drug testing people on welfare rant.....

[ADDirishboy]

Your personal freedoms END when I'm paying your bills.

[blindsnyper]

hey applebonker, can i HAVE some money? im starting to lose my high.

[AZhitman]

Greg, I must be completely confused by what you meant then. Maybe I've got my rtard hat on right now, but what did I miss?

You said:

What makes you think I don't have a clue where the money from my paycheck is going?

I said: ...how much welfare actually takes out of YOUR paycheck. Not "where it's going".

My point is, if you want to pay for some bum's drug use, go for it. Do it out of YOUR pay, not mine. I want to keep mine.

[thoughtless]

i personally dont see a problem with this.

to Dattebayo:
-college scholarships are rewards for being eligible to go to college
-your point of view and whole defense of this topic leads me to believe you are guilty of this [assumption]
-in which case you should explain your reasoning instead of instantly getting your feelings hurt and need to call people "idiots."
-lastly, im pretty sure you'll read this even though youre "done" with this post.

to OP:
-ive been saying the saaaame thing

[dre1507]

xekushnr. straight A Jimmy who does drugs, runs the risk of not graduating among other possible paths. what does that sound like to you? a potential waste of money. give it to me. my grades aren't perfect, but i'll graduate and be a benefit to the economy. lol.

[Dattebayo]

Educate me.

Because I do.

So do I, thanks to you.

And to show you how silly I think it is:

Unemployment is lumped in with this whole welfare thing, but that is payed for by yourself. And you have to continue to follow your state's requirements weekly`.
Disability is another kind, I don't see how drugs really affect that; these people are probably on plenty of legal ones as it is.
Then there's Medicaid and Medicare... Let's deny medical to drug users now, right? Gee, I can see where that might be a problem. As it is they won't approve things like voluntary drug overdose treatment or anything to do with self-inflicted injuries without a board getting together about it. And the former, they most likely won't.
Welfare for unskilled labor and hardship requires you to work for your money. It's not like they just give you a check and you lay back and take it easy, you have to get education and show actual attempts to make your life better.

Most of the time, those types are given out in terms of vouchers and bank cards with no pin number. They even provide counseling and lots of other services. All of these programs and more, and you want to yank them out from someone because they have used a drug? The same organization funds programs to get people off of hard drugs, and now you want to re-organize them so that they simply pull the rug out from these people? NOT gonna happen.

The OP's assumption that welfare recipients are mostly drug users is simply too shallow to justify the addition of this kind of qualification to the system.

[Oatmealman]

I'm all for drug testing people on welfare.I work my a** off to make my money,i still get drug tested and when tax time comes the government comes in take a decent chunk of change outta my pocket and then sends it off to different places.If my money is going to some meth/heroin/crack junkie with 9 kids and they spend it all on drugs,i'm not remotely ok with that.It's what democracy is about,give people the power.It's not like that anymore but if i'm giving my money to the government to people so they can keep living their s*** lives than i expect at the very least they be drug tested once a week.It's not to hard to go outta your way for an hour a day to piss in a cup.

I get drug tested twice a week and have to drive 20 minutes to go there,this is all for my job too.They wanna make sure i'm clean before they hand over the check i worked my a** off for.If i get caught with anything in my system other than alcohol i get fired on the spot,lose the paychecks that were gonna come in and banned from the premise.While that sounds harsh it makes me follow the rules,i worked with a guy who thought he could get away with smoking weed and he got fired.i'm fine with that,he tried to break the rules and paid the price.Stop being p****** and treat druggies like they should be treated(s***).

People stop being people when they break the law that was set in place(If you don't like it get the f*** out),Murderers get treated like humans even though they deserve death,rapists get treated like humans even though they deserve deaths,etc etc,America has become pussified with liberal bishez who think that criminals are people and their not.Don't break the law if you can't handle the punishment,and if you don't like the laws get the f*** out,and go live somewhere else.Somewhere that when you flip someone off your hand gets chopped off,or when you check out a girl they gouge your eyes out,or when you rape a chick they break a glass rod in your d!ck.

[Dattebayo]

to Dattebayo:
-college scholarships are rewards for being eligible to go to college
-your point of view and whole defense of this topic leads me to believe you are guilty of this [assumption]
-in which case you should explain your reasoning instead of instantly getting your feelings hurt and need to call people "idiots."
-lastly, im pretty sure you'll read this even though youre "done" with this post.

College scholarships from the govt. are not rewards for being eligible in terms of a pell grant. THAT is welfare. You applied, they accepted you based on a monetary basis, not a scholarly one.

My point of view exists in this thread because I feel that anyone who is being made to take a test telling what is in your system may have little to do with the money the govt. gave them. It's not like you can prove that that specific money paid for the drugs. And isn't that the real issue you all were complaining about?

I call people idiots when they try to compound one problem by adding another one onto it. How much money do you think paying for millions of drug tests is going to offset in the program? hmm? Especially continually...

Yes, you're right. I did read it. Enjoy...

[Oatmealman]

make them pay for the drug test simple solution,and no they shouldn't be on drugs period if on welfare,that's what i'm complaining about.If you wanna smoke crack do it on your dime,not mine,if you wanna live on welfare and try to get a job or hell even live a s*** life on welfare for ever be my guest but do not support the drug community while spending the money of hardworking american tax payers.

[Dattebayo]

Thanks for reading everything...

[Dattebayo]

make them pay for the drug test simple solution

That's not going to work.

[Oatmealman]

I did read everything thanks

and yes it will,make them pay for it or garnish their checks.Simple as that.

[dre1507]

The "welfare" money i receive to help with tuition costs among other things related to my education is only awarded after going through my financial documents and other important ones to make sure submitted info matches up and i really do need the money. So figuratively, that's my drug test right there. Of course majority of people on welfare aren't supporting the drug industry, but it's bad enough that some are.

You have nothing to fear if you are being an upstanding citizen.

[xekushnr]

xekushnr, If he has money to blow off on weed, then he doesn't need ours. I'm more focused on the fact that this is free money, from the government.

I'm not saying he's using that money for his weed. By all means if a kid is using all his money on weed, is not attending classes or paying for his essentials then YES, he does not deserve the grant and should not be allowed to keep the money. What I am proposing is what is the case for many students. Weed is not expensive on a large scale. A gram of weed is $20 or less. How much is a semester of school? The kid can afford his weed on his own. He doesn't need help with that. But if he's smart and ambitious enough, his schooling can be provided to him. Why is that so bad?

Sure, any left over money he could use to buy some weed. What about the average sober Joe who has some money from his welfare check left over? Does he call up the government and tell them he has too much? He spends it. I have known and have heard of some COMPLETELY sober people who do not use drugs or alcohol that end up buying friends or even complete strangers groceries because they have a certain amount allocated per month and they didn't end up using it. If I have heard of one or two people in that situation, how many are there around the country? Is it similar to the ones who use the money on drugs and alcohol?

If you're using government money to get high or drunk, I agree that its f*** up and it shouldn't be happening. But if the government is supplementing your income or providing schooling to you and you are able to advance your life, keep your funds in check, be a functioning member of society AND use drugs on occasion, I DO NOT see an issue.

[Dattebayo]

and yes it will,make them pay for it or garnish their checks.Simple as that.

See, this is more of what I mean. Most people on welfare need that extra $50 to live. Hell, what the govt. gives them isn't enough anyway.
But you seem to think they have money to spare for drugs, huh. Why don't we make them all pay for the bs a few of them do?

[AppleBonker]

I said: ...how much welfare actually takes out of YOUR paycheck. Not "where it's going".

My point is, if you want to pay for some bum's drug use, go for it. Do it out of YOUR pay, not mine. I want to keep mine.

Semantics. By "where my money is going" I was referring to how much of my money is going to welfare, or how much welfare is taking from my check, not so much what those recipients are spending it on. I don't want to pay for anyone's drug use. However, I think we could probably all agree that at least the majority of welfare recipients are NOT wasting the money on drugs/alcohol/hookers/etc. Unfortunately,I accept some of the hit of "throwing money away" for the greater benefit. And honestly, the savings (if any) from kicking addicts off welfare wouldn't amount to much in my paycheck. Hell, even if that meant every two weeks I got $5 more (which would put my annual salary in the ballpark of $80k) I would rather not have the $5 and keep the personal rights. Again, just my position on it.

You have nothing to fear if you are being an upstanding citizen.

That's such a BS comment though. I understand where you're coming from, but drug testing isn't the answer. You're saying. "feel free to watch me, I'm not doing anything wrong". It should be, "you don't NEED to watch me, I'm not doing anything wrong". Don't be so quick to give away other peoples' rights; you never know when you might be in a position where it works against you.

xekushnr. straight A Jimmy who does drugs, runs the risk of not graduating among other possible paths. what does that sound like to you? a potential waste of money. give it to me. my grades aren't perfect, but i'll graduate and be a benefit to the economy. lol.

Dude, I'm glad you're confident in yourself (honestly, no sarcasm, keep up the hard work), but I don't know that drugs make anyone more likely to drop out of school. I knew plenty of kids who failed out or dropped out that were completely clean. There could be a million other things that can't really be tested for that would cause a financial aid student to not graduate. To be honest, I don't know I've ever seen a study that demonstrates a strong correlation between drug use and college failure either. So if you're going to remove aid from someone who is likely to fail out/drop out (which I would be ok with), I don't know that you can use drug use as an indicator.

make them pay for the drug test simple solution

That's not going to work.

Dave's correct in this case. How many people would you, Oatmeal, estimate are on welfare and doing drugs? 20%? 30%? 50%? I can pretty much assure you it's well less than 50%, but even if it were, you're suggesting paying half (HALF!) the recipients less money in welfare do pay for a drug test that they shouldn't need to take? Way to stick it to the guy that's having trouble...

[RobPaulson]

adam. . . i only skimmed down to this point, but I see where you're coming from. you are taking a bit of an unrealistic, idealistic standpoint on this.

sure, the govt shouldnt tell us what to do.

but the govt also should not be paying our bills.

Those two statements are tied together by the integrity of the ideas this country was founded on. so if you break one down, i.e. the govt paying your personal bills, people feel the ends justify the means to intrude on these peoples personal freedoms, i.e. drug testing. Especially when one directly effects the other, welfare is designed to help you get back on your feet. Not to fund your free fun time. regardless of what that may be.

I for one am all for drug testing for welfare. And thats coming from someone who... well... lets just say i'm no angel. Here is what i'd like to see happen, i'm going to explain in a hypothetical situation below, i'm pulling numbers out of my a**, but they, as specifics, are unimportant. using them to prove my point and overall idea.

Lets say we have 20% of the overall welfare budget going to regulating the distributing of the funds to the people. This means only 20% of the overall budget can be used to decide who gets what. So there is 80% of the budget being handed out, rather frivolously, without much regard as to who is getting it, or what is being done with it.

In my perfect world, 60-70% of the budget should be used for regulation, and MUCH less should be handed out. This does not necessarily mean people will receive LESS money from welfare. What this means is much higher standards for those that are to receive welfare, therefore GREATLY reducing the recipient base for the system. Now this isnt necessarily restricted to drug testing, but includes more in depth background checks and stricter upkeep (continuing to check up on welfare recipients, making sure they are looking for work, not wasting money, etc etc).

TLDR:
spend more regulating, weed out the leeches, hand out less. it wont save us tax payers anything, but at least it would bump up the integrity of the system a bit.

[Dattebayo]

at least it would bump up the integrity of the system a bit.

You've got a long way to go before something like that happens.

[RobPaulson]

at least it would bump up the integrity of the system a bit.

You've got a long way to go before something like that happens.

agreed.

[fiznowler]

I don't really see how that is taking away their freedoms. You choose to ask for assistance. I chose to work for my company. My company requires a piss test. Why is so bad that thier company (the tax payers and the US government) require a test? I see both sides of the argument. Perhaps they could figure out some sort of system that if you fail you pay, you pass you are covered.

[AppleBonker]

spend more regulating, weed out the leeches

Again, who is paying for the regulating? Are you suggesting you'd be happy with them taking MORE money from your paycheck? Seems like a very odd solution. If you're that dedicated to eradicating drug use, more power to you.

[fiznowler]

I don't really see how that is taking away their freedoms. You choose to ask for assistance. I chose to work for my company. My company requires a piss test. Why is so bad that thier company (the tax payers and the US government) require a test? I see both sides of the argument. Perhaps they could figure out some sort of system that if you fail you pay, you pass you are covered.

[Dattebayo]

I don't really see how that is taking away their freedoms. You choose to ask for assistance. I chose to work for my company. My company requires a piss test.

I highly doubt most "choose" to ask for assistance. Sounds like we have a lot of people who never had to draw making summary judgments here.

[AppleBonker]

I chose to work for my company. My company requires a piss test

Some don't. You could easily choose to work for a company that doesn't require a drug test. I don't see that option being available to those who "choose" (which is funny since the vast majority of people on welfare aren't choosing it) to be on welfare. Your drug test was completely voluntary. Theirs isn't. I guess they could choose not to get any money and be completely broke, but then I end up paying for their healthcare, crime and the punishment for said crimes. Either way I'm paying for them.

Edit: I typed too much and was beaten to the obvious point ^

[fiznowler]

they can choose not to ask for my money.

[Dattebayo]

they can choose not to ask for my money.

Oh please.

[RobPaulson]

spend more regulating, weed out the leeches

Again, who is paying for the regulating? Are you suggesting you'd be happy with them taking MORE money from your paycheck? Seems like a very odd solution. If you're that dedicated to eradicating drug use, more power to you.

i explained how the allocation of funds would work in my example dude. the overall budget does not change. the allocation of funds internally does.

hence, the % out of our checks woulldnt change, it would just make us feel better about whos getting what.

[AppleBonker]

i explained how the allocation of funds would work in my example dude. the overall budget does not change. the allocation of funds internally does.

hence, the % out of our checks woulldnt change, it would just make us feel better about whos getting what.

So with your example, what if 60% of the people on welfare actually deserve and need the money? Now, the amount of money in the budget has dropped considerably, so they all receive less. Say there's $100k/month going into welfare and 100 recipients. With your example, $20k goes to regulating and $80k goes to the 100 people. Now, we step it up to $60k goes to regulating and $40k goes to the people, but we've cut back 40 of the people because they're addicts. This means we went from 800/month per person to $667/month per person deserving. So not only did we screw the people who you think don't deserve it, but we hammered those who do. Looks like a lose-lose to me. Either that, or we now need to fund welfare more.

[SullivanRacing06]

make them pay for the drug test simple solution

That's not going to work.

ok take the 3 bucks per drug test out of their free money, if they pass they still get their free money. if they dont then itll save the government millions... not a bad trade off

[Dattebayo]

ok take the 3 bucks per drug test out of their free money, if they pass they still get their free money. if they dont then itll save the government millions... not a bad trade off

It costs a lot more than 3 bucks, dingus.