopia, enforced by totalitarian control, not knowing private property or private responsibility, and thus demotivating against trying to improve, to do something out of initiative, to work for something better. Instead, since nobody can own anything anymore and all is public property of the collective instead, costs and deficits get socialised, nobody tries to counter that, and the society will degenerate in economic impotence, fatalism and laziness. We have seen that in the Eastern economies until the USSR collapsed. Not to own , not to produce and not to improve necessarily must be more attractive in such a society, than trying to gain something to own, to produce, to improve.

Socialism always must lead to cultural and social degeneration and political totalitarianism, since it appeals to the lowest in man, and defames and mercilessly supresses all quality that has the potential to ennoble him.

[August]

Governments are monopolists

And that's why every bit of government expansion must be fought tooth and nail even if it does cause certain Europeans to roll their eyes.

[mookiemookie]

I believe that all public welfare and health care issues should be the provenance of the States, not the Federal Government.

And that's fine, and I would actually tend to agree with you. But putting an unwarranted search qualification on a social insurance program that (unlike the view of some of our mistaken posters here) requires mandatory participation is still protected by the Constitution, regardless if it's offered by the states or the Federal Government.

Everyone participates in the program. Every time money is deducted from your paycheck, or you pay property taxes or state income tax, you're paying your premiums for the social insurance. It's required by law. And that's where the "oh private employers make you take a drug test" analogy falls apart. So if you are in the position to have to make a claim on that insurance policy and apply for benefits, then why does that trigger a governmental search of your person?

It boggles my mind sometimes. They're against wasteful governmental spending, until they're not. They're against unwarranted government intrusion into your life, until they're not. :doh:

[Armistead]

Welfare isn't a right, it's a program with rules and regulations, most designed to prevent abuse, but we know the program is terribly abused.
I see no problem with drug testing as a qualifier for welfare.

[AVGWarhawk]

And that's fine, and I would actually tend to agree with you. But putting an unwarranted search qualification on a social insurance program that (unlike the view of some of our mistaken posters here) requires mandatory participation is still protected by the Constitution, regardless if it's offered by the states or the Federal Government.

Everyone participates in the program. Every time money is deducted from your paycheck, or you pay property taxes or state income tax, you're paying your premiums for the social insurance. It's required by law. And that's where the "oh private employers make you take a drug test" analogy falls apart. So if you are in the position to have to make a claim on that insurance policy and apply for benefits, then why does that trigger a governmental search of your person?

It boggles my mind sometimes. They're against wasteful governmental spending, until they're not. They're against unwarranted government intrusion into your life, until they're not. :doh:


Let's change the rules then. Why not, been going on for 4 years now. New rule, if you would like to participate in the welfare program you need to agree to a drug test. The other rule still stands. Everyone who takes home a paycheck pays into the welfare system. After all, one day you might need it. Welcome to the new America. :up:

[Onkel Neal]

It boggles my mind sometimes. They're against wasteful governmental spending, until they're not. They're against unwarranted government intrusion into your life, until they're not. :doh:

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

Ah....men

[mookiemookie]

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

[Tchocky]

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.

Should anyone being granted any sort of fiscal relaxation be drug tested then?

I mean, having kids reduces your tax liability, should this be subject to a drug test?

Should every public sector employee be subjected to drug testing in order to get their paychecks?

Should farmers receiving farm aid be subject to tax credits?

How about the working poor, who qualify for the EITC? Seems like they should all have to pee into a cup too.

And all those veterans getting healthcare.

Property tax can be deducted from your taxable income. Seem like realtors should carry drug test kits just to be sure no money is given to junkies right away.

Mortgage interest deduction, too.

Point is - this measure is just posturing, designed to look like legislators are getting tough on a cohort of the population despised by some of their supporters.

[Armistead]

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

I agree you make a good point, just shows anything the govt. does cost 100 times what it should. With all the red tape, I'm sure running a drug program is much more expensive for the taxpayer.

Saw another clip that even with a so called improving economy, people getting food stamps is still increasing, now almost 50 million. The stock market is soaring, but still no real job growth, in fact, last month in many states umemployment rose, it did mine.

We've created an economic model that is creating a two class system. Our jobs still go overseas in mass. The rich are getting richer, now about 15% of the rich control 80% of all real wealth in America. No party is addressing what is needed to build a thriving middle class, both still support the rich getting richer, only difference the Dems want social programs for all the poor created, the GOP just wants them to die on the vine.

[mookiemookie]

No party is addressing what is needed to build a thriving middle class, both still support the rich getting richer, only difference the Dems want social programs for all the poor created, the GOP just wants them to die on the vine.

Amen. It's class warfare alright, and it's both sides against the middle.

[Tribesman]

Point is - this measure is just posturing, designed to look like legislators are getting tough on a cohort of the population despised by some of their supporters.

Yep, the policy smacks of inefficient pandering to populism, there seems to be a real big rash of that going on in most countries at the moment.

[Aramike]

It's not that complicated. It's not an intrusion when it's voluntary. You want my tax dollars, then here's what you have to do. Don't like it? No problem, get a job.Exactly.

Besides, anyone who doesn't think drug usage is rampant in the low income community has either never been to an inner city or simply won't admit to what's happening right in front of their eyes. No kidding people in Florida by-and-large passed drug screenings: it doesn't take a genius to stop using drugs when your paycheck is on the line.

Why is getting welfare recipients off of drugs a bad thing? I'm all for testing; frequent, surprise testing. Don't like it? Like Neal said. No problem, get a job.

[Aramike]

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.No we are not, I've addressed this: the point shouldn't even be to "catch" drug users!

[Tchocky]

No Fourth Amendment trouble there, no?

[mookiemookie]

No Fourth Amendment trouble there, no?

The appeals courts certainly think there is. So add that to the list of stupid expenses that Texas is incurring with this boondoggle.

[Onkel Neal]

But it's not only your tax dollars, it's theirs too. I was on unemployment once in my life, and I was happy that I had paid my payroll taxes in the past so that it was there when I needed it. It wasn't voluntary at all...try opting out and you go to jail for tax evasion.

And we're still ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users.

Unemployment and welfare are two very different things.

And yes, if in actuality, drug testing welfare recipients costs more than it saves and does not catch that many drug users, then we can stop it. But Florida studies aside, I am skeptical that drug testing welfare applicants would not deter dopeheads and tweakers from applying.

[Armistead]

One thing for sure, those in poverty often turn to drugs for a host of issues, depression, pain from illness or escape from reality. It probably is hard to get proper mental and medical care if poor and on welfare, so they turn to other options. The street is full of alcholics, including many vets, no doubt many use welfare or other govt means to secure money for booze. If anything having welfare would free up what money they may have to buy booze and drugs. The other problem, if many lost welfare, they would probably end up in prison, much more expensive.

Still, I believe as long as our economic models create a two class system, millions will fall into poverty, somewhere along the line we all pay, either in social programs, cost of crime or prison.

Still, we know anything the govt does isn't cost effective and tons of red tape and waste. I think it's to the point of FUBAR and govt containment until the system implodes and chaos breaks out.

[Aramike]

One thing for sure, those in poverty often turn to drugs for a host of issues, depression, pain from illness or escape from reality. It probably is hard to get proper mental and medical care if poor and on welfare, so they turn to other options. The street is full of alcholics, including many vets, no doubt many use welfare or other govt means to secure money for booze. If anything having welfare would free up what money they may have to buy booze and drugs. The other problem, if many lost welfare, they would probably end up in prison, much more expensive.

Still, I believe as long as our economic models create a two class system, millions will fall into poverty, somewhere along the line we all pay, either in social programs, cost of crime or prison.

Still, we know anything the govt does isn't cost effective and tons of red tape and waste. I think it's to the point of FUBAR and govt containment until the system implodes and chaos breaks out.I'm sorry to say, that sounds like a ton of excuses. The impoverished turn to drugs to escape their misery? What misery?! How is it that in the United States we have the most ridiculously obese welfare class on the planet, complete with clean running water, big screen TVs, and Xbox 360s?

The cycle of poverty will never end as long as we keep providing excuses, must less accepting them. People make poor decisions, and rationalization is the second strongest human drive. As long as we keep giving an out for those excuses (oh, you're so sad, that's why you do drugs, nothing to do with your terrible propensity for decision making and self-responsibility) people are going to feel less and less inclined to achieve.

Safety nets should exist to help people get back on their feet, and take care of people who aren't able to. They should NOT exist to be a way of life, and to take care of people who CHOOSE not to. Drug use is a choice - whatever brings you to it, doesn't matter. You got there. I'll help you stop, and gladly pay to assist. But I WON'T help you SUSTAIN that habit.

[Tribesman]

I'm sorry to say, that sounds like a ton of excuses. The impoverished turn to drugs to escape their misery? What misery?! How is it that in the United States we have the most ridiculously obese welfare class on the planet, complete with clean running water, big screen TVs, and Xbox 360s?
Take away the mod cons and you could be talking about ancient rome, royalist and repulican france, imperial china or victorian britain.

The cycle of poverty will never end as long as we keep providing excuses, must less accepting them.
The cycle of poverty didn't end with poor laws deportations or imprisonment either, all the "get tough" measures on the "****less wastrels" have made no impact at all over the centuries.
What you are suggesting is a re-run of useless approach which has failed hundreds or thousands of times already and has never shown even the slightest hint of working.
Makes for good populist headlines though doesn't it.

edit to add. silly ******** filter doesn't understand english, the word is **** not ****

[Armistead]

I'm sorry to say, that sounds like a ton of excuses. The impoverished turn to drugs to escape their misery? What misery?! How is it that in the United States we have the most ridiculously obese welfare class on the planet, complete with clean running water, big screen TVs, and Xbox 360s?

The cycle of poverty will never end as long as we keep providing excuses, must less accepting them. People make poor decisions, and rationalization is the second strongest human drive. As long as we keep giving an out for those excuses (oh, you're so sad, that's why you do drugs, nothing to do with your terrible propensity for decision making and self-responsibility) people are going to feel less and less inclined to achieve.

Safety nets should exist to help people get back on their feet, and take care of people who aren't able to. They should NOT exist to be a way of life, and to take care of people who CHOOSE not to. Drug use is a choice - whatever brings you to it, doesn't matter. You got there. I'll help you stop, and gladly pay to assist. But I WON'T help you SUSTAIN that habit.

I don't totally disagree, there is much waste, abuse, etc, but I also am willing to look at facts. There is no doubt that our economic models are creating a two class system. It doesn't seem who we vote it, it continues to happen. Most Americans in poverty are actually working.

I look at our county, very rural, but once a huge mill town. I bet in the 80's we had 50 large mills. They paid a good wage, benefits, pensions, etc. There was hardly any need for welfare. In the 80's, only 9% here got free lunch, last year 57% were on free lunch. We have two mills now open. You can drive for miles and pass large empty mills falling in. Where did all these jobs go and why? We actually have a major problem with children going hungry in our county when school is out.

The stock market is soaring, but wages are only increasing for a few percent, compared to cost of living most of our wages are going down.

My wife worked part time for Social Services here. Many of the stories were heartbreaking and many would make you fume. One family comes in, lost job, major illness, lost all. These often waited until they had sold everything to come in. You could tell they were ashamed for being there.
Then in comes the single mom with 10 kids wanting to know who is going to pay for all of this. Guess who gets the most help?

There will always be certain sectors that take advantage of free social programs regardless of race, but millions are falling into poverty simply because they don't or can't find a job or a decent paying job.

Are there better answers, sure. Responsible people will try and find a way.

[CaptainHaplo]

No we are not, I've addressed this: the point shouldn't even be to "catch" drug users!

Your right - its not. But what Mookie wants to ignore is that the HHS (A Federal level governmental agency) puts drug abuse at between 5% and 37% based on measurement variables.

"Studies of the prevalence of substance abuse among welfare recipients have varied widely in their findings, with rates of between 4 and 37 percent reported. Much of the difference in prevalence rates found in these studies is due to different data sources, definitions and measurement methods, particularly the different thresholds used to define substance abuse. Another key difference is whether alcohol abuse and/or the abuse of prescription drugs are included in the estimate. In addition, drug use and abuse is higher among single men in States’ General Assistance (GA) caseloads than among single (largely female) parents on TANF. So studies that define welfare to include GA beneficiaries often find higher rates. Typically, lower end estimates of around 5 percent or less focus on indications of diagnosable abuse of or dependence on illicit drugs among TANF or (for early estimates) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program clients. Higher rates, in the 10 percent range, tend to include any past month use of illicit drugs. Rates in the highest ranges (15 percent or more) usually define substance abuse to include alcohol abuse and include any past year (rather than past month) use of illicit drugs. The highest rate noted to date in any study, 37 percent,[5] (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/DrugTesting/ib.shtml#_edn5) included female welfare recipients reporting having used any illicit drug at least once in the past year and/or two or more binge drinking episodes in the past month (with binge drinking defined as having had 5 or more drinks on the same occasion or within a couple of hours)."

Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/DrugTesting/ib.shtml

The only way to get the "low" end numbers is to use "diagnosable abuse" indications. Anything else - even a "well I used once about a month ago" leads to 10% or higher numbers. Taking 10% out of the welfare pool - even considering the costs of the testing - would still be a positive on the balance sheet. Dropping 15% or more - all the way up to the "female welfare recpients" who are doing drugs "at least once in the past year" and going out and getting totally wasted 2x or more in the last month - yeah that would be a bonus.

Oh - and seriously - alcohol SHOULD be on the list of abused substances - because if your on welfare - where are you getting the money to go out and get "5 or more drinks" in the space of a couple of hours? Or maybe that's how they get knocked up?

[mookiemookie]

Your right - its not. But what Mookie wants to ignore is that the HHS (A Federal level governmental agency) puts drug abuse at between 5% and 37% based on measurement variables.

No, what you want to ignore is that a governmental search of someone's person requires probable cause. Applying for welfare is not evidence of criminal activity and offers no probable cause.

More victimization and stigmatization of the poor. More populist and childish ideas that offer no real reform or benefit to the taxpayer. If you want to drug test people based on receiving benefits, might as well drug test yourself if you've taken a student loan or a mortgage interest deduction. Buy a Prius? Better unzip before you take that tax credit for buying a green vehicle. How's your "alcohol should be on the list of abused substances" idea now? Hope you didn't have a glass of wine while doing your taxes and calculating that mortgage interest deduction. The Feds are banging on your door with a piss cup. :roll:

[CaptainHaplo]

No, what you want to ignore is that a governmental search of someone's person requires probable cause. Applying for welfare is not evidence of criminal activity and offers no probable cause.

So the ONLY time the government can require a drug test is if they have "probable cause"? Are you sure about that?

Apply to be an employee of the Federal (or local/State) Government sometime. Guess what - you pretty much have to pass a drug screen as a condition of employment. In such a case, the gub'ment has no "probable cause" to create such a mandatory employment condition - but it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Why? Because no one is MAKING anyone apply for governmental employment. By doing so, one is informed of the requirement and their choice to continue to pursue employment is voluntary - meaning they are voluntarily CONSENTING to said "search". There is no difference between that and the APPLICATION for welfare benefits. No one is making someone apply - and if they are informed of the requirement - then their choice to continue the application process is, legally speaking, voluntary consent to the "search".

Yes, I know - a judge said they couldn't do it. Actually, if you look into it, an appellate court (11th Circuit) actually upheld on Feb 26th the TEMPORARY injunction keeping the Florida law from going into effect. However, the fight still isn't over, and the 11th Circuit did not rule the law unconstitutional.

"Judge Rosemary Barkett said attorneys for the state did not prove that children of families who receive TANF are more at risk without drug testing in place."

Because this injunction is still temporary, and the governor has stated that he will take it to the Supreme Court, you can point to one decision all you want - the question is still up in the air.

More victimization and stigmatization of the poor.

Yes, victimization by identifying those with drug issues and getting them help, or refusing to provide them assistance so they can continue to be druggies. Of course - the mere fact that they are drug users makes them "victims" already doesn't it - even though they are CHOOSING to be druggies. Getting them help makes them even more of a victim? Yea ok. Stigmatizing? Really? So again - does it "stigmatize" someone who applies for employment? Or maybe it just "victimizes" them?

More populist and childish ideas that offer no real reform or benefit to the taxpayer.

So removing roughly 10% (or up to 37%) of those on the welfare rolls who are by definition abusing the system - it offers no real reform or benefit? What then is your definition of "real reform"? What things would be?

If you want to drug test people based on receiving benefits, might as well drug test yourself if you've taken a student loan Uhm... key word - LOAN. It gets paid back. Last I checked, welfare is not some loan - its a "gift" from the benevolent gub'ment that is never "paid back" by the recipient. Even then, I could see some reason for it - because it is a benefit one must "apply" for and uses taxpayer dollars. How many more people would get through college if they were not whacked out part of the time?

or a mortgage interest deduction. Now here we see a big difference in how you think compared to how I do. See - a mortgage interest deduction does not cost the taxpayers - it doesn't "cost" te government - because the money doesn't belong to the government to start with. To you, it would seem it "costs" the government and the taxpayers - but that can only be the case is its the government's money to start with. That just isn't how I see it.

[mookiemookie]

So removing roughly 10% (or up to 37%) of those on the welfare rolls who are by definition abusing the system...

See this is where the conversation ends. That statement shows you didn't read the article. And if you did, you choose to ignore the realities of it and the facts that were found when your idea is put into practice in Florida. 108 cases out of 4086. And the same amount of applications as before. 2.6%! That's not 37% or 10% or whatever number you're coming up with from lala land. It's a disbelief of reality. And that's unreasonable.

You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into. So why bother? Good day and Happy Easter.

[CaptainHaplo]

Happy Easter.

And a happy Easter to you!

See this is where the conversation ends. That statement shows you didn't read the article.
No, I read it.

And if you did, you choose to ignore the realities of it and the facts that were found when your idea is put into practice in Florida. 108 cases out of 4086. And the same amount of applications as before. 2.6%!

Yes - but that number also discounts the almost 1600 applicants that refused the drug test and thus withdrew their application.
Source: http://www.drugfree.org/uncategorized/almost-1600-welfare-applicants-in-florida-decline-to-undergo-drug-testing

That's not 37% or 10% or whatever number you're coming up with from lala land.

Its not lala land - its fact. Examine it: Put those back into the equation. Out of a total of 7,028 applications, call it 1600 withdrawn OR failed the test (since less than 1% that took it failed). THAT is fact. And guess what - it equals 22% of the total.

You see - what your article neglects to mention is how many of those who applied refused the test and thus withdrew. That is a significantly statistical portion - nearly 1 out of every 4!

Take a look at just one month's numbers - which show nearly 10% effect
Source: http://www.floridafga.org/2011/09/the-impact-of-florida-new-drug-test-requirement-for-welfare-cash-assistance/

It's a disbelief of reality. And that's unreasonable.

No Mookie - citing one source alone that does not account for all the variables, ignoring the HHS memo I included, and then accepting spin without taking the time to consider all the facts - means the "2.6%" claim is false.

We both know that numbers can be manipulated - and in this case the writer of your article got a nice, low number that he wanted by using the numbers he wanted. Did applications drop? No. Did they find lots of drug users? No. Both of those statements in the article were true. However, an absolutely significant portion of applications were stopped when people found out they would get drug tested and that there were repercussions to a failed test -and the article neglected - whether purposely or not - to mention that very important fact. Had it mentioned that - then it would not have been able to support its conclusion. Which is why the conclusion is wrong.

[Wolferz]

If you folks that think this is a good idea, I invite you to take a trip to your local welfare office and look around. Take notice of the people you find there and while you're at it get an application and read it. You will notice, right off the bat, all the warnings in BOLD red letters that it's a crime to defraud the government. By adding a drug test provision the only thing that will occur is... The applicant will find a way around it by either giving up the quest or cessation of the drug use just long enough to pass the whiz quiz. They may even go as far as cheating the test by using urine that isn't theirs or use of an artificial sample.

Those that don't expose themselves to prosecution will likely end up burglarizing your home. Best you stock up on ammo.

My ex-wife applied for and received benefits by using our two children( in my custody) on the application. Imagine my surprise when I get a letter from the state telling me I owed them a lot of money for non-payment of child support. She was ultimately hauled into court and actually told the prosecutor the truth and they didn't do a damn thing to her.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble. Finding it everywhere and applying all the wrong remedies. *Groucho Marx*

Suffice it to say that the governments are going to take your money and give it to someone else no matter what you think about it. So, giving it to the drugged up welfare cases shouldn't be cause for your concern. It keeps them from robbing you in the streets. You should be more concerned with the bigger welfare queens that have big corporate names like Con-Agra, Monsanto, General Motors, Chase bank, etc etc ad nauseum.
I'd wager that they won't be handed a tinkle cup when they show up with their hand out for a hand out.

[CaptainHaplo]

Wolferz...

Welfare - whether corporate or individual - is money taken from the working citizen and given to someone else. Your right about that. And your right its abused either way. The thing is, its government's fault for creating a system that is so ripe for abuse - and you have to start somewhere. The reason you start with drug users vs "big corp" is simple - big corp actually does something useful in society.

Business employs people, welfare drug users? Not so much.

Any questions?

[mookiemookie]

words

All irrelevant anyways, as there was no evidence of a crime being committed and no probable cause for a search.

Here's a fun one. Guess who said: "there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use."

Fourth Amendment rights are a wonderful thing. Shame that so many people want to throw them away.

[CaptainHaplo]

All irrelevant anyways, as there was no evidence of a crime being committed and no probable cause for a search.

So now your back to the whole "search and seizure" argument. Well, when you can't argue the facts, you have to change the discussion. OK - but I already addressed it and you didn't have a rebuttal. So once again - where is the evidence of a crime being committed or the probable cause that allows the government to require drug screening in all of its applicants for employment?

Have you come up with an answer for that one yet?

Fourth Amendment rights are a wonderful thing.
We agree on that.

Shame that so many people want to throw them away.
No - its a shame people want to think their "right" to use illegal drugs and then defraud the government of the money paid by those of us that work is ok. It's not. So try again.

[mookiemookie]

Have you come up with an answer for that one yet?

I don't think I need to explain the difference between making a claim on the social insurance policy that you have bought and paid for with your tax dollars and a job application. Again, when are you submitting your specimen, because I guarantee you that you're receiving some benefit from public tax dollars. Fair is fair, right?

its a shame people want to think their "right" to use illegal drugs and then defraud the government of the money paid by those of us that work is ok. Painting with an awful broad brush there. I see the right's attempt to associate all welfare recipients with lazy minorities who are out to steal the white man's treasure is working.

File an amicus curiae brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with your "scientifically" derived statistics. Let me know how that goes. But again...Fourth Amendment. Bang the Constitution drum all day long until it involves poor people and single mothers. Then it's just "Screw 'em". Sad.

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't think I need to explain the difference between making a claim on the social insurance policy that you have bought and paid for with your tax dollars and a job application.
Anytime you make a claim on an insurance policy, you must be able to prove that you meet the requirements of the said policy. If you don't think so, go try and collect on a life insurance policy when the person its for is still alive....

The very first sentence in this thread you wrote:
First off, the Fourth Amendment says the government can't search you without probable cause.

Yet I have proved that is not the case - you can - by application - consent to a search. It doesn't matter what the application is for - if you are aware that such a search is part of the process, and you choose to engage in the process, you are choosing to CONSENT to the process - including the screening.

Again, when are you submitting your specimen, because I guarantee you that you're receiving some benefit from public tax dollars. Fair is fair, right?

I have been drug tested numerous times over the year. I don't have a problem with it. Gee - I wonder if that might be because I don't use drugs - whereas the ones who want a benefit simply want it given with no questions asked.

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I see the right's attempt to associate all welfare recipients with lazy minorities who are out to steal the white man's treasure is working.

Christ, Mookie - where do you get off basically calling everyone who favors drug screening a racist over this? That is simply uncalled for. No one in this discussion - except for you - has brought race up as even a component. To do so simply to denigrate those who hold a different view - I thought better of you. Considering whites actually make up more recipients than any other race, it also makes the claim demonstrably false. Still, who cares about facts when you can yell "RACIST", huh?

File an amicus curiae brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with your "scientifically" derived statistics. Let me know how that goes. But again...Fourth Amendment.
Time will tell - but we both know this will go to a higher court, so what the lower courts rule is not the final arbiter.

Bang the Constitution drum all day long until it involves poor people and single mothers. Then it's just "Screw 'em". Sad.

First of all - as a single dad of 2 who has had to struggle - I take a bit of offense when people try to make it all about the "poor and single mothers". We all have our own road to go through - and just because they are poor (and I have been too - and I ain't rich now either) or female with kids doesn't make em "special". The mere fact that gender even comes up just speaks to how screwy the situation is. What about us single dad's? Apparently - you only want to apply standards to "protected classes". How is that for "fair"?

As for the Constitution drum, the only reason you can make it about the "poor and single mothers" is because its a social program in which they are the primary recipient. Guess what - I am pretty consistent - I'd be ok with testing old people on Medicare for drugs too - because if they got cash to buy pot (and they don't have a Dr.'s prescription) - they don't need me paying for their health care. Oh - and while we are doing "testing" - lets means test people on Medicare. After all - welfare recipients are means tested, why shouldn't we do the same to "old" people?

Or maybe just to assuage whatever guilt or angst you may have over racial issues, would it simply make you feel better if we only means tested (and for welfare - drug tested) Caucasians? :/\\!!

[Aramike]

Take away the mod cons and you could be talking about ancient rome, royalist and repulican france, imperial china or victorian britain.


The cycle of poverty didn't end with poor laws deportations or imprisonment either, all the "get tough" measures on the "****less wastrels" have made no impact at all over the centuries.
What you are suggesting is a re-run of useless approach which has failed hundreds or thousands of times already and has never shown even the slightest hint of working.
Makes for good populist headlines though doesn't it.

edit to add. silly ******** filter doesn't understand english, the word is **** not ****I'm not disagreeing with you that any approach which is designed merely to restrict the impact upon the taxpayer is likely to fail as well.

My point is simple: when we take the misery out of poverty, we remove the primary motivation for self-sufficiency.

Now I'm not suggesting letting people starve in the streets. What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.

As for the rest, Haplo seems to be doing fine. :cool:

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - you bring up a really good point - and one that I think leads to a discussion of real reforms for those who are on welfare.

I don't know of anyone that wants people to stay poor. I sure don't. But again, identifying those with drug problems so they can get help - helps them. Evil thing that. Then again, when it comes to "real" reforms - I am all for ACTIVE work requirement for welfare. Sure, I get some people can't find a job - McDonalds and the like can only absorb so many people. But there are a lot of charities and community groups that would love to have people resources for say.... 16 hours a week.

Habitat for Humanity is an example. 2 full WORK days a week - and the welfare recipient could be learning an "on the job" trade by helping to build a house for someone else in need. Soup Kitchens always need helpers - both in and out of the kitchen. I could probably list 100 groups that could use the people resources to help the community. Just 2 days a week....

But of course - that would never get off the ground. Too much backlash for expecting people to be part of their own solution. And on the McDonalds note - it amazes me when welfare recipients say they wouldn't take a job at a fast food place because they won't make enough. Welfare would still pay them if they worked unless they made too much - and if they actually DID work - and did a good job - they would have an increased earning potential. But instead many choose to sit with their hand out - and then get mad when their "right" to welfare gets looked at.

[Aramike]

Aramike - you bring up a really good point - and one that I think leads to a discussion of real reforms for those who are on welfare.

I don't know of anyone that wants people to stay poor. I sure don't. But again, identifying those with drug problems so they can get help - helps them. Evil thing that. Then again, when it comes to "real" reforms - I am all for ACTIVE work requirement for welfare. Sure, I get some people can't find a job - McDonalds and the like can only absorb so many people. But there are a lot of charities and community groups that would love to have people resources for say.... 16 hours a week.

Habitat for Humanity is an example. 2 full WORK days a week - and the welfare recipient could be learning an "on the job" trade by helping to build a house for someone else in need. Soup Kitchens always need helpers - both in and out of the kitchen. I could probably list 100 groups that could use the people resources to help the community. Just 2 days a week....

But of course - that would never get off the ground. Too much backlash for expecting people to be part of their own solution. And on the McDonalds note - it amazes me when welfare recipients say they wouldn't take a job at a fast food place because they won't make enough. Welfare would still pay them if they worked unless they made too much - and if they actually DID work - and did a good job - they would have an increased earning potential. But instead many choose to sit with their hand out - and then get mad when their "right" to welfare gets looked at.I agree with you 100%. Part of the problem is the excuse crowd - there are people out there who don't believe that any of the poor are responsible for their fiscal state. As soon as you start requiring them to work to receive benefits, you'll hear the lines about who's going to watch the kids, etc.

It is a sad state of affairs when, through our own rhetoric, we paint ourselves into a corner where a person on welfare is compelled to remain on welfare because that person is not able to do anything BUT be on welfare.

[Tribesman]

Haplo raises a point which leads to how populist knee jerk "get tough" on welfare ideas can soon run into self defeating problems.
Cameron in Britain has this workfare thing, it basicly means big business can get free labour instead of employing workers, people who do voluntary or charity work find themselves classed as employed and will lose their benefits unless they give up the charity work and instead become an unpaid shelf stacker at Walmart.
It is a good example of measures managing to target the people it is not aimed at and missing the people it is aimed at. With a "bonus" result of actually reducing the availability of jobs the lazy could be introduced to

What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.

I know, but the usual result is that it hits the needy not the lazy and runs up an ever increasing price tag for ever diminishing returns.
A repeating problem which comes up all the time is that introducing more stringent criteria tends to hit genuine claimants of welfare harder as the welfare fiddlers know how to work round the system.
There must be a workable solution out there somewhere, but what it is I havn't a clue.
However what I do know is that repeating the latest incarnation of the already failed "get tough" measures is pretty much guaranteed to fail.

[Wolferz]

Wolferz...

Welfare - whether corporate or individual - is money taken from the working citizen and given to someone else. Your right about that. And your right its abused either way. The thing is, its government's fault for creating a system that is so ripe for abuse - and you have to start somewhere. The reason you start with drug users vs "big corp" is simple - big corp actually does something useful in society.

Business employs people, welfare drug users? Not so much.

Any questions?

If we dig down to the bare bones we find that money is nothing more than a fantasy construct. Is there anything of value that actually backs it anymore? The answer is no. It's just Fiat money. Figures stored in a computer. The digits that are removed from your pay go for only one thing... paying the interest on the money that the government borrows to pay its' bills and run its' programs. Basically it's a big Ponzi scheme with an artificial deficit thrown in to create talking points for politicians to create fear among the populace.
Eventually it will collapse on itself.
My suggestion would be... give the poor their welfare fiat but not with a noose attached to it. If the poor are poor because they chose substance abuse, they need more than the pittance doled out by their state welfare office. Requiring a drug test to get aid smacks of tyranny where you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence and that isn't right by any stretch of the imagination. This will lead to further erosion of peoples' rights to self determination.
The real abusers of these programs don't spend that money on drugs to sell or imbibe. They do blatantly stupid things like a couple I saw in Michigan doing their grocery shopping in a convenience store. Loaded a cart, paid for it with food stamps and went to the parking lot and loaded everything into a new Cadillac. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over:hmmm:

As for the corporate welfare queens, sure they do something constructive with the money... like paying their stock holders huge dividends and paying their CEO's huge salaries and bonuses. Is that where you want your money going? To make the rich a little richer?
If Welfare is such a thorn in the side, just do away with it altogether. Grind the poor into the mud or make them slaves by tossing them into the workhouse again. I certainly hope that you never find yourself a down on your luck victim of a financial catastrophe.

[CaptainHaplo]

If we dig down to the bare bones we find that money is nothing more than a fantasy construct. Is there anything of value that actually backs it anymore? The answer is no. It's just Fiat money. Figures stored in a computer. The digits that are removed from your pay go for only one thing... paying the interest on the money that the government borrows to pay its' bills and run its' programs. Basically it's a big Ponzi scheme with an artificial deficit thrown in to create talking points for politicians to create fear among the populace.
Eventually it will collapse on itself.

I mostly agree so far.

My suggestion would be... give the poor their welfare fiat but not with a noose attached to it.
A drug test is hardly a noose. Drugs themselves often turn into one, however.

If the poor are poor because they chose substance abuse, they need more than the pittance doled out by their state welfare office.
No, if the poor are poor because they choose substance abuse, they don't need ANYTHING from the state welfare office. They need to either get clean and get their life together, or at least free up welfare resources to those who do not CHOOSE to live in continual poverty. In other words - if they choose drugs - they don't need welfare.

Requiring a drug test to get aid smacks of tyranny where you are considered guilty until you prove your innocence and that isn't right by any stretch of the imagination.
Again - as I pointed out to Mookie - welfare is a CHOICE - so if they choose to "get aid" - they are consenting to a drug test.

This will lead to further erosion of peoples' rights to self determination.

Look - let's say your running low on food. You ask me for help, so I bring over some cans of green beans and some boxes of mac and cheese. You turn it down because you wanted streak. In fact, you sue me for not doing it "your way". Well sorry ole boy, you ask for help, you take it the way its offered, not how you want it. Nobody MADE you ask for help - so you either want it or you don't. There is a difference between self determination and telling others they have to support you while you go do drugs.

The real abusers of these programs don't spend that money on drugs to sell or imbibe. They do blatantly stupid things like a couple I saw in Michigan doing their grocery shopping in a convenience store. Loaded a cart, paid for it with food stamps and went to the parking lot and loaded everything into a new Cadillac. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over:hmmm:

So someone on welfare should not be allowed to own a caddy, but they should be allowed to go smoke some crack or do some meth..... Sorry - that logic just does NOT fly....

As for the corporate welfare queens, sure they do something constructive with the money... like paying their stock holders huge dividends and paying their CEO's huge salaries and bonuses.

Yes, none of that money actually goes into stuff like developing new technology or paying salaries to regular people, huh? Yes, the rich make money - and they do so RISKING their money. But that money they risk - employs people - who when successful create a profit that partially gets returned to the investor.

Is that where you want your money going?
Employing people... yes I do want my money going there.

To make the rich a little richer?

Or poorer? Like those who invested in things like Wesabe or Petite Palate, or a company I worked for - Living.com which sold furniture online. But you don't have a problem with the rich loosing money do you? They probably deserve to do so, right? Only thing is - when they did - I did too - because I lost my job when the company went bankrupt. You want to pretend that the "rich get richer" in a vacuum - and they don't.

If Welfare is such a thorn in the side, just do away with it altogether. Grind the poor into the mud or make them slaves by tossing them into the workhouse again. I certainly hope that you never find yourself a down on your luck victim of a financial catastrophe.

I have been there. I was forced into a situation where I knew I couldn't keep my head up. I had to ask for help from a local charity so that I could feed my two kids. The good Lord blessed me and gave me an IT contract that same week - and though I was offered the help, I was able to then say "no thank you". The help went to someone else, whom I hope truly needed them. Reforms such as drug testing - only helps to make sure that welfare resources go to those who truly need them - not those who want to eat off welfare (or trade their welfare "funds") so they can buy drugs.

Welfare (of all types) is a thorn. Ultimately, its not right that government takes from one person via compulsory taxation just to give it to someone else via welfare. The thing is - when the thorn is abused, it makes it a much larger thorn.

[Tribesman]

Welfare (of all types) is a thorn. Ultimately, its not right that government takes from one person via compulsory taxation just to give it to someone else via welfare.
What would Jesus say about that?:hmmm:

[razark]

What would Jesus say about that?:hmmm:
It's not Jesus, but:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

[Tribesman]

good un Razark:yeah:
Now to hit the other angle a square blow, what did jesus say about paying the evil gumbmint the taxes?

[CaptainHaplo]

It's not Jesus, but:

More importantly, its not the government. There is a significant difference between charity and welfare. The references and text you list are not mandatory actions required by government, but the giving out of love.

[Tribesman]

More importantly, its not the government. There is a significant difference between charity and welfare. The references and text you list are not mandatory actions required by government, but the giving out of love.
But so it is written, giveth unto the government the money they ask for so they can go forth and do governmenty things.
After all ceasar can't bring deliveries of bread to the poor if people don't render unto him that which is his.
Scripture eh, a source for all seasons.

[razark]

More importantly, its not the government. There is a significant difference between charity and welfare. The references and text you list are not mandatory actions required by government, but the giving out of love.
Love? What happens to Ananias and Sapphira when they fail to live by the communist rules?

[CaptainHaplo]

Love? What happens to Ananias and Sapphira when they fail to live by the communist rules?

They were struck dead - but not because they did not give. They were struck dead for LYING about the sale price of their estate - claiming to give it all when in fact they did not.

Acts 5: 4-10 (Emphasis added)
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

A simple reading of the text would have shown you better - unless of course you are out to merely argue for arguments sake. That would explain you quoting tribesman and bringing up the Bible instead of arguing the points.

[Aramike]

I know, but the usual result is that it hits the needy not the lazy and runs up an ever increasing price tag for ever diminishing returns.
A repeating problem which comes up all the time is that introducing more stringent criteria tends to hit genuine claimants of welfare harder as the welfare fiddlers know how to work round the system.
There must be a workable solution out there somewhere, but what it is I havn't a clue.
However what I do know is that repeating the latest incarnation of the already failed "get tough" measures is pretty much guaranteed to fail. I would be inclined to agree, accept that I don't see how drug testing would hit the most needy, unless of course they were using drugs, in which case there's a whole different case for change.

[Wolferz]

Some of you seem to be assuming that welfare provides enough money to actually support a drug habit. Illicit drugs are a tad expensive and a welfare check doesn't come close to paying that bill. Or nearly any other bill to boot.
So, do the next best thing to get the leeches burned off the backside of your tax money. Make a blanket accusation that all welfare recipients use drugs therefore make them pay for a drug test to get their measly $200.00 a month and laugh at them while they shiver and starve in the dark. Then order them to stop smoking the crack, pot or whatever else they're blowing your tax money on before lending them a hand.
Continue with your delusion of a smaller tax bill if all the leeches were burned off tomorrow. It ain't gonna happen.
And we wonder why our prisons are overflowing.:hmmm: Incarceration begins to look very inviting to a starving, freezing man or woman with no bed. Can you say offsetting remedy that costs twice as much?:stare:

[Aramike]

Some of you seem to be assuming that welfare provides enough money to actually support a drug habit. Illicit drugs are a tad expensive and a welfare check doesn't come close to paying that bill. Or nearly any other bill to boot.No, but welfare DOES provide enough money to free up other money for other things, such as drugs. Went you have rent assistance, food assistance, utility assistance, a monthly check, MORE food money for "healthy" food, medical assistance, "Obamaphone", etc, it's amazing how much spare change is found.

One only has to head to an inner city supermarket to watch people selling their food stamp cards at a discount for cash - right at the front door of the store. This happens DAILY. I have a sneaking suspicion that the guy doing so with his new Nikes and iPhone isn't simply trying to pay a bill.

Personally, I would put recipients on an accountability program, requiring them to show where the benefits are going. Even if you're looking for a job, if you're not working I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't have the time to itemize your spending and learn the value of money and budgeting.

[Tribesman]

@haplos comment.
A simple reading of the text would have shown you better - unless of course you are out to merely argue for arguments sake. That would explain you quoting tribesman and bringing up the Bible instead of arguing the points.
If someone brings their religion into the topic the literature of that religion is naturally brought into the topic.
I see your problem with that though as your scripture doesn't support your views.:yep:

@ Aramike
I would be inclined to agree, accept that I don't see how drug testing would hit the most needy, unless of course they were using drugs, in which case there's a whole different case for change.
I know, that was a general comment about how the usual populist approaches to a solution pan out.
However on the drugs issue, how does the new system differentiate between abuse of illegal drugs and illegal abuse of legal drugs?
Is there to be a medical panel to screen every applicants medical history and ongoing condition to ensure that the hillbilly heroin or mummys little helpers they got on script is for a genuine medical need rather than as a recreational feel good or an addiction?
Increasing costs again isn't it.

Personally, I would put recipients on an accountability program, requiring them to show where the benefits are going. Even if you're looking for a job, if you're not working I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't have the time to itemize your spending and learn the value of money and budgeting.
So that would be an ends testing as well as a means testing. Not a bad idea, but then again you are talking more costs and means testing alone already usually adds significantly more cost than it is able to save and must still be maintained when it makes no savings at all to stand aginst its expense.

[Wolferz]

The war on poverty has been lost and is now the war on the poor..
http://news.msn.com/us/help-shrinks-as-poverty-spikes-in-the-us

Onward to the rear march!

[August]

The war on poverty has been lost and is now the war on the poor..
http://news.msn.com/us/help-shrinks-as-poverty-spikes-in-the-us

Onward to the rear march!

Yeah but that's a religious charity so it doesn't count. I expect that the forums anti-religious contingent will be on here soon to detail why giving religions public money to fund their brainwashing efforts is just plain wrong.

[Betonov]

Public money shouldn't go to religions under any cause. A lot of people donate willingly and should have their tax breaks acknowledged. But public money shouldn't go into private pockets of religions.

You never saw the cathoilic church work their magic. Millions go in, hundreds go out to poor.

[Tribesman]

Yeah but that's a religious charity so it doesn't count. I expect that the forums anti-religious contingent will be on here soon to detail why giving religions public money to fund their brainwashing efforts is just plain wrong.
I thought that would be the strict US constitutionalists doing the detail and insisting on the seperation of church and state :O:

[August]

Public money shouldn't go to religions under any cause. A lot of people donate willingly and should have their tax breaks acknowledged. But public money shouldn't go into private pockets of religions.

You never saw the cathoilic church work their magic. Millions go in, hundreds go out to poor.

What you say may be true but religious charities still do most of the charity work. Take them out of the picture and who will the poor turn to then? The government?

[Betonov]

What you say may be true but religious charities still do most of the charity work. Take them out of the picture and who will the poor turn to then? The government?

Red cross ??

Don't trust even them and I volunteer.

Tax exempt for people donating to charity (don't care which) and a high transparency how much money actually gets to the poor so the people decide themselves who to donate. And more charity drives. Brings the community together for a good deed. Here every body is just: give give give and the only benefitors are the not so poor running the organizations.

Its the ''here's some taxpayer money, go feed the poor and make sure you do it because were not checking on you'' thing that makes me sick. :nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

Many so called "charities" are corrupt - but that is why many religious charities are willing to open their books. So are many non-religious ones. The ones who are willing - are the ones that can show how they help - and they are the ones I am willing to donate to. Religious or otherwise.

[August]

Red cross ??

That's a possiblity but I wonder if the Red Cross could handle the extra work load. I also wonder if people would donate the same amount they give to religious charities.

Guilt and fear of damnation can be powerful motivators and priests are very good at putting the arm on their parishioners. I can't see the RC or other secular charity having the same coercive power.

[CaptainHaplo]

Guilt and fear of damnation can be powerful motivators and priests are very good at putting the arm on their parishioners. I can't see the RC or other secular charity having the same coercive power.

Which is a really sad thing - because no one should be acting out of "fear" - but rather love. Something that many a parish leader could learn.

Its like the sermon that says you better get saved because if you don't you will burn in torment for all eternity. Not only is such a message theologically incorrect, it seeks to motive from a negative. No conversion done through fear lasts.

[August]

Which is a really sad thing - because no one should be acting out of "fear" - but rather love. Something that many a parish leader could learn.

Its like the sermon that says you better get saved because if you don't you will burn in torment for all eternity. Not only is such a message theologically incorrect, it seeks to motive from a negative. No conversion done through fear lasts.

Maybe not but a little fire and brimstone judiciously applied now and then does help to fill the collection basket.

[CaptainHaplo]

Maybe not but a little fire and brimstone judiciously applied now and then does help to fill the collection basket.

Very true. Which is why it has become an acceptable practice for many. Appalling.

But to steer back to the original topic.....

However, they can generally require you to take one as a condition of employment, as long as they follow the rules. If you don't want to take the test, you can take yourself out of the running for the job.

Soucre: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drug-tests-job-applicants-if-33051.html

Because welfare is not something that you are required to apply for, but can (as the roughly 1600 Florida applicants chose to do) remove yourself voluntarily from the process, I do not see where the problem is. I mean sure, if everyone was required to apply for welfare benefits, sure that would be an invasion of privacy. But since application is a voluntary process, what is the legal difference?

I recall Mookie talked about it being "insurance". Ok - lets say you have a life insurance policy - and you OD on illegal drugs and die. If your insurance policy has a clause (as many do) that refuse to pay out if death was due to an illegal activity - or even specify drug use - they are not going to pay. They require a death certificate - and if the cert says the cause of death was a drug overdose, you can bet the beneficiary (s) won't see a dime. That is legal. Drug screenings are legal in insurance claims when its for benefits. So why is a claim on "social" insurance somehow "special"?