EPTFlorida to drug test for welfare - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
| ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
On June 10 2011 05:18 Boblhead wrote: Ever state needs to do this, who knows how many people on welfare, and and disability abuse the system, I know of a lady that has 8 kids, and is fit to work, but she just abuses the system and the state pays for everything. I know that she partakes in illegal drug use as well. I know arizona the "Controversal state" was thinking about doing this, and let me tell you I'm 100% into supporting this. she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child? | ||
|
t1bZ
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
Because it's going to prove to that people on welfare aren't the drug-addicted leeching boogeymen the political right has invented. | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5713 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:36 t1bZ wrote: Great move by the Florida government, hope more states follow suit shortly. If unemployed people are going to live on taxpayer dollars, the least they could do in return is not squander those dollars on drug habits. This. We're giving you the money. So we should have some say to make sure it's not going to illegal activities. | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:35 jello_biafra wrote: I see many people saying that it's fine to buy drugs with your own money but not with money given to you by the government, the government wastes billions each year on the war on drugs, does spending a small amount more of government money on drugs really make a difference? Well in the very least the money is spent fighting the spread of drugs, not buying them. When someone is milking the system they are hurting everyone in their community, The government is spending lots of money on lots of things. Though if they save even $.01 because someone failed a drug test that wanted to be on welfare/unemployment well thats still a win in my book. | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:29 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: I personally feel this is a great idea. It only hurts people who are on drugs breaking the law already. They should drug test people by monthly and create more government jobs. Having people go around and collect these drug tests to make sure everyone is staying clean. If you are working for your own money and want to do drugs go for it I don't care but if your using the system and tax payers money GTFO... Actually, it hurts the taxpayer, because if you read the article you would know the drug tests are paid for by EVERYONE on welfare, and the cost is paid back to them by the welfare office if they are clean. So instead of paying for drug addicts maybe (since knowing someone uses drugs doesn't actually tell you anything about what they spend their money on), you are guaranteed to pay for many expensive frivolous drug tests. Anyone who jumps on board of "Fuck u, drug users, im not paying!" is just spewing propaganda without actually thinking about how the world works. This arrangement will cost the state more money than just paying people who may or may not be taking drugs, but qualified for assistance based on their finances - for which the amount of money they receive is already based on their bills and expenses, which have to be proven to the welfare office with receipts and records of payment - meaning they don't really have money for drugs anyways unless they lied about their rent. This legislation is basically saying everyone on welfare is guility of fraud, and they must submit to an expensive drug test to prove their innocence. So before you go FUCK YEAH, AMERICA, WE BEAT THE DRUG USERS, actually think about the mechanics of the situation, and who will be paying for it. | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:27 Kamuy wrote: I'm sorry, whats wrong with this? You stick your hand out asking me for money, I want some assurance its not going to be injected into your arm or smoked. Beggar's can't be choosers. That's exactly how I feel. Of course people without a job are going to stay without a job if they spend their days on hard drugs. This helps them. I just hope they don't go to prison if they are found to be using drugs, and given help instead. | ||
|
Bonkarooni
United States383 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:31 SpoR wrote: That's a good point too. Some people can be rehabilitated, but if you cut off their money that say 40% of goes to drugs and the rest for their room/food then you're essentially putting them out on the street and much more likely to get heavier into drugs and commit more crimes. did people miss the point where it said if you are found to be on drugs, you can designate someone else to recieve your benefits on behalf of your children? | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:21 funnybananaman wrote: Completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. And why not test for gambling or pre-marital sex too in these people? Lottery tickets? Cigarettes? Not giving up your seat on the bus to old ladies? Didn't say grace before dinner last night? Liquor on Sundays? What other kinds of immorality should exclude people from receiving welfare? Its just so hypocritical, the government should never legislate morality. Those things aren't technically illegal. Agree with the illegality of drugs or not, the government isn't legislating morality, they're legislating legality. I normally come to the defense of peoples rights, but in this situation I don't see this as a bad thing, I guess. Welfare is supposed to be financial support for people that aren't making enough money to get by. I don't think it's all that bad for this money to come with strings attached. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
| ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:35 VPCursed wrote: she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child? Who has children they can't provide for? That bitch is sick in the head, and negligent. She shouldn't be given a dime. If she is negligent, and fails to provide for them, then due process is done, the children are taken away, and she's put in prison. | ||
|
Newtonz
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:35 VPCursed wrote: she has 8 kids and you want her to find a job? are u sick in the head? Do you have any idea how hard it is to even raise 1 child? So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends. | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:39 darkscream wrote: Actually, it hurts the taxpayer, because if you read the article you would know the drug tests are paid for by EVERYONE on welfare, and the cost is paid back to them by the welfare office if they are clean. So instead of paying for drug addicts maybe (since knowing someone uses drugs doesn't actually tell you anything about what they spend their money on), you are guaranteed to pay for many expensive frivolous drug tests. Anyone who jumps on board of "Fuck u, drug users, im not paying!" is just spewing propaganda without actually thinking about how the world works. This arrangement will cost the state more money than just paying people who may or may not be taking drugs, but qualified for assistance based on their finances - for which the amount of money they receive is already based on their bills and expenses, which have to be proven to the welfare office with receipts and records of payment - meaning they don't really have money for drugs anyways unless they lied about their rent. This legislation is basically saying everyone on welfare is guility of fraud, and they must submit to an expensive drug test to prove their innocence. So before you go FUCK YEAH, AMERICA, WE BEAT THE DRUG USERS, actually think about the mechanics of the situation, and who will be paying for it. I understand what your getting at with the costs of the drug tests, Though if you can stop someone who is going to be on wellfare for 10, 20+ years in the long run we would be saving money. How many people have been leeching on the system for years and years. If you have to get drug tested to get a job you should have to get drug tested to be on welfare. | ||
|
Newtonz
United States141 Posts
Welfare is not a constitutional right, so it being only obtainable through a drug test has nothing to do with their "right" to their tax money. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:35 jello_biafra wrote: I see many people saying that it's fine to buy drugs with your own money but not with money given to you by the government, the government wastes billions each year on the war on drugs, does spending a small amount more of government money on drugs really make a difference? That's kind of like saying the U.S. spends trillions on the wars in the middle east, does spending a small amount more on funding insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan really make a difference? If you decided to wage war then why would you want to use any money to fund your enemy? | ||
|
Light`iu
Spain51 Posts
Anyways, all you have to do is pee in a cup. It's not like people are fondeling your package or molesting you. | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:46 RoosterSamurai wrote: So let me get this straight. She's on drugs, and you think she's actually raising those 8 kids? Bet you anything if we took a trip to her house it would smell like cat piss and cigarettes, and the children would be malnourished, spending all of their time at a friend's house because they're afraid to go home and be anywhere near one of mom's boyfriends. ah, ye. lets stereotype all those welfare recipients. ye man. Those fucking poor people. They're all the same. Lazy as hell and don't do anything. just think of the horrors this person has done. I don't know anything about except besides the fact that shes poor but I can make these huge sweeping generalizations. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:44 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Who has children they can't provide for? That bitch is sick in the head, and negligent. She shouldn't be given a dime. If she is negligent, and fails to provide for them, then due process is done, the children are taken away, and she's put in prison. Reminds me of the UK family that had like 8 children, both parents quit their jobs and they were receiving enough benefit money for a large house, car, big TV, cable, broadband, loads of food etc. and they were complaining that they didn't have enough money for a holiday and were demanding more from the government -_- This country seems like the opposite of Florida, the crazy "chavs/jakes/neds" or w/e you want to call them can come into the job centre clearly drunk and make a big scene and be out with their money within 10 minutes when regular people who are just between jobs actually have to wait their turn. I still disagree with Florida's decision though, there has to be a middle ground. On June 10 2011 07:49 BlackJack wrote: That's kind of like saying the U.S. spends trillions on the wars in the middle east, does spending a small amount more on funding insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan really make a difference? If you decided to wage war then why would you want to use any money to fund your enemy? You're right it is kind of like saying that but the situations are totally different. Billions are spent trying to stop drugs from reaching the country but huge amounts get in regardless. The addict is gonna get his fix whether it's with his welfare money or the money of the guy he just robbed, either way the money is going back into the economy, the drugs will continue to flow and essentially nothing was achieved by the governments "war" and an alternate system would render the entire unpleasant scenario unnecessary . In the other you're actually providing logistical, technological etc. support to an enemy in an actual combat situation which will actively harm your efforts in a situation where the only alternative is to let a nation be oppressed and become the world centre for terrorists again. | ||
| ||
