Urine test for welfare?

[clocker]

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

So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?

I saw nothing about her being a drug addict.

I thought the assumption was that the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits- hence, mandatory drug testing.
Cullen is obviously the exception to the rule.

[cullen7282]

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights?

I had to take a urine test to make money at my job, btw.

\

The urine test isn't as bad as the mandatory birth control. Come on, why not just sterilize everyone on assistance?

What state are you in?

I was in Illinois at that time.

So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?

Nope, none for me.

I thought the assumption was that the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits- hence, mandatory drug testing.
Cullen is obviously the exception to the rule.

Actually, I believe I'm the norm. The others are the exception. You never hear about the normal hardworking people, where's the fun in that. What you do hear about is every little abuse that occurs, so people can rant and rave about something, so that's all you hear so it seems widespread. That's my opinion.

[clocker]

Actually, I believe I'm the norm... where's the fun in that.

Agree completely.
Neither the OP (who cut and run rather quickly) nor Busy has shown that rampant abuse by drug users or "serial moms" exists.
I don't believe that it does.
So, no fun.

[Busyman™]

So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?

I saw nothing about her being a drug addict.

I thought the assumption was that the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits- hence, mandatory drug testing.
Cullen is obviously the exception to the rule.

You thought wrong.

You made that the assumption which is why I thought you quite nutty. Someone assails welfare recipients that abuse the system and you make it into some bullshit war on welfare recipients in general.

Yell loudly but you are way off base.

Nice try.

[Busyman™]

The urine test isn't as bad as the mandatory birth control. Come on, why not just sterilize everyone on assistance?

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights in either case?

Actually, I believe I'm the norm. The others are the exception. You never hear about the normal hardworking people, where's the fun in that. What you do hear about is every little abuse that occurs, so people can rant and rave about something, so that's all you hear so it seems widespread. That's my opinion.

I believe you to be the norm as well.

Last time I checked though it was never some rule that abuses should not be talked, ranted and raved about, or discussed just because there are those who don't abuse the system.

To be honest, I hear more stories and see more hard working folks on welfare or that were once on welfare.

Usually in the news you hear about the success stories more than the abuses.

[clocker]

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.

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.

Someone assails welfare recipients that abuse the system and you make it into some bullshit war on welfare recipients in general.

Yell loudly but you are way off base.

Nice try.

Apparently you not only fail to comprehend anything I write but even your own words.
FFS Busy, you are the advocate of drug testing and mandatory birth control despite being completely unable or unwilling to provide any evidence whatsoever that either measure would impact welfare abuse at all.
If anyone has declared war on welfare recipients it would be yourself, not me.
If anyone has made baseless assumptions, it would be you.

Reread the thread and try to stay awake this time.

[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.

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.

Someone assails welfare recipients that abuse the system and you make it into some bullshit war on welfare recipients in general.

Yell loudly but you are way off base.

Nice try.

Apparently you not only fail to comprehend anything I write but even your own words.
FFS Busy, you are the advocate of drug testing and mandatory birth control despite being completely unable or unwilling to provide any evidence whatsoever that either measure would impact welfare abuse at all.
If anyone has declared war on welfare recipients it would be yourself, not me.
If anyone has made baseless assumptions, it would be you.

Reread the thread and try to stay awake this time.

You say I've declared war on welfare recipients yet still point to me talking about abusers. Wtf is wrong with you?

You talk about my comprehension yet you have repeatedly failed to recognize what a question is (with question marks, no doubt), put assumptions on me that I haven't made, or simply fail to read properly.

Even above, I never said you declared war on welfare recipients. You made the assumption the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits.

The OP didn't even make that assertion. You are either an idiot or a liar.

I also (for the nth time) said that I was speaking from personal experience.

I don't need to reread the thread. I also don't deal in spin or cheerleading when someone is perceived to be on my side.

You need anti-senility pills.

I feel like someone has hijacked clocker's account and replaced him with an emotional nutjob.

[cullen7282]

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights in either case?

Sterilization isn't a new concept. It was done in 32 states between the 1900's until around 1970, California more than other places.

Started with mentally disabled in state run homes and hospitals.

Then came the Mexicans, Latinos, Blacks and Native Americans.

Soon they were sterilizing young girls categorized as immoral, loose, or unfit for motherhood

Most of the sterilizations were either working class or lower middle class.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/7/1128

It's called Eugenics:

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience[citation needed]. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics



I find it draconian and immoral. By the way, isn't that what Hitler was doing with the Aryan Race? It's a scary concept to start allowing the government to decide who can and who can not have children. Where's the system to redress this for someone who left her abusive husband and used welfare for two years to get on her feet? Now she's pulled herself up and off of state assistance but damn, can't have children now.

Who gets to decide who needs it? Rich white men? No thanks, I'll pass.

[clocker]

To be fair Cullen, even Busy wasn't advocating sterilization, just mandatory birth control...presumably the reversible kind- you know, the "shot".

Of course, as Rose pointed out, there may be long term health issues associated with those and there isn't an iota of evidence (outside of Busy's much ballyhooed "personal experience") that welfare mothers are on a reproductive rampage, so the necessity for such strictures is questionable, to say the least.

Just to remove any ambiguity (although I thought I'd been pretty clear from the beginning...)- I do NOT believe that there is a high enough level of welfare abuse by drug addled recipients to justify mandatory urine testing.
Nor do I believe that welfare mothers are squeezing out extra kids who then go on to be welfare recipients- and if there are, certainly not enough to justify mandatory birth control (much less, sterilization).

The US spends so little of the stereotypical working man's tax dollar on welfare and social services that completely eliminating the programs- which would solve the "abuse problem" totally- wouldn't make more than a few pennies difference in his take home pay.

Of course, it's far easier to direct one's outrage at the poor and downtrodden than to look upward at the real master manipulators of the system.
Industries like arms manufacturing and agribusiness have figured out how to suck billions in subsidies from the taxpayer- amounts that would leave the average welfare chiseler weak with envy.

[Busyman™]

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights in either case?

Sterilization isn't a new concept. It was done in 32 states between the 1900's until around 1970, California more than other places.

Started with mentally disabled in state run homes and hospitals.

Then came the Mexicans, Latinos, Blacks and Native Americans.

Soon they were sterilizing young girls categorized as immoral, loose, or unfit for motherhood

Most of the sterilizations were either working class or lower middle class.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/7/1128

It's called Eugenics:

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience[citation needed]. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I find it draconian and immoral. By the way, isn't that what Hitler was doing with the Aryan Race? It's a scary concept to start allowing the government to decide who can and who can not have children. Where's the system to redress this for someone who left her abusive husband and used welfare for two years to get on her feet? Now she's pulled herself up and off of state assistance but damn, can't have children now.

Who gets to decide who needs it? Rich white men? No thanks, I'll pass.

Again, what invasion of privacy and rights are there?

If you stop taking birth control, later on you can have children.
When you went for assistance before were you sterilized or on birth control?

This might be a case over-googling on your part.

All I proposed is a measure to reduce the likelihood of women having kids while on assistance.

There's the cost of the shot and then there's the cost of healthcare for mom and baby plus daycare plus lengthening of assistance for which taxpayers foot the bill.

I've known mom's that were not abusing the system that had children while welfare. It slowed them down from getting on their feet although they ended up with a bundle of joy.

Children are a full time responsibility. The purpose of government assistance is to help one get on their feet and back into the workforce. Having children while on assistance is counter-productive to doing that.

Yelling loudly about reproductive rights while asking the government to pay for your reproduction while already getting money and assistance from the government (taxpayers) is just mad talk.