That I agree with which comment sine there were several made by you throughout this thread, lol?
That I agree with which comment sine there were several made by you throughout this thread, lol?
Originally Posted by .blank cd
According to the guy I quoted, these parasites are a danger to anyone around them simply because they are on welfare. Why would you not want to get them off the streets.
BTW, the Nazis were small time. Take a look at the numbers from Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Each of them ordered the killing of EASILY 3x the number that Hitler ordered.
The reason this is part of the same problem is simple, most employers, and every employer I have ever applied with, require a drug test. If you cannot pass a drug test for welfare, you cannot pass one for an employer. If you choose to do something that will prevent you from getting a job and supporting yourself, why should I support you?
Here is a pretty good article about drug testing from 2007. It even brings up some of the shortcomings of drug testing.
http://www.theledger.com/article/200...0387?p=1&tc=pg
My point stays the same though. If you cannot pass a drug test for welfare you cannot pass one for an employer. If you choose to partake in something that will prevent you from getting a job, you arent looking for a job. If you are on welfare and not looking for a job, it means you arent looking for help, you are looking for a handout. I have no patience for people only looking for a handout. I have no problems with them starving on the streets if they have no intention of trying to help themselves.
I don't disagree in theory just in practicality. You want to test 100% of welfare recepients when drug use is only a significant cause of being on welfare for a very small percentage of recipients. Many welfare recepients already have jobs. The numbers just don't make sense fiscally and I'm not interested in the government becoming more of morality police.
What about the children of these people? If someone stupidly does drugs even one time and gets caught, should their children not receive that assistance? Or do you think everyone who fails a drug test must be a junkie who would never feed their kids whether they received welfare or not?
1. I made no mention of causation. What caused them to be on welfare are their own bad decisions for a very large majority. I dont care what those specific causes are, the final result is the same.
2. The kids are a weapon the parasites use against anyone looking to make any meaningful reforms to handout programs. I have stated a few times what I would do with welfare. Pop once you get a warning and get tested every month for 6 months but still get your check. Second time you dont get your check and are required to attend outpatient treatment. Third time you lose all handouts for life and kids are taken away.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
So then why do you only want to deny benefits to those that do drugs and not anyone who continues making other bad decisions?
You make it sound as if everyone who benefits from any welfare program at all is a parasite. Do you really believe that? Although I agree kids can be used unfairly as a weapon to fight reform, the fact is the way in which reforms affect children is a very important aspect to be taken into account. If you don't consider the effects on children, you are missing a very big piece to the puzzle.
Because as of right now, drugs are illegal, other bad choices are not. I have said previously that anyone convicted of a felony should be barred from any welfare program for a minimum of 10 years.
They are. They take from their host, but give nothing in return. The only difference between a long term parasite and a short term parasite is personal responsibility. A short term parasite looks at welfare programs as they were meant to be, a helping hand to recover from a personal tragedy. A long term parasite is someone that sits on their lazy ass and collects a handout for their entire life.
The short term parasites will rarely, if ever, get caught up in this as they know to stay clean while they search for work. The long term parasites simply dont care about working, so why should they bother?
And I already addressed my way of handling it.
So it's ok to be on welfare if you're an alcoholic, since that drug is legal?
Did I say that?
Checked back, I didnt.
You are saying its OK for someone to get welfare even though they have a $300/wk heroin habit though.
But drug possession is usually only a misdemeanor so why not ban anyone with ANY misdemeanor from getting welfare? Why are should drug misdemeanors be treated differently?
Except that pretty much everybody on welfare does contribute something. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, and often even income tax either before they get on welfare or afterwards. Many of them have jobs so they are contributing in that way, including fica, SS, medicare taxes. Additionally the unemployed may contribute in a great number of other ways. For example, I know there are elderly on welfare who take care of their grandkids so their parents can work. To say all welfare recepients are parasites to society is simply not true.
Yes you did. I was just saying that what happens to children is a valid concern that can't be ignored.
Jimmy, I am curious if you think alcoholics should receive welfare benefits or not.
This should be good
I would love to say no, but I dont know of any test for alcoholism.
X1000
SR20 Carbed Datsun B310
I know this as correct, being raised in a part of the country who's pill per capita is very high. From the top to the bottom and those inbetween, they all use drugs because.. they use drugs.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
That's easy, post officers at packages, stores and bars. Catch them walking to their cars and into those stores. Get them "over the limit" 2-3 times and deem them alcoholics, then ban them. They'll pass a law allowing that soon enough.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
What about a breathalizer? Sure it just tests for use rather than serious addiction but that's the same with a drug test. Is the issue really about whether or not a test is possible? Because we could probably start analyzing bank/credit card statements to see if welfare recipients were buying unnecessary items. Or we could audit them similar to the IRS to make sure they didn't own any luxury items. There are a million things we could do to make ourselves feel better about not giving money to "people who don't deserve it" but we need to be realistic about how much its going to cost and whether or not it is worth it.
2 absolutely moronic posts in a row.
I understand that you dont have a viable response
but you could do yourself a favor and just not post.
You hate the fact that you cant find a hole in my logic but you refuse to let common sense prevail. Simple fact says that if you use drugs, even recreationally, most employers will not hire you. If you choose to do something that disqualifys you from the employee poll you arent really looking for a job. If you arent looking for a job, why am I subsidizing you?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Well lets put it this way, if you are unemployed and you are not concerned about passing a drug test to get a job, then why should this bill concern you. Truth be told the majority of jobs in this world require you to take a drug test in order to get hired so why should the people that are trying to get welfare not be tested either. If anything this bill may slightly decrease unemployment in the state of Georgia because the future people that are on welfare that passed this drug test may now be hired to work whatever job they applied for simply because if they can pass the welfare drug test, they may just pass the drug test upon receiving a job.
Life begins at 6000 RPMS.. You will notice an audible change in engine noise, large increase in acceleration and any female passengers will immidiately start to remove their clothing.
If you insist on insulting people for not understanding your point of view, I am done debating with you. I haven't disrespected you for seeing things differently then me and have even stated I agree with some of your premises but apparently my opinion is not "viable" and "moronic". Your opinion however is apparently unassailable because it is based on "common sense" rather than looking at any sort of cost/benefit analysis or considering any unintended consquences. If you can't admit the other side has any valid concerns then this discussion will be fruitless. Enjoy your smugness.
Because a large portion of those on welfare already have a job so drugs are not preventing them from getting a job. The actual number of people who can't get a job because they fail a drug test is a very small percentage (feel free to present evidence to the contrary).
While the idea makes perfect sense, I think you are overestimating how many people this will really help get a job. In my opinion, the large cost does not justify such a small effect.
I didnt insult you, I insulted your post. the rest of my comments stand. You absolutely hate the fact that there isnt a hole in my logic.
Please tell me how suggesting posting cops at liquor stores or using the IRS to audit welfare recipients is NOT moronic and a gross overstatement of my position. Please tell me what is NOT common sense about the fact that most employers require a drug test and that failing a drug test for welfare would also mean you fail one for an employer.
If you want to post overdramatized crap, go right ahead. Just dont cry foul when you get called out on it.
BTW, on and off topic at the same time, a good essay about welfare from the Cato Institute.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...lfare-spending
Saying my opinion is moronic and invalid sounds like an insult to me. It's not your logic I disagree with, it is your values. I don't think drug use by welfare recipients is enough of a problem to warrant the proposed solution.
I didn't suggest posting cops at liquor stores. That was blank.cd. We are not the same person.
As far as auditing welfare recipients. I don't think it is worthwhile and I never said you did either. I was using that as an example so that you could draw a line between what measures you felt were reasonable to prevent welfare abuse and which were not.
In regards to your last statement regarding employers requiring drug test. I don't disagree one bit. I just disagree that all welfare recipients need to get a job (many already have one) and that it is worth the cost to test all of them.
Call out whatever you like. Just do it respectfully please.
I agree with many of the points made in there. Private chairities can be more flexible and efficient at helping the poor than large government programs so they certainly have a role to play. But that doesn't mean that the government doesn't also have a role to play as well. They are also on the mark that welfare programs do risk disincentivizing work and creating dependency. A careful balance must be struck and it's next to impossible to eliminate this entirely.
However, I feel there were a number of connections they made that didn't differentiate between corellation and causation and thus led them to some unfounded conclusions. Some examples:
They say "Studies have found that the poor on welfare do not have a strong sense that they need to take charge of their own lives or find work to become self-sufficient." They conclude that welfare caused this mentality but it just as plausible that the causation goes the opposite way. That is people who do not feel the need to take charge of their own lives end up poor and on welfare.
They even admit "Whether or not causation can be proven, it is true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior than are other men". This feeds into the implied assumption that it's always better for a couple to marry, especially if they have a kid. They don't discuss any downsides of marriage out of obligation. They further assert that welfare is the reason why most single mothers don't get married and don't seem to consider other factors such as the women's equality movement.
Are you honestly saying that drug testing welfare recipients is the same as the IRS auditing them and their expenses?
Where did I suggest you did say that? Notice the whole multi quote thingy? yea, I used that.
But you just said that auditing was your opinion? Which one is it?
Of course you can draw a line, and you went so far over the line I dont think you ever stopped moving away.
If you have a job and are still on welfare, then you should be in the hunt for a better job so you can actually support yourself. My point is still 100% valid.
Looks like half the people on here wont have money to buy honda parts anymore...
[IMG][/IMG]
91' Mustang Coupe:boobies:
5.3l LS swap
PRAISE JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINALLY IM NOT PAYING FOR CRACK BABYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now can we get school, and children taxes taken off people that cant have kids and wont ever?? its a big waste o money for meh.
DIGIMAN CAMERA REPAIR
FACTORY TRAINED--- 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE--- LOW OVER HEAD, THUS LOW REPAIR COST TO YOU
2006
G35X
No I am not saying they are the same but they ARE both ways to possibly cut down on welfare abuse. I was asking what other reforms you might be in favor of. I was proposing it in an interogative way, not making a statement about anyone's opinion.
See Post #102. You only quoted me and then started your response with "Please tell me how suggesting posting cops at liquor stores..." That made it seem as if it was directed at me. If only the second half of the sentence was directed at me then I guess I guess we just miscommunicated.
As stated above. It was a topic for discussion, an open ended question. I wasn't saying you or I was advocating it.
The question was, where do you draw the line on what efforts to take to prevent bad choices by welfare recipients? Please answer it.
That's a very good point but there are still two things I am looking that you have yet to present:
1) Show evidence that drug use is a significant factor for why welfare recipients continue to be on welfare. You have made a strong case that drug use COULD be a factor in stopping people from getting jobs but not that it actually IS. All the numbers I have heard seem to point to it not being much of an issue.
2) Show the value of drug testing is worth the cost of administering the tests. I need to see numbers here. If drug testing were free, I think your argument would be much more convincing.
My stance has always been the same.
1. Welfare gets a specific time limit, and this applies to ALL programs.
2. No more money for more kids.
3. I would like to see some type of job training program or college benefits. Give people the means to actually get off welfare.
Checks posts 96 and 97 as those are what I was quoting.
Easy. You do something illegal your benefits stop. Doing ILLEGAL drugs is ILLEGAL.
I never said anything even remotely close to drugs being a reason people are on welfare. I said most employers require a drug test. If you cannot pass one for welfare, you cannot pass one for an employer. Welfare is supposed to be TEMPORARY, not a career path. So even if you are working, you obviously need to improve your employment so you can start supporting yourself. Unless you get promoted by your current employer, better employment means a new employer. New employer will likely require a drug test.
Because of the various programs and income ranges its ahrd to give a firm number, but imagine the various welfare programs pay an average of $500 a month.
With these cups:
http://www.americanscreeningcorp.com...P1208C165.aspx
If .5% of tests come back positive and result in a forfeited check, you are saving money.
Why do you thinking auditing welfare recipients to make sure they don't have lots of luxury items is idiotic? I think we both agree that if you drive a nice new car, you don't need welfare right?
Ok so you are saying if you commit any crime, regardless of how serious, you should not be eligible for welfare?
This seems to be self contradictory. First you say drugs aren't causing them to be on welfare but then you said they can't get off welfare because they can't pass a drug test to get a better job.
Thanks for providing some numbers. Don't forget administration and disposal fees, should add too much cost though. And how do you handle false positives? Can you ask for a retest?
Because it isnt illegal to own a new car. Regulating what luxury items you own is not a valid use of govt power. Drugs are not a luxury item, they are a controlled substance.
You got me on this one. I should have said felony. If you are found guilty of a felony there should be a mandatory 10 year ban from welfare programs.
Not at all. Drugs are typically not what put someone on welfare, but because of the inability to pass a drug test, they can keep you on welfare.
Administration should be easy as these style cups do not require any type of supervision. They test for common adulterants, they display the temp, and they are sealed. If a test comes back negative, the donor unscrews the cap, dumps the urine in the toilet, and tosses the cup in the regular garbage. Urine is not a bio hazardous substance.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...ONS&p_id=25647
Because they cups are sealed, a positive test or a test that contains adulterants is sent off to a lab for actual testing. This testing typically costs between $100 and $150 according to google. Lab tests are about 99.99% accurate even with many common adulterants added.
Punishment is simple.
Pop once, you get your check but are required to take a bi-monthly test for 6 months.
Pop twice, no check, required to attend out patient drug rehab at state expense.
Pop for a third time, banned from all welfare programs for 5 years and turned over to DCFS for kids to be removed from the home.
What kind of math are you using?
If there are 10k people on welfare, avg $500 a month, that's $6k a year, that's $60mil in welfare. If it costs $100/pp to cover all costs associated with testing (administration costs, tests, waste disposal, etc., etc.) thats $1mil in testing. If (and that's a big if) .5% of 10k people fail, that's 50 people, that's $5000 in tests, that's $300,000 in welfare.
Youve spent $1,005,000 (per 10k people, per year) to save $300,000 in welfare checks with a net loss of $705,000 because you think you have some moral superiority and don't think people should be smoking weed while on welfare. Still seem like a good investment to you?
1. I never said anything about 100% testing every month.
2. $100 per test couldnt be any more far fetched. Cups, about $3.00 each. Admin costs, very low as no special training is required. Disposal fees are VERY low as no special disposal is required unless a medical condition leads to noticeable blood in urine. Additional lab testing for the positive tests at $150 each is maybe another 40k?
3. My moral, and mental, superiority has nothing to do with it. The laws of the state says they shouldnt smoke weed, not only when they are on welfare, but ever.
I think Jimmy has made some good points and I can understand where he comes from. I suppose I just have a little more Libertarian view. I really don't want the government monitoring what people put in their bodies.
Its not about monitoring what your average person puts in their body at all. Since you have proven you are not capable of supporting yourself and require actual tax payers to do it for you, it is in the interest of the govt and the tax payers that you keep yourself in a hire-able condition. You volunteer to give up that little bit of privacy in order to get your handouts. No one is forcing you to do anything. This is just like requiring a drivers license an car insurance to drive on public roads.
As I said before, the goal is a respectable one (make people hireable) but I don't think that all other goals are subordinate to that one. Not to mention I don't think having drug testing will provide any significant increase in making people hireable anyways. To me, welfare is primarily about helping out someone who is struggling, not the government bribing them to do what we want.
You are right, the purpose is a temporary hand for people that fall on hard times. Too bad it is used as a career path for the lazy and stupid instead.
That is viable, that's how these lil "sting" operations show up.
And after scrolling through, I cant delete this post and reply to a more recent one, but it was me with the "post cops" statement, not blankcd or buvillan
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I don't think the answer is to try and legislate against being lazy and stupid though. There will always be people out there who will be that way. I think we concluded welfare payments average only a few hundred a month. That's not much of a career. If that level of living isn't enough to get someone inspired to do better in their life, I don't think a drug test is going to help either.
Using the various welfare programs, a single mother with 3 kids and a part time minimum wage job has more disposable income than a married couple with 2 kids and making a combined 60k a year.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
