Urine test for welfare?

Makes sense to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e-mail

> Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they
> pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes
> as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to
> pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I
> do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to
> people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have
> to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to
> pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
> problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on
> the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on
> their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how
> much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine
> test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you
>! ; agr ee or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it
> along, though . . Something has to change in this country --
> and soon!

---

People just love taking the piss.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e-mail

>
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

---

No I can't imagine that. Please show me some facts about it mr.spam-email. And what if everyone had to do a urine test then. What would get better and why would it get better? Is people addicted to marijuana, cocaine or such better then someone addicted to alcohol?

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

---

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

I think moms on welfare should be required to be on long-term birth control (the one shot deal for those that can take it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

---

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

---

So if it costs more of your "hard earned tax dollars" to add drug testing you won't care because the principle will be upheld?

The recent brouhaha about drugs in baseball raises some interesting points as well...they're upset because the drug use enhanced (at least potentially) performance, so should welfare mothers who take meth (and therefore speed up) be overlooked because they are potentially more productive?

More productive at what? Certainly not finding a job and getting off of welfare.

Drug tests aren't even that costly these days with their use becoming so standard in so many industries. The state/county (in Texas) use them for all parolees and those put on probation, and yes, they test for alcohol as well in cases where the offense was in any way related to drugs or alcohol.

I would gladly pay a bit more per person on welfare if we could eliminate those that abuse the system, thus significantly dropping the cost of the entire program.

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

---

So if it costs more of your "hard earned tax dollars" to add drug testing you won't care because the principle will be upheld?

The recent brouhaha about drugs in baseball raises some interesting points as well...they're upset because the drug use enhanced (at least potentially) performance, so should welfare mothers who take meth (and therefore speed up) be overlooked because they are potentially more productive?

---

I didn't say I agreed.

One is the principle of paying someone taxpayer money that smokes it up.

I'm talking about the principle behind Skiz's post.

You are talking logistics which I get also. In that case, the taxpayer bottom line can be more adversely affected than ya just pay the crack addict with no testing.

I think you like being adversarial stuff for no reason.

If I thought your post was donkey nuts I would've called it a dumb question.:ermm:

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmpeD

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

---

You guys must me sleeping in fron of the computers, welfare reform passed in 1993, nobody can be on welfare for more than 2 years lifetime, that's it, and when people come to the welfare rolls for those two years, they have to start a mandatory community service job, of they get cut off, that's all there is to it, Bill Clinton signed that bill into law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.

---

I don't.

Ironically, I give to bums on the street. However, I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

I remember being on School St SW D.C. I get out of my truck and this fella asks for money for a sandwich. I asked him to follow me into the Subway and told him to get what he wanted.

He came out, sat on some steps and tore that sandwich up.

In other cases, people give the sandwich, and the bum literally throws away in front of the giver cuz he wanted money.

Fuck that.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

"Sit on your ass we'll pay for it cuz we want to help you....sit on your ass."

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.

Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

You have the man working two janitorial jobs living in a hovel then you have the man not working at all living in a slightly better hovel.

The shit makes me sick.

The alternative is that able bodied folks should work or eat shit.

There is no middle.

Just like I think the current system of gun ownership here sucks cuz it's too easy for folk to get guns, I think welfare needs even more scrutiny.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

People actually flock to D.C. cuz of it's welfare system (previous non-residents).

I've said that illegal immigrants should fuck-off cuz of that word I said before immigrant. However, one thing is true. They come here working their asses off. I go into many buildings that might have a new company moving in and they are right there working.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmpeD

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

---

Most states have some sort of restrictions in place. Not how long you can be on it, but things you must do to keep it. When I was 21, I moved with my boyfriend to a state where I knew no one. He ended up in jail and I was pregnant, all of a sudden I was by myself working at a grocery store in a small town that didn't have many jobs for $150 a week. I qualified for food stamps and medicaid.

In order to keep my food stamps, I had to attend weekly training classes. In these classes, they helped you find a job, get rides to an interview, get your liscense, learn how to make a resume, etc. Anything you had to do to help find a better paying, full time job.

Most states don't just hand out money and say, Hey don't worry about a job, we got you covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.

---

I don't.

Ironically, I give to bums on the street. However, I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

I remember being on School St SW D.C. I get out of my truck and this fella asks for money for a sandwich. I asked him to follow me into the Subway and told him to get what he wanted.

He came out, sat on some steps and tore that sandwich up.

In other cases, people give the sandwich, and the bum literally throws away in front of the giver cuz he wanted money.

Fuck that.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

"Sit on your ass we'll pay for it cuz we want to help you....sit on your ass."

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.

Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

You have the man working two janitorial jobs living in a hovel then you have the man not working at all living in a slightly better hovel.

The shit makes me sick.

The alternative is that able bodied folks should work or eat shit.

There is no middle.

Just like I think the current system of gun ownership here sucks cuz it's too easy for folk to get guns, I think welfare needs even more scrutiny.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

People actually flock to D.C. cuz of it's welfare system (previous non-residents).

I've said that illegal immigrants should fuck-off cuz of that word I said before immigrant. However, one thing is true. They come here working their asses off. I go into many buildings that might have a new company moving in and they are right there working.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

---

Typically simplistic conservative mindset...you people make me si.............never mind. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmpeD

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

---

You guys must me sleeping in fron of the computers, welfare reform passed in 1993, nobody can be on welfare for more than 2 years lifetime, that's it, and when people come to the welfare rolls for those two years, they have to start a mandatory community service job, of they get cut off, that's all there is to it, Bill Clinton signed that bill into law.

---

O noes I think like the democrats:O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I don't.

Ironically, I give to bums on the street. However, I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

I remember being on School St SW D.C. I get out of my truck and this fella asks for money for a sandwich. I asked him to follow me into the Subway and told him to get what he wanted.

He came out, sat on some steps and tore that sandwich up.

In other cases, people give the sandwich, and the bum literally throws away in front of the giver cuz he wanted money.

Fuck that.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

"Sit on your ass we'll pay for it cuz we want to help you....sit on your ass."

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.

Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

You have the man working two janitorial jobs living in a hovel then you have the man not working at all living in a slightly better hovel.

The shit makes me sick.

The alternative is that able bodied folks should work or eat shit.

There is no middle.

Just like I think the current system of gun ownership here sucks cuz it's too easy for folk to get guns, I think welfare needs even more scrutiny.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

People actually flock to D.C. cuz of it's welfare system (previous non-residents).

I've said that illegal immigrants should fuck-off cuz of that word I said before immigrant. However, one thing is true. They come here working their asses off. I go into many buildings that might have a new company moving in and they are right there working.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

---

Typically simplistic conservative mindset...you people make me si.............never mind. :whistling

---

Typically simplistic liberal mindset...you people are reta.............never mind. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxtonic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Typically simplistic conservative mindset...you people make me si.............never mind. :whistling

---

Typically simplistic liberal mindset...you people are reta.............never mind. :whistling

---

Eh? :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxtonic

Typically simplistic liberal mindset...you people are reta.............never mind. :whistling

---

Eh? :whistling

---

Test everybody, I say.:whistling

Well it's not like it's hard to get hold of 'clean' pish. So why not. :smilie4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

...edited...

I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.
Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

---

I agree in some ways:
a person working should never be worse off than someone on benefits
It should be set up to encourage people to only make it a temporary thing, except for those who have 'a good reason' (as you defined above) to stay on.
It shouldn't be a socially acceptable thing to be on benefits without a reason (i.e. pride/shame & cultural disapproval should play a role)

But we differ in the duration that someone should be supported for...

How do you feel about benefits for people with children? Is it no different (child suffers for parents errors), or do you pay benefits (unemployed people just have to have children...) or do you take the kids away (again kid suffers and potentially costs more)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

...edited...

I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.
Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

---

I agree in some ways:
a person working should never be worse off than someone on benefits
It should be set up to encourage people to only make it a temporary thing, except for those who have 'a good reason' (as you defined above) to stay on.
It shouldn't be a socially acceptable thing to be on benefits without a reason (i.e. pride/shame & cultural disapproval should play a role)

But we differ in the duration that someone should be supported for...

How do you feel about benefits for people with children? Is it no different (child suffers for parents errors), or do you pay benefits (unemployed people just have to have children...) or do you take the kids away (again kid suffers and potentially costs more)?

---

Unfortunately a mother with a kid can keep churning them out and the state will pay.

This is why i said mothers on welfare should be on the birth control shot if medically able to take it.

People cringe sometimes thinking that that's taking away reproductive rights.

I say no cuz the state has to pay for that reproduction.

The funny thing is this would mainly hit abusers of the system.

I knew many moms with 1 kid and already on welfare go to 2 to 3 more kids....while still on welfare.

That's a lot of fooking money and health care the state has to put out.

In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.

Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.

That's a no-brainer.

I say the birth control shot because it doesn't have to be constantly managed per mother. There's won't be any forgetting to take a pill or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.

Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.

---

Since you've completely changed the subject we were discussing, my question becomes irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.

Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.

---

Since you've completely changed the subject we were discussing, my question becomes irrelevant.

---

It's a one-post segway so if you want to remain irrelevant, fine by me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...ker/segway.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...ker/segway.jpg

---

Good one, clocker.:lol:

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Now, back on point...

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Now, back on point...

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

---

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:

what about families who already have kids? Do you still cut off the benefits after a set period?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Now, back on point...

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

---

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:

---

Actually yes, it is needed.
Despite your experience in the big, bad city (a city I spent about 15 years in, BTW), the number of abuses you can personally quantify amounts to a statistical blip (and that's being generous).

Furthermore, your personal experience only covers one city and a smaller one at that.

So, even if every single welfare recipient in your personal circle purchases drugs with benefit money and procreates like the proverbial bunny, that don't mean squat.
That's exactly like Bush saying the economy is doing great because everyone he knows is prospering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:

---

Actually yes, it is needed.
Despite your experience in the big, bad city (a city I spent about 15 years in, BTW), the number of abuses you can personally quantify amounts to a statistical blip (and that's being generous).

Furthermore, your personal experience only covers one city and a smaller one at that.

So, even if every single welfare recipient in your personal circle purchases drugs with benefit money and procreates like the proverbial bunny, that don't mean squat.
That's exactly like Bush saying the economy is doing great because everyone he knows is prospering.

---

Uh yeah it does mean squat. Abuse is abuse.

If you lived in this city for 15 years...what city was I talking about? What city do I live in?

I said major metropolitan area....not big, bad city (whatever that means:ermm:). Furthermore, I see the same up the road in another other metro area.

Now sure it's two metro areas I have the most knowledge and that's multiple cities that are included.

However, you haven't said what makes this measure Draconian or why my little cubby hole of America doesn't matter.

You just attack the measure cuz it's different.

For some reason I was under the impression you lived in D.C.
Certainly could be wrong.

Ultimately irrelevant though.
Your personal experience in whatever two major metropolitan areas is still not statistically significant.
After all, you're talking about imposing these restrictions on millions of people spread over the entire country and no matter how gregarious you are, you don't know that many people, much less that many abusers.

So, got anything besides your personal experience to go on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

For some reason I was under the impression you lived in D.C.
Certainly could be wrong.

Ultimately irrelevant though.
Your personal experience in whatever two major metropolitan areas is still not statistically significant.
After all, you're talking about imposing these restrictions on millions of people spread over the entire country and no matter how gregarious you are, you don't know that many people, much less that many abusers.

So, got anything besides your personal experience to go on?

---

No, just the inkling that if it's abused here it's abused elsewhere.:smilie4:

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

what about families who already have kids? Do you still cut off the benefits after a set period?

---

I missed your post.

No.

First off, I said nothing about whether a woman has kids already or not. That's irrelevant.

Second off, I said nothing about cutting off benefits after a set period. You said "still" as if that was one of my points.

The funny thing is this stuff could be easily circumvented. A woman could apply for welfare and already be pregnant....on purpose.

This is just one way of trying to close the holes without stepping on folks rights.

If you apply for state money, the state should have the right to say, "Hey don't have kids right now while you should be trying to get on you feet."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.
Did I mention I lived there for 15 years?
Tell me something I don't know.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

---

I keep asking- and you keep ignoring the request- for any proof whatsoever that the measures you want to impose would save more money than they would cost to implement.

Since you live in the very heart of the Federal government, you are certainly aware of the tendency of bureaucracy to multiply and entrench regardless of merit or utility, yet you seem willing to feed the waste based on your personal experience.

C'mon Busy, quit telling me that I'm only arguing to be contrary and prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.
Did I mention I lived there for 15 years?
Tell me something I don't know.

Well...I did say the metro area and you assumed I meant city.

Either it's reading comprehension or something else.:idunno:

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

---

I keep asking- and you keep ignoring the request- for any proof whatsoever that the measures you want to impose would save more money than they would cost to implement.

Since you live in the very heart of the Federal government, you are certainly aware of the tendency of bureaucracy to multiply and entrench regardless of merit or utility, yet you seem willing to feed the waste based on your personal experience.

C'mon Busy, quit telling me that I'm only arguing to be contrary and prove me wrong.

---

I ignored nothing. I told you I only have personal experience.

Why is it you say I ignored it when you acknowledged it was personal experience. Wtf?

Adversarial just for adversarial's sake?:no:

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Mind you, this could go on a state-by-state basis which makes the blanket assignment of such a measure moot.

If the people who are in work in well paid jobs paid all the taxes that they should, then, maybe, they would be entitled to criticize the unemployed.

I once had a discussion about this with a schoolteacher. We(The shop steward and I:)) calculated what taxes she was claiming back for(She used an accountant to help her);

Having children at university,
housing grants,
Private pension(now there is/was a big claw back),
the list goes on.

It turned out that she was claiming back twice what an unemployed family of 4 had to live on.

This was a wee while ago. Don't know if it has changed. I doubt it, because these are the people the laws are made for.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

---

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

---

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

---

Yeah I thought of that. I don't know if that's readily available and if so, how long it's been in use to be considered safe.

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

---

Sure you can. See post 38.