Drug test for welfare

charface

charface

Well-Known Member
I thought drug testing for welfare was a bad idea but only because I think it was not well thought out.
I think it will get real expensive. Someone has to pay for the tests. Long story short, what happens when people fail the test?
I think CPS will have to be called in. Now it gets expensive. Interviews, taking peoples kids because they "Refuse" to clean up
in order to feed them. I wont go into my whole rant but in my mind this is going to get ugly. Including splitting up homes
and making it harder for children to eat. Stressed out durggie parents acting like douches. Just bad man. Bad plan!
Oh did I mention the increase in crime that would come from the ones who refuse to lose their kids or stop eating/taking drugs.
Yikes, lol
 
1Shot1Kill

1Shot1Kill

Active Member
Why should my tax money go to people who can actually provide for themselves but chose to get high instead? Why should my tax money go to people who sell their food stamps for half price every month so they can buy and abuse prescription pills? Why should my tax money go to people who are crack heads?

I could be receiving 200+ a month of ebt but I chose not to because it is my responsibility to provide for myself. I haven't gone grocery shopping for 2 months and I'm hungry lol, but it's my problem not yours

Lets give these low lifes some incentive and make them get their own damn food, housing, and gas just like the ones who chose not to go the easy way..
 
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
Why should My tax dollars go to an Oil war?..or Somalians? or British Petroleum ? or A massive Defense budget?.. I could also get stamps if I chose to..never have yet..I find a way to survive without them..you are hardly alone in not taking stamps or not approving where the gov is spending money.
 
1Shot1Kill

1Shot1Kill

Active Member
cannabineer said:
Once it's tax money it's no longer "mine". This might offend the Libertarians, but it's how things are now. cn
Click to expand...
Follow the serial number on my tax dollars.. It should be ending up in the hands of Veterans hospitals, schools, and improving roads/bridges............... Not going to a fucking slack ass, pill snorting, coke smoking, child neglecting, overweight bitch who doesn't even want to work and thinks its funny that she doesn't have to work.. Fuck that shit..


Like I said, these ignorant bitches need some incentive or they will never leave the system..
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Once it's tax money it's no longer "mine". This might offend the Libertarians, but it's how things are now. cn
Click to expand...
It's "your's" still, but not in the way that allows you to just go take it back. You must, instead, direct your representatives to spend your money the way you want.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
1Shot1Kill said:
Follow the serial number on my tax dollars.. It should be ending up in the hands of Veterans hospitals, schools, and improving roads/bridges............... Not going to a fucking slack ass, pill snorting, coke smoking, child neglecting, overweight bitch who doesn't even want to work and thinks its funny that she doesn't have to work.. Fuck that shit..


Like I said, these ignorant bitches need some incentive or they will never leave the system..
Click to expand...
But this solution doesn't differentiate between someone who is getting free weed from a caring friend, and someone cashing in their toddler's support money for crack. That's why blanket solutions don't work well, and generally just cause further problems.
 
1Shot1Kill

1Shot1Kill

Active Member
kpmarine said:
But this solution doesn't differentiate between someone who is getting free weed from a caring friend, and someone cashing in their toddler's support money for crack. That's why blanket solutions don't work well, and generally just cause further problems.
Click to expand...
That is a good point but the later outweighs the free weed considerably in my opinion. What would you suggest in order to be certain that money spending addicts are not on welfare?

If it was up to me there would be no welfare weather one needed it or not.. Something else would have to step its game up like charities... It's not the governments duty to wait on lazy people hand and foot while making it harder for the ones who are trying, imho
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
1Shot1Kill said:
That is a good point but the later outweighs the free weed considerably in my opinion. What would you suggest in order to be certain that money spending addicts are not on welfare?

If it was up to me there would be no welfare weather one needed it or not.. Something else would have to step its game up like charities... It's not the governments duty to wait on lazy people hand and foot while making it harder for the ones who are trying, imho
Click to expand...
The issue is, when you say that screwing good people over is in any way acceptable; you are essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face. Did they actually do a cost-benefit analysis of implementing this in a sweeping way? It seems like requiring receipts would make it easier and cheaper to see who is spending their money well, and who is buying drugs. Then you investigate the ones who raise red flags. To be fair though, you'd have to find a way to test for alcohol, and nicotine; if you want to maintain any high ground regarding paying for addiction. What about caffeine and sugar? Arguably non-essential, but you can spend your whole ebt check on it. This wasn't just for 1shot, if anyone else knows whether this has been proven to be effective, please let me know.

I do appreciate your beliefs regarding welfare, the gov. has never had a good track record of spending money well. Though gov. power could fill a forum in it's own right, so I won't go off on that tangent. I do also see the upside of implementing testing. I can even see why it's justifiable. To be honest though, businesses only do it because it benefits them in some way. To apply the same standard to welfare testing, it would actually have to save more money than it costs.
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
Gastanker said:
You used actual figures of what a family earning 60k a year spends... How does what a family earning 60k have anything to do with how much you need to comfortably get by? And no, a 10k/year vacation, two cars, cell phones, cable tv... is not necessary to live a comfortable life.




I don't know what to say about the statement that you can't live comfortably on $40k/year... I just know far too many people that would disagree.

And I love that you state that just because I know multiple people making $40k walking dogs that it shouldn't matter while you state "and that's what things cost here." Hmmm... yeah, so either both are valid or neither. These are actual numbers you realize? I know actual people that live within their means...

But out of curiosity where does all of this tie in with the conversation? Are you saying the government should give handouts to all families earning $40k/year and less? Are you encouraging people to raise families on the income of a barista? What's your point other than you and your friends spending beyond their means?

If you earn less than $40k/year it's ok to scam the system? Is that what you're getting at?
Click to expand...
your proof that someone can live on 40k is a graphic that says that people spend almost 50k to live? what part of that chart represents taxes? i don't see any taxes paid besides income tax. no house tax, no sewer tax, no sales tax, nothing. the problem with averages is it doesn't take into account the extremes on either end of that average. according to that picture around 3k is spent annually on utilities. for people who live where it's cold that's only going to cover their heat in the winter. it also gets murky when you say that there are 1.3 "earners" and other such figures. how much are they making individually if their income before taxes is 63k? why are there no student loans or credit card debt on that chart? it shows the total amount spent but not the total amount earned after taxes. also, those figures represent such a large variety of families and lifestyles that it's impossible to put those numbers into perspective. there's no way to measure the variation which is enormous. do you really think spending less than 3k on healthcare is a reality for a lot of people/families?

my point still stands, and is as follows:
40k will keep you alive. nothing more, nothing less, which would be fine, except for the fact that actually finding a job to earn that 40k is not as simple as walking some dogs and answering some phones that thousands of other people can do just as well as you. those types of jobs are basically lotteries. at the age of 29, i've only made 40k twice (3-4 years ago), and that was because of a LOT of overtime that i was lucky enough to "win" by kissing the boss's ass better than my coworkers. and because it was a cable company, i was able to avoid paying the $125/month for tv/internet. most of my coworkers made around 33k. one year i worked 2 jobs and still only made around 35k. 60 hours a week getting dirty and screamed at just to be able to afford to stare at the wall. at that point, to me, cable isn't a luxury, it's an exercise in maintaining one's mental health. solitary confinement in an empty room after a long day of work is no way to live.

i have never been on assistance besides unemployment, but to say to someone who is making this 40k that has a kid(s) that they are raping the system for accepting assistance to keep shit running is pretty crusty. i can't understand why you keep insisting that 40k is just soo much money and adequate to live on. your own chart says otherwise.
 
dozer777

dozer777

Active Member
Got people I know on probation who have to piss right in front of their probation officer. They get a ll bean hand warmer for the good piss and use a tube running down their arm with the clean piss. Looks just like your taking a piss. They've been doing it once a month for over 2 years. Hope his PO doesn't go on RIU!
 
Gastanker

Gastanker

Well-Known Member
Total Head said:
your proof that someone can live on 40k is a graphic that says that people spend almost 50k to live? what part of that chart represents taxes? i don't see any taxes paid besides income tax. no house tax, no sewer tax, no sales tax, nothing. the problem with averages is it doesn't take into account the extremes on either end of that average. according to that picture around 3k is spent annually on utilities. for people who live where it's cold that's only going to cover their heat in the winter. it also gets murky when you say that there are 1.3 "earners" and other such figures. how much are they making individually if their income before taxes is 63k? why are there no student loans or credit card debt on that chart? it shows the total amount spent but not the total amount earned after taxes. also, those figures represent such a large variety of families and lifestyles that it's impossible to put those numbers into perspective. there's no way to measure the variation which is enormous. do you really think spending less than 3k on healthcare is a reality for a lot of people/families?

my point still stands, and is as follows:
40k will keep you alive. nothing more, nothing less, which would be fine, except for the fact that actually finding a job to earn that 40k is not as simple as walking some dogs and answering some phones that thousands of other people can do just as well as you. those types of jobs are basically lotteries. at the age of 29, i've only made 40k twice (3-4 years ago), and that was because of a LOT of overtime that i was lucky enough to "win" by kissing the boss's ass better than my coworkers. and because it was a cable company, i was able to avoid paying the $125/month for tv/internet. most of my coworkers made around 33k. one year i worked 2 jobs and still only made around 35k. 60 hours a week getting dirty and screamed at just to be able to afford to stare at the wall. at that point, to me, cable isn't a luxury, it's an exercise in maintaining one's mental health. solitary confinement in an empty room after a long day of work is no way to live.

i have never been on assistance besides unemployment, but to say to someone who is making this 40k that has a kid(s) that they are raping the system for accepting assistance to keep shit running is pretty crusty. i can't understand why you keep insisting that 40k is just soo much money and adequate to live on. your own chart says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Again, read. That chart was posted in response to someone else' posted statistics. They were quoting figures based on the spending rate of a family that makes $60k while we were talking about families making $40k. If you want to argue with the charts figures themselves then go take your arguement to the department of labor and the department of labor statistics.

You used actual figures of what a family earning 60k a year spends... How does what a family earning 60k have anything to do with how much you need to comfortably get by?
Click to expand...
Again, there are families that live in poverty, ~15% of America, that are kept alive on $20k/year for families of 4, $17k/year for families of 3, and $10k/year for single individuals. How ungrateful are you? You are just being "kept alive" on $35k/year...wow. And again, what does any of this have to do with receiving benefits for unemployment? I don't think I ever said anything about being against people legitimately using unemployment.

I'm sorry you are not as employable as you would like to be. I'm afraid I cannot help you with this.
 
Pipe Dream

Pipe Dream

Well-Known Member
There are good points for both sides of this argument. For one thing, a person on welfare doesn't necessarily mean a person who doesn't work it could just be someone in a bad situation. Also, maybe the low number of failures was because people who knew they would fail did not test. I have no problem asking for a drug test before assistance, but if it's costing the taxpayer more than it's not a program I want to participate in. Drug tests are pretty useless anyways. They can be fooled and hard drugs don't stay in your system very long. They aren't going to refuse someone testing positive for alcohol are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top