Georgia passes drug testing for welfare bill...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

How is it NOT an individuals decision whether or not to ask me and you to pay for their lifestyle?

---

Dont worry, you will never pay for anyone's lifestyle. Drug dealers, as far as I know, don't accept EBT/SNAP cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Or they can just add a stipulation that a drug test is required as part of the application process.

---

Not a problem, just issue a warrant for the drug test and we'll be good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Please cite where the Constitution says you have a right to welfare money.

---

This isn't what we're arguing for. Public assistance isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Wrong. Many of the simple litmus strips are over 95% accurate. That is more accurate than a field sobriety test which can be the justification for a breathalizer.

---

Not only is it not accurate enough, the human body flushes hard drugs out of the system rather quickly. Meth in a matter of days. The only drug that stays in the system for any length of time is weed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I agree completely. I would go so far to say you are not allowed welfare if convicted of any felony within the previous 10 years.

---

Wow. That's quite a long time. Especially for the dad who did a stint in prison for simple marijuana possession, who now has kids to feed. But who cares about the children, right? As long as we're not paying for these evil felons lifestyle! LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -EnVus-

As for the Government paying for screening I Just read that they would charge a $25 fee for the drug screening for which would be fully reimbursed if Negative.

---

So the govt is paying $25 a test. How many negative results do we need to break even on the money we save from denying people welfare? Anyone wanna do the math?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

So the govt is paying $25 a test. How many negative results do we need to break even on the money we save from denying people welfare? Anyone wanna do the math?

---

The citizen receiving benefits would pay the $25 for screening not the government. So if you say 45% of those paying to only fail lose $25 each the government is actually making more money lol
A good friend of mine saw the same News post and said "Damn I'm gonna starve" :lmfao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Dont worry, you will never pay for anyone's lifestyle. Drug dealers, as far as I know, don't accept EBT/SNAP cards.

---

They do accept Tide though.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...to-drug-trade/

I remember when i was little and growing up trying to sell Food stamps so i wouldn't be embarrassed at the store.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -EnVus-

The citizen receiving benefits would pay the $25 for screening not the government. So if you say 45% of those paying to only fail lose $25 each the government is actually making more money lol
A good friend of mine saw the same News post and said "Damn I'm gonna starve" :lmfao:

---

You said the govt is reimbursing the $25 bucks if you pass. Based on research studies, 10% of low income people use illicit drugs, which is in line with the national rate. So we'll start at a 10% failure rate, some will be scared to apply, so let's cut that down to 5%. Some will be smart enough to hold off until they get approved, so let's give it a REALLY LIBERAL 1% failure rate. Let's say 100,000 people apply and 100 people fail. At a government subsidized $25, you've spent $2.5 million testing people (illegally, but we'll get to that). If you assume assistance gives on avg $15,000, you've payed out $1,502,500 less assistance for a whopping total of $997,500 extra spent per 100k applications on implementing this program, not including the extra administration costs.

I guess it just comes down to the majority of people not wanting to see a crack or pot head eat. I am all for stopping those that can afford illegal drugs from getting assistance. I just hate the idea that the children that belong to those tested positive will starve.

Im glad they passed the law myself, I wonder how Bankhead would be with sober crackheads. I hate seeing people in my area taking advantage of welfare

Trying to stop people on welfare from making bad choices ... this will definitely work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Trying to stop people on welfare from making bad choices ... this will definitely work.

---

IMO its not about stopping them from making bad choices, its about using tax money to fund their bad choices.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

IMO its not about stopping them from making bad choices, its about using tax money to fund their bad choices.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

---

But drug testing will only help to decrease ONE bad choice and will probably only have a marginal effect at best. A junkie isn't gonna get clean because you promise him $100 a month in food stamps. Even if you theoretically stopped them from doing drugs by doing drug testing, you can't stop them from being drunks, gambling, or buying a million other luxury items with their cash. We should make sure every dollar is effective as possible. Drug testing seems like a lot of cost/effort for a very small reward. I can sympathize with the goal but I don't see this having any sort of real positive impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

But drug testing will only help to decrease ONE bad choice and will probably only have a marginal effect at best. A junkie isn't gonna get clean because you promise him $100 a month in food stamps. Even if you theoretically stopped them from doing drugs by doing drug testing, you can't stop them from being drunks, gambling, or buying a million other luxury items with their cash. We should make sure every dollar is effective as possible. Drug testing seems like a lot of cost/effort for a very small reward. I can sympathize with the goal but I don't see this having any sort of real positive impact.

---

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

---

You like how the crime rate is where you live? If you get rid of public assistance it won't stay like that. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

---

Uh NO! There will be a riot over here and in Atlanta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C230K

Uh NO! There will be a riot over here and in Atlanta

---

I'm not surprised lawlessness coexists with dependence. They are owed that money arent they?

A year ago I wouldve been gung ho for this. But now after I've read stats about this being executed in other states in the US, it seems like a bad idea. It will cost more to implement, employ and maintain this than any savings that would be seen.

more here

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-la...esting-welfare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

---

That is an option. However, you can also accept that giving someone a hand doesn't entitle you to dictate all their life choices. There is a reason why soup kitchens and churchs don't consider drug testing before offering charity to others. It's because the goal is to feed those in need, not to judge their life choices. I'm proud that in this country, we collectively have agreed that no one should have to starve in the streets regardless of mistakes they have made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

In that case I say we cancel any and all welfare programs. If we are going to make every dollar as effective as possible we should let the people that earned the money keep it.

---

AMEN! It would not bother me a BIT to see the welfare system done away with. That and a flat-rate tax across the board would solve a LOT of social ills.

I know not everyone is religious or warm hearted, but id rather see people on hard times going back to what the world used to do... lean on the church for assistance or other PRIVATE/NON-PROFIT entities that assist people. That way people who are truly on hard times can still get by, rather than having a system that people LIVE on instead of LEAN on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

That is an option. However, you can also accept that giving someone a hand doesn't entitle you to dictate all their life choices.

---

Giving someone a hand is short term. People use welfare as a career these days. Why should be giving someone "a hand" when they have no intention of helping them-self?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RL...

A year ago I wouldve been gung ho for this. But now after I've read stats about this being executed in other states in the US, it seems like a bad idea. It will cost more to implement, employ and maintain this than any savings that would be seen.

more here

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-la...esting-welfare

---

Using the aclu as as a source is about as unbiased as using the DNC website as a research tool on RNC proposals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Using the aclu as as a source is about as unbiased as using the DNC website as a research tool on RNC proposals.

---

It's not a biased opinion piece. It's a fact based blog entry telling you what you should already know. This measure to cut welfare costs in FL has cost them more than what they saved.

I don't fault Faux news for reporting biased information, I fault them for reporting false information as true. There's no bias here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

It's not a biased opinion piece. It's a fact based blog entry telling you what you should already know. This measure to cut welfare costs in FL has cost them more than what they saved.

I don't fault Faux news for reporting biased information, I fault them for reporting false information as true. There's no bias here.

---

Sure.


Funny how you find a way to attack a right leaning news source as a response to me ignoring a FAR left organization.

I will still ignore th aclu, even after your attempt to give them unfounded credibility.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I will still ignore th aclu, even after your attempt to give them unfounded credibility.

---

I know you will continue to ignore facts. It's a common problem with conservatives. Since facts rarely correspond with their beliefs, they choose to ignore it and label it "liberal". Just because you believe the program will/should work, doesn't mean it's working.

Here's a similar article posted on New York Times slamming the Florida program. The same info is on a host of other sites. The data is also out there

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I know you will continue to ignore facts. It's a common problem with conservatives. Since facts rarely correspond with their beliefs, they choose to ignore it and label it "liberal". Just because you believe the program will/should work, doesn't mean it's working.

---

Quote:

---

I know you will continue to ignore facts. It's a common problem with liberals. Since facts rarely correspond with their beliefs, they choose to ignore it and label it "right-winged". Just because you believe the program will/should work, doesn't mean it's working.

---

That statement works both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green91

AMEN! It would not bother me a BIT to see the welfare system done away with. That and a flat-rate tax across the board would solve a LOT of social ills.

I know not everyone is religious or warm hearted, but id rather see people on hard times going back to what the world used to do... lean on the church for assistance or other PRIVATE/NON-PROFIT entities that assist people. That way people who are truly on hard times can still get by, rather than having a system that people LIVE on instead of LEAN on.

---

Man u really dont understand crime rate do you. LOL! When that "lazy" person start lurking though YOUR Area and close to YOUR home because of this new law, then i suspect u'll change your opinon.

You'll call the police? They cant help everyone and their wont be enough police for that situation.

You have a gun or guns? LOL! People in those situations do to and most likely will come full force more than you. Not saying be scared.....

Just something to think about....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Browning151

That statement works both ways.

---

If you change the word "facts" with "beliefs", just to maintain continuity, you might be right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

If you change the word "facts" with "beliefs", just to maintain continuity, you might be right

---

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Part of the reason I enjoy politics and political debate, differences of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 112480

Man u really dont understand crime rate do you. LOL! When that "lazy" person start lurking though YOUR Area and close to YOUR home because of this new law, then i suspect u'll change your opinon.

You'll call the police? They cant help everyone and their wont be enough police for that situation.

You have a gun or guns? LOL! People in those situations do to and most likely will come full force more than you. Not saying be scared.....

Just something to think about....

---

So wait, let me get this right. All these people on welfare have a right to this money and if it is cut off they are going to start killing random people? This definitely sounds like a class of people that we should keep supporting as they multiply.

I need to change my previous statement now.

We need to cut off all welfare programs, then round up all of the people on welfare programs and execute them before they can start randomly killing innocent people. In the name of the public good, we must rid our country of these criminals we have been paying off for generations.

And I guess if you believe that drug testing for welfare is wrong you may think this is acceptable then? As for me I believe that drug testing is absolutely great idea, Why should you be getting tax payer money as assistance and be able to get high, you obviously don't need the assistance that bad if you can afford a RECREATIONAL drug...
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/1477...pots-4-04-2011

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I need to change my previous statement now.

We need to cut off all welfare programs, then round up all of the people on welfare programs and execute them before they can start randomly killing innocent people. In the name of the public good, we must rid our country of these criminals we have been paying off for generations.

---

So genocide is the solution? Hmm. Worked for Nazi Germany.

....oh wait....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burnout1990

And I guess if you believe that drug testing for welfare is wrong you may think this is acceptable then? As for me I believe that drug testing is absolutely great idea, Why should you be getting tax payer money as assistance and be able to get high, you obviously don't need the assistance that bad if you can afford a RECREATIONAL drug...
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/1477...pots-4-04-2011

---

what he said

Im glad they passed this law. I just cant stand some lazy ass people who just sit on there ass all day And don't want to look for a job( Granted its hard to find one). Pop out 10 kids just to get more money. These kind of people are making it hard for others that actually need welfare to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 112480

Man u really dont understand crime rate do you. LOL! When that "lazy" person start lurking though YOUR Area and close to YOUR home because of this new law, then i suspect u'll change your opinon.

You'll call the police? They cant help everyone and their wont be enough police for that situation.

You have a gun or guns? LOL! People in those situations do to and most likely will come full force more than you. Not saying be scared.....

Just something to think about....

---

The logic of this argument is beyond comprehension. I'm sure that with a small % of the money saved by the government not supporting half of this country we could step up law enforcement. Plus im not terribly concerned about it in my area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Giving someone a hand is short term. People use welfare as a career these days. Why should be giving someone "a hand" when they have no intention of helping them-self?

---

Now you are discussing a different problem. Long term welfare dependency. Drug testing definitely won't solve that one because most people on welfare are not drug addicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masanomi3

Im glad they passed this law. I just cant stand some lazy ass people who just sit on there ass all day And don't want to look for a job( Granted its hard to find one). Pop out 10 kids just to get more money. These kind of people are making it hard for others that actually need welfare to get it.

---

What does this have to do with drug testing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Now you are discussing a different problem. Long term welfare dependency. Drug testing definitely won't solve that one because most people on welfare are not drug addicts.

---

How do you know that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C230K

How do you know that?

---

Because studies show that the percent of low income people that use drugs is in line with the general population. If you use drugs, you use drugs, rich or poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Because studies show that the percent of low income people that use drugs is in line with the general population. If you use drugs, you use drugs, rich or poor.

---

I hate to say it, but I actually have to agree here.


The correlation between welfare recipients and drug use is largely anecdotal IMO. People do generally associate drug use with the stereotypical "lazy bum" and I think there's also a perception that welfare recipients are lazy bums. While I don't think the latter is wholly untrue, I don't think the drug use/welfare recipient angle holds much water. The difference in drug use from welfare recipients to the general population is probably marginal. I do still dislike the idea that someone can get public assistance while using drugs, but if it cost more than it saves to implement, what's really the point? Then you're just playing moral police to an extent. It's a side effect of the system we've created, I don't think anyone would disagree that entitlements need a major overhaul, how we get there is where we differ.

A regressive bill? WTF? Seriously? If you wanna go out and do your shit, then fine, at least show enough self-control to get and stay clean long enough to pass the drug screen. If you can't even so much as do that, then this is just a another consequence of your lazy inadequate ability to do something productive that would only benefit themselves more than any and everyone else. In life there are checks and balances. If you want to do dope and are on welfare, then you need to learn to balance your drug use and it's timing with the funds and perks that are being given to you with only one "strict" condition. If not, then you will not get the perk and be even in worse shape than before because the "extra money" you did have for your drug use will now have to go to either eating/feeding yourself and/or children, or your drug habit, and yet once again, the scales of balance are put in front of you again. It's not that hard to control oneself long enough to get what it is they are wanting or in this case needing. Really, a sad day? Get fucking real. That's about as retarded as saying that all imports are the same.

LOL, so what youre saying is you pretty much totally agree with me?