NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Where do you stand on this? My state just passed a bill for it, and states like Florida have already shown a net loss instead of savings by implementing such a bill. I guess it's all a matter of "I don't want my tax money funding people's habit" instead of "where can we save money, and put it to better use where it's needed". My state ranks near the bottom in healthcare AND education, yet people are more concerned with making sure their tax money isn't possibly going to someones drug habit.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

TL;DR: It costs more money to implement and use than it saves. It sets some nasty legal precedents and erodes on civil rights.

I'd think it would be a bipartisan "**** no", but -shrug-.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

/thread?

I'm currently trying to prove this point to someone else. Having worked in a medical lab for years, drug testing is not a cheap thing. You have people collecting samples, couriers driving possibly hundreds of miles to deliver, people to sort and process incoming specimens at a reference lab, then possibly going BACK out to another courier to travel another few hundred miles to another lab, where it is again sorted, processed, data entry into the system, a tech preps and runs the test on a machine or machines costing >$1,000,000. Then the results have to be interpreted, entered into a system, and sent back to the person or group that requested the test. Not a cheap and easy thing. And they will be doing this for anyone with ANY drug conviction in the last 5 years. Good job guys, you might stop a handful of people from getting their checks this month, until they can try again next month and try for a clean sample.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I like the idea. I hate the idea of people spending money that they get from welfare on non-essentials.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Then you have the fact that this bill makes no distinction between a repeat offender of meth or cocaine use/distribution/making and a casual weed smoker who might have gotten busted 4.9 years ago with a small amount on him. It's just stupid and wasteful. I would be willing to bet that this bill is mostly about race. A large portion of welfare recipients in this state are black, and the vast majority of voters are Republican. White people don't like having to pay taxes for black to be on welfare. I think it's that simple, of course nobody here would admit it.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I'd be willing to bet 90% or more of the non-essential spending is not drug related.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

This was a hot issue here in FL not too long ago.

Rick Scott wanted to pass a law requiring this. The biggest problem with this is that he owns the Solantic, which is like a starbucks of clinics. He would have made a ton of money on the deal and it was a clear conflict of interest.
His supporters dismiss this idea as a conspiracy theory, but Rick Scott is a huge *******. I would not put it passed him.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I thought it already had passed in FL already?

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

It was, but then it was struck down in federal court.

Basically, there is no way that any state is going to do drug testing for welfare recipients (not permanently anyway). It is unconstitutional. A violation of the 4th amendment.

Hopefully this will get to the supreme court at some point and this bullshit will be put to rest.

BlackBandit

iTrader: (2)

Well isn't a warranty on a vehicle the same concept? Follow the rules on owning your car under warranty and still receive the benefits of the company taken care of the car. Void the warranty with modding etc. And you lose the warranty. Welfare is a program to help you out. Take advantage of it you should be on a probationary term. Fail more then 3 times I believe you should lose your privilege.

Also wasn't there an idea out there for wic checks to be used at restaurants? I am highly against this.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The money has been supplimented regardless.

Let's say someone works 10 hours a week at $8 an hour, and also recieves welfare.

Let's just, for ease, say they get an extra $50 a month in food stamps.

So montly income before food stamps is $320 a month. After: $370.

Now let's assume they spend, again for ease, $20 a week on groceries.

Before food stamps, they'd have a montly surplus of $240.

After food stamps: $290.

They have an extra $50 of take-home cash a month. This can be spent on anything. Drugs, Pony Rides, whatever.

So does it matter if they spend the supplimental income exclusively on food? Because in the end it doesn't matter. You've supplimented their income, given them more than they'd other have, where they are able to use that extra money on things they otherwise wouldn't have spent it on.

BlackBandit

iTrader: (2)

My post was a systematic solution if drug testing was implemented.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I hate the idea of welfare recipients actually *having* non-essentials.

You want welfare? Sell your big screen TV, disconnect all subscription services (you only get one cell phone per household with a voice-only service plan), sell all household vehicles except for one, live of off any money that you have saved, including the money you received from selling your TV/Computer/extra cars/kidney, and then, if you STILL can't afford to put Aldi's on the table and burn wood for heat, THEN you can have just enough welfare to sustain your existence.

They say welfare is a "trap" - that once you start receiving welfare, it's hard to go back to working. This shouldn't be the case. In my opinion, if you're receiving food stamps or other government subsitence to sustain your life that you didn't directly pay into because you earn below the poverty limit, your life should be a miserable hell. If you don't earn your keep, why should the rest of us earn it for you? Unemployment insurance/Social Security Benefits? Okay, I get that. I have to forfeit a certain percentage of my earnings to pay for unemployment insurance - the same goes for Social security benefits - I should have those benefits when I need them. That doesn't mean to say that I should ever be going on my third year of obama-extended unemployment insurance benefit - that's food stamp territory right there - be miserable, food stampies. You don't have a job *because* you're on your third year of unemployment - not in spite of it.

Welfare drug testing? Yeah, I support it if we can make it cost effective. If you **** hot during a welfare drug screening, or if you refuse to provide a sample with your welfare application, then you forfeit government assistance for 5 years. There is no need to test everyone every month. Everyone that is on welfare has a 2% chance to be required to provide a sample each month. If you don't provide, or if you test positive, you forfeit benefits for 5 years. At a 2% per month test rate, each individual on welfare tests approximately once every 4 years 2 months. Sounds like a decent plan to me. When a welfare recipient is receiving taxpayer dollars, they should be subject to the same requirements as the rest of us government employees - no expectation of privacy while on the clock.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

stop supplimenting their income so it's easier to afford these non-essential things.

this times x99999999.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -Ben Franklin, 1776.

238 years ago. Trillions and trillions of dollars spent "helping" the poor ago.

BlackBandit

iTrader: (2)

Just to let you know on a personal level. My gf paid 60,000 in taxes last year alone. Where are we wrong here? And please this info is just for this conversation and don't hold it against me.

BlackBandit

iTrader: (2)

Braniak I highly believe at the level to raise them out of the poverty income level and out of the program. They should be rewarded in a way but honestly the u.s. just throws money at almost any situation and any other country so we don't have to get involved. We give hand outs when we see a problem.

Stein

iTrader: (46)

If I have to take a drug test to work to pay for the welfare then they have to take a drug test to get the money that I had to take a drug test to provide.

Tekel

iTrader: (2)

I support drug testing for welfare. BUT!!!!!! They need to bring in a private contractor for the entire thing. Bureaucracy screws everything up.

Foodstamps need to be like WIC. You get a coupon for fruit, vegetables, bread, lunch meat etc. Not so your kid and his friends can get overpriced snacks at a gas station. EBT is awful or you blow your $600/month on frozen pizzas and soda. Because now with this healthcare, we are paying for you to kill yourself and make you better.

At the point it is better to stay welfare than get an untrained entry level job. You essentially take a cut in pay just trying to become a contributing member of society.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Most employers require random drug tests. If your employer is the federal government and your job is to sit on your *** and collect checks, you should also be subject to the same random drug test.

They are employees. They should be treated similarly to other employees.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

So who gets to decide what are 'essentials' and what are 'non-essentials'?

Is a cell phone an essential? How about internet access? 5 years ago everyone would have said no, but today I think both of those probably are essential, especially if you want to find a job.

I think even drug testing for minimum wage jobs is stupid. If they work sober and it doesn't impact their job, who cares? What right does an employer (even the state or federal governments) have to say what I can or cannot do while I am not on the job?