Want Public Assistance?
Posted by the912project on April 1, 2009 · 175 Comments
West Virginia Wants A Drug Test 
Comments
While we believe in the First Amendment, individuals posting to this website agree to maintain a civil tone in keeping with the 9 Principles and 12 Values on which the site is based. Moderators may choose to remove comments that do otherwise and/or restrict future posting.
175 Responses to “Want Public Assistance?”The Restoring Honor Rally August 28, 2010
The Plan
Get Involved!
Click here to find an event near you.
9.12 in Action
Who We Are
More From Glenn …
I whole-heartedly agree with those who want public assistance like food stamps and unemployment having to submit to drug testing. If these same people went to get a job, they'd most likely have to be tested as well. I grew up receiving food stamps and WIC, and even had to get public assistance while my husband was in the Coast Guard and when we first got out. It did nothing but infuriate me when I saw people who were obviously abusing the system. If you are unable to work because you are so hopped up on drugs and pills, too bad. You don't get to have a free ride. I think if this type of law were enacted on a National basis, the amount of money that could be saved from waste in the public assistance area of government would be shocking.
I understand where someone could argue a privacy issue with this type of testing, however, just as those companies who ran to Washington asking for a bailout, there has to be certain rules to uphold honesty and accountability.
I would like to first of all say thank you so much for your service and sacrifice for this country! I am a recent college graduate and I feel so disgusted and ashamed of my generation for the lack of personal responsibility and the selfish sense of entitlement that runs rampant throughout so much of it. I feel as though it is a slap in the face to honorable men like yourself who have risked their lives for the freedoms we enjoy and are so recklessly giving away as though they mean nothing. Know that there are still some of us who value hard work and responsibility and want to raise our children with those same principles. Once again, thank you! I may never know all of what your sacrifice has meant, but know that it is appreciated.
One other thing. I lived in Germany for awhile and over there it is almost total welfare state(socialism). These guys are going to be surprised, they had to work for there (free) programs over there and I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen here soon. You would always see people sweeping the sidewalks etc..Obama mandatory service will not be a joke. Welfare won't be as easy as it is now. I am just sick about how our country is flying towards the cliff. I just wonder how long it will take before the rest of the country will wake up . I wonder if the Congress is living in a bubble or what. Have they been hypnotized? They do remind me of zombies.
Here's an idea! After the drug testing, how about if you can only receive benefits if you paid into the system while you had a job! And how about making the limit that you receive as a benefit equal to what you paid in?!! That way, those who don't contribute don't receive. If you receive you know there is a limited time left for you to find employment of some sort. People in this country who are habitually on the dole for generation after generation should be kicked out. Sounds heartless I know, but when it comes down to it either I feed my family with what I am able to gather, or I feed another family who isn't related to mine. My house comes first because I'm responsible for that!
I gotta ask, Are you a true blue American kid?
Hopefully the strength of your convictions and those around you bring you to a place that you can be proud to be apart of, a place that makes sense.
That kid you describe is the future of America in all its glory — no shame, no focus, no ambition — the last phase before the final collapse or rebirth.
Schools are one of the most corrupt institutions in our society since they have all become businesses not institutions of learning. They look at the bottom line for success, not the product they produce. They let the slacker sit in the same room with achievers simple because the bill got payed. Teachers are reduced to nannies and providers of self made cliff notes for the books the taxpayers buy and the students refuse to read. Schools are the mirror image of our society, they bail-out the dead wood, keep them afloat because they are too precious to fail. We might hurt their egos, and they might come to school the next day with a gun.
In the end we all pay.
It's difficult to turn corruption around. Once it starts it has a domino effect. When one goes down those that surround it go down the same.
Hopefully, you can keep your eyes on the road ahead and avoid the kooks from bringing you down.
Whatever happened to probable cause? If a person is screwing up one way or another and is suspected of drug and or alcohol use then it may be appropriate to test. Testing everyone would be way too expensive. What's next? Pee in a bottle to get a drivers license renewel? Where does it end? Enough with the government intrusion in our lives.
WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT TO DRUG TEST PEOPLE THIS IS JUST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT OVER REACH INTO PEOPLES PERSONAL BUSINESS. HELL THE LAST TWO ELECTED PRESIDENTS DID COCAINE AND STUPID WILLIE SMOKED POT SO IF THE PRESIDENTS CAN HAVE DONE DRUGS WHY IS IT THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS IF SOMEONE GETTING FOOD STAMPS SMOKES POT
Well lets put it this way OUR TROOPS are paid by the Government , Cops/firefighters are paid by the state or county/city government, If they can't keep there job if they do any illegal drug,
WHY SHOULD THE TAX PAYER BE ON THE HOOK FOR A WEFARE RECIEPIANT TO COLLECT A CHECK WHILE GETTING HIGH
I live in Georgia now, but am from the Great State of West Virginia. I am so proud of my home state for proposing this law… I cringe at the thought of well-meaning, hard-working taxpayers subsidizing drug and alcohol habits of those who are not working to support their OWN addictions!!
"It seems ironic that welfare and unemployment are both designed to get you back to work and everything, but how is that possible if you're on drugs?" Blair asked.
I don't see that welfare IS designed to get people back to work. Too many people, especially young mothers, can make a LOT more staying at home on welfare, than taking a minimum wage job, which pays LESS than welfare AND causes them to earn too much to continue receiving any welfare benefits. Welfare causes total dependence on the government.
One of the most effective interventions regarding drug and alcohol abusers is employment intervention..A great many people have gotten into recovery by this method. Why not unemployment intervention. If a person is receiving public assistance for ANY cause I fully support drug testing..
Sir, I thank you VERY much for my freedom! I honor you, sir, along with all the other Veterans. If anyone deserves to gripe, complain, or vent, YOU DO! The best quote that I have ever heard or read is this: "Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know."
We always appreciate it, but thanks is never necessary, and honor is like love – it only means something when it is a verb.
As much as my wife tells me to stop "your bitching" as she loves to say so often, I know that I have nothing to really complain about. None of us do. So long as we live and breathe, and live atop free soil, we have no legitimate gripes.
That is a very fine quote. If given the chance, I would put it on a bumper sticker, and myself go around the country slapping it on the cars of those who laugh in the face of what they enjoy everyday, due to the protectors alone.
Before I comment further, I want to thank you for your service! Because of men like you, we have the freedom that so many take for granted. I come from a military family (father, brothers, uncle, great aunt,husbandetc.) all the way back to the revolutionary war. In fact, sadly my little brother, a marine, served in Afganistan & Iraq had that same look when he came back.
Thank your family for me, and say a prayer of gratitude for your ancestors, because they've given you a strong bloodline.
Your brother has likely seen things that are unspeakable, and even impossible to imitate in TV or film. He saw it, he lived it, and he couldn't escape it except by putting it deep inside. It protects the loved ones back home, but is like an emotional cancer that will spread if not carefully cut away over time.
I was lucky to have a young woman who loved me, and who met me at the train station the moment I stepped onto the platform. Love is the absolute best treatment for that dark and hard scar tissue in the minds of those who saw it.
As a native West Virginian, I have seen the negative effects of welfare recipients on drugs. I have gone to school with children from welfare homes and these children are badly neglected due to their parents' horrible habits. If for no other reason, welfare recipients should be drug tested so their welfare money can be spent on their children's well-being.
Well, first off, thank you yankee, I am always glad to hear from the latest generation of young adults. As far as feeling ashamed of your peers, you should always keep in mind that your generation had one before it, and I'm in the one before that. The group that came between you and I was a very troubled bunch of folks.
I sound like a square when I say these things, but I think that the parents of this generation, not all but many, had too much exposure to the harshness of the world at too young an age. Their folks spoke of recent wars past, and their televisions thoughtlessly beat into their heads the images of bullet riddled bodies and all sorts of dark things. By their teens they felt trapped between wars – those of WWII and Korea, and the developing conflict in Vietnam. The teenagers wanted escape, wanted to rebel, wanted to be the first generation to turn their back on their folks and the congregation of anyone over 30.
Nowadays, these rebellious teens are now the parents who live the same conservative values their parents had, but follow the values of progressiveness and look back on the days of drugs, sex, and bad music (except Pink Floyd) with fond nostalgia, instead of the shame they should have.
Your generation is unfortunate more than they should be ashamed, because you've been forgotten. This generation was parented by daycares while two liberal parents worked to afford the conservative lifestyle they enjoyed through their parents' labor. It's a generation of hypocrisy running the businesses, schools, and various offices within government.
So, yankee, don't get too down on your friends and peers. We are all products of our parents, the environment they and others provided for us to develop in, and the amount of opportunities at key points in life. Most of those your age don't see what we saw over 50 years ago and more, and thus they can't make sense of what people my age say, find lies in what people their folks' age say, and can't find their own voices now, so they are lost a little bit.
They are apathetic because they haven't been exposed to anything of real passion. They are disrespectful, because they fear what feelings would come if they revealed their fears. Lastly, I think those lost voices are hard to find without something they feel strongly enough to say. So there is deafening silence instead.
I could be wrong, though.
My husband has scars, too, but no purple. If you could walk and still had all your limbs, you didn't even ask for first aid. Every once in a while a chunk of metal comes out of him (he was peppered with it) and he just shrugs. Said he'd refuse a purple even if they gave him one. He says \”I never hurt with it one bit and it has not ever bothered me one bit.\” But he is disabled–Agent Orange. We lost 3 kids, and both our chldren were born with birth defects as is our grandson. My 6th grade teacher was at Guadalcanal.My husband was Airmobile with the Cavalry. He was at Khe Sanh, Quang Tri, Hue, and A Shau Valley. Then he went to Cambodia. His Captain wanted him to stay in and become his Sgt. Major. But he got homesick and wanted out. He did his tour and then some. And he still is straight as an arrow. 40 died in his company the year he was in Nam. They had 75% casualties (WIA and KIA) one day alone near Cambodia. But if he maintains that he would, despite it all, go back and do it again.
This is rampet in Southern Virginia! Especially in "mil towns" like Martinsville and Danville. Those on unemployment have to go to so many job interviews a month. But no one is really hireing or the older citizens are qualified for whats left (which isn't much). So the people run to the same companies every month and apply for a job. It was a good theory what Allen passed but it doesn't work when there are just NO jobs. I don't think so much of this would be going on if there were more jobs. At least not the food stamp selling. Everytime I go to SOVA I hear a new story of this.
Even those who recieve the government money still have to pay taxes on that money. I think that is something people don't know or overlook. But you are totally right. They will take the money to buy the drugs instead of food and rent. I have seen it in my own family. And you are right that no one is going to quit something unless they want to. But it is hard for the children. It hurts them and puts them right in the same situation as their parents and this causes the cycle to continue. We need to find a way to help the children without the parents getting their hands on the money. Especially for the older children who may could handle the money themselves is monitored. I have seen others suceed in this way and not get sucked into the "life is hard I need something to get my mind off it" mentality.
I think it was Clinton who pushed to get people off of welfare and limit the time they could collect. I know that my son was in a car accident and they were able to collect welfare because he couldn't work for quite a while. When he and his wife split up she applied for welfare and was only able to collect a limited amount of time because they had collected before. Obama is pushing more welfare on states to keep people dependent on the government handouts.
Re: DabateThis (Reply button isn't working)
Unfortunately, there are ways to cheat the system. And it's sad that people have no morals and would be willing to make drastic moves to get money.
I agree with no government funds for students until they meet certain grade requirements. A student who sits next me to in my class was bragging about how he is on student aid, thus he has no incentive for appreciating his courses. We have had two tests and he has failed both. He laughs and hands his test around for everyone to see. He has missed so much class he has no understanding of the basic concepts, and we all know in math, as in many subjects, concepts build upon each other, thus with no foundation you can kiss understanding the hard stuff away.
My parents pay for my courses, but I agree to show them my grades and if I receive a C or lower I must pay them back for the course. It may seem strict, but I have so many friends who rarely go to class because they are too busy shopping and partying. It motivates me to do my work and go to class, as hard as it is sometimes.
Maybe, if students had to get good grades to receive aid and then pay back the money if they fail (a D or F) it would give more incentive for getting to class and doing the work.
Its not really the weed thats the big problem as much as prescription drugs and other hard drugs. It is one thing to drug test someone, and another to mandate rehab. If these people are already in a bad situation and need help them they are not going to be able to afford rehab. Where are the kids going to go? Who's going to pay the bills? And who's going to pay for the rehab? You might as well not drug test them at all. I think it is pushing closer to freedom infringments there. Maybe offering outpatient services to those who test positive and want the help might make more sense. If someone wants to do something nothing is going to stop them from doing it but themselves.
At Plymouth Plantation there is a sign that reads "Those who do not work do not eat" We should still be living by this. There are some people who may not be able to do some of the work but there is always something they could do. I worked for a company who employed special needs and mentally challenged adults. There were a lot of jobs they weren't able to do but we found jobs they could do.
I have been saying for years. There needs to be drug testing. I think we should require drug testing for welfare, food stamps/card, some forms of social security or initial fillings of social security (not those who have paid into it all there life and are retired) and unemployment (sort of).
Welfare is obviously the key issue here. There should be zero tolerance with drugs. If someone want the freedom to do drugs illegally, then get off welfare! A lot of people are able to maintain their drug habits and sales because of the assistance given. Food stamps and food cards fall into this. I am not suggesting that the kids shouldn't get the free meals though. I understand that children of these family's sometimes will only get these meals. Inner cities kids will go all weekend without meals and just live off of the lunches. This is why I am going to take this a step further.
—–Taking this a step further: I feel anyone on welfare should NOT be allowed to have children. Let me be clear, this is for those who have been on welfare for a period of time. Not those seeking temporary assistance. That is right, I said it. There is no reason why we should support anymore generation welfare. You may or may not remember with President Clinton was in office. During that time crime was increasing more and more every year. They did not know what they were going to do to stop it. As soon as President Clinton took office for his 2nd term, crime dropped overnight and all the "experts" were standing around shrugging there shoulders. What happened you are asking, abortion. We saw the result of the benefits of the first abortions that had been done years before. Crime dropped dramatically and since has become manageable. Otherwise, crime would be twice as bad, if not worse. You can read about this phenomenon in Freakonomics.
—–Social Security has been paid into by anyone who has ever held a job. There are a lot of arguments that it is not sustainable in its current state, but I think that is mainly due to the mis-management of government employee's. It is estimated that 50% of all government money never finds its way to the people it is intended to help. It is also estimated that upwards to 40% of government funds simply disappear. That is right out of thin air, poof, it is just gone. There is no accountability to the individual branches or paper trails.
—–Unemployment is an insurance pool. I do not know if all states have it, but I am sure they all vary. From my experience you and your employer pay into the insurance pool. If you pay into unemployment, that money is intended to give you assistance until you can find a new job/position. You do not qualify for this money if you are fired. You have to be laid-off. For those of you that don't understand this or have no experience with this, the money runs out when you reach the limit that was put in on your behalf.
We are a capitalist country. Why aren't our government agency's managed by private company's? Why aren't we auditing our own local governments? I think there should be accountability at all levels for everything, starting at the local level. Local CPA's should be looking over the books every year and getting paid a consulting fee and a different one should be used every year, to spread the wealth around LOCALLY. We require all kinds of licensing in the private sector. This is an attempt to hold people to ethical and moral guidelines. Why aren't elected officials held to a higher level? Prison, fines, publicly humiliating volunteer work with your name plastered for all to see. If money comes up missing while you are in office, perhaps you and staff members should be held personally responsible to replace it. This would be a much better deterrent. We should require ALL elected officials to be able to pass a basic 100 question test of their knowledge on our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Drug tests costs about $15-$30 and I support having the system pay for it. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this would save a lot of money. And yes it would be a little chaotic at first as people who have built there lives around this sham and scammed the system all there lives would have to adjust too.
—–What do we do with all the people who fail? We require them to go to school, but they must maintain a GPA of 3.0. If is my opinion too that someone who is on welfare be require to take mandated classes anyway. Those who haven't finished getting there G.E.D.'s should. Perhaps if they got these a lot more people would be interested in furthering their educations.
CONTINUED BELOW:
Everyone I know that gets hired into corporations has to be drug tested for liability/insurance reasons. A lot of company's require credit checks these days too. I have a friend that was turned down for 2 jobs a couple years ago from a collection on his report from years ago that he paid and wasn't removed. Never mind, he had many vehicles loans paid for since then and his $200k mortgage with no late payments. It is time that welfare get on board.
I have come across many people over the years that used government assistance. 10 years ago, I had a girlfriend, whose mother actually had some massive scams going. She was getting social security and welfare, plus she was a social worker, who would only be paid in cash. Also, she was a full time student, she had been going to school for 15 years at a community college, just taking one class after the next, specifically never obtaining an associates degree. Always 1 class shy, meanwhile getting loans and assistance for living expenses. She would pay for everything in cash. She had ten's of thousands of dollars saved up.
A lot of welfare recipients do drugs. This is not some secret. What else do yo do all day when you do nothing everyday?
About myself: I am middle of the road conservative. I am not religious, I am pro-choice (but want to require consent from the father (DNA confirmed), want government to be cut in half (where I love the county is 40% of the employment), support educational scholarships for private schools and college – federally funded by meeting testing requirements, believe in universal health care (where every working family pays $40/m each into the pool, the health insurance company's can offer prescriptions, dental and other extra services), I support drilling here and using natural gas, I support removing all the laws for every industry and re-doing them, I support lower taxes and eliminating income tax (infrastructure tax is already built into all industries. I am tired of the double, triple and quadruple taxing. Don't believe me? Look at your utilities bills. You are taxed everywhere).
LET FREEDOM RING
Brokerdave
P.S. Don't get me started on illegal immigrants.
West Virginia get a drug test? Brilliant idea to present and get approved. Just think about the fastest way to get rid of your abusers of welfare. Make them take a drug test. They will be flocking out of the state in a hurry. Maybe New Orleans Mayor should have said that to get the people to evacuate from Katrina.
As a fellow Washingtonian, I can understand and feel the frustration. We have illegals in the fast food restaurants, working with forged SSN's on the one hand, and on the other hand, they are collecting monies for their QUEST accounts. It's theft. Theft of your taxes and mine. It's repugnant.
I think there needs to be mandatory drug testing for all members of Congress. Drug use is the only explanation for spending us into oblivion and refusing to secure the Southern borders..Perhaps they're afraid we'll stop their coke supply from reaching Washington
I fully agree that there should be mandatory drug testing on all public officials. My husband works in construction and he has to be tested annually and randomly because he might show up to work stoned and hurt somebody or do something bad. While he was working an Interstate construction job he learned that the State Inspectors not only did not have to be tested but most were pot heads. (Admitted directly to him by one of the Inspectors.)
I am sure that there is drug use on the national level, but politicians do not have a uniform drug code to follow like construction workers. OSHA does not affect them. Wouldn't it make sense to make sure that those people controlling our government and our system of laws do so with a clear and concise mind?
On another side note, if my husband were to show up to work drunk, he would be fired. Most likely he would not be allowed to ever return to work at that job-sight again. How many times do you think a congressman has voted on some bill after having a few too many at lunch or in his/her office?
Right, just pick up those nursing home sheets or diapers and off to the Drug Lab they go.
Tell you what. If they approve drug testing for welfare reciepiants and the unemployed…then I'll propose we drug test the President (after all isn't the White House govt. subsidised housing?). Besides BO looked like he was stonded out of his gourd, as he giggled through that 60 Minutes interview. How's that for due cause?
Let's go one further, drug test congress. We need to have a special banned substance list just for them, you know, the recreational drugs like Cialis & Viagra.
Pretty sure we could get their attention! Nobody gets their stiffy pills back until the budget is balanced.
This may be the new definition of attention deficit. It is also a way to cut expenses, immediate and targeted.
Why isn't she living in the White House with Michelle and her grand-nieces?
Gary_Shaw • 38p
Quote: "Drug tests are not free." No they aren't the average cost is $35 to $50. The average food stamp allowance here in Georgia, for a family of four is $438 per month. The average disability income is $1,350 per month. We would save a lot of money. We (the government) could pay for the first test and if they fail they have to pay for all future retests.
____________
I do understand what you are saying, but what if you fail on a faulty test? Then you take another. Then what about those who don't use drugs? You make them pee every month and add the burden of paying for someone who is playing by the rules. There are so many pro's and con's. I do agree with if you do fail, you should have to pay for future tests. If you are truly in need of services, how can you pay? How long do you make them pay? Every month at $35-50 is pricey for someone with no income outside of assistance. I also fear that they will just say, ah, everyone needs to be tested just because. It would be viewed as discrimination. Especially becauase they call drug addiction a "disease".
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You can not help the poor by destroying the rich. You can not keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You can not build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. – Abraham Lincoln
Hmmm. As much as we heard POTUS Lincoln's and POTUS Obama's names linked around November of last year, you would think maybe SOMEONE would actually think of recycling some of this stuff today. This one applies to almost any government entitlement program you could name.
I believe that drug tests should be done. But what i would like to see is the welfare system be completely overhauled to make it where people that live on handouts most have a bonafied reason to be on Welfare!
This system is badly abused by people that don't want to work for a living, just lay around and wait for the checks to come in! Welfare, of course, is a system that the Democrats started primarilly to receive the votes from recipients that cost them nothing. Its paid for by the Government.
I apologize if I am taking too much space with only my own subjective perspective, but after I submitted a reply to another's comment earlier, but I feel I must say something else…
Charity of time, money, effort, and more, are all greatly espoused in the Bible and other religions' texts – as well as personal responsibility, atonement for one's own poor choices, and the value of being a good steward of all that you are blessed with, no matter how much or how little. The charity which Our Lord and other gods of worship in this diverse world speak of, is a PERSONAL charity; it is not a bureaucratic and governmentaly enforced giving.
That kind is not charity at all, but simply a state mandated theft. Theft followed by intentional efforts to 'fence' the stolen monies to a third party – who would then be guilty of possession of stolen property/money. The government likes to smile compassionately while they call this whole process "public aid programs."
These aid programs support the removal of personal responsibility, the nullification of atoning (actively repairing) for the consequences of one's own poor choices, and utter destruction of the practice and understanding of wise stewardship.
In the article, Graham Boyd, who apparently is a big whig within the ACLU, calls it "cruel" to finally impose stipulations to aid programs which would at long last seek to slow or stop the flow of the bounty of OUR harvests from OUR labor from us and into the wallets of the selfish and apathetic, the alcoholics, and anyone who reaches out a hand for monetary help, at the end of an arm cratered with track marks. That is cruel? NO SIR!
Mr. Boyd, for people who live out their days with righteousness at heart, honesty on their lips, personal charity in their deeds, and the happily earned callouses which result from the honorable toil of their own hands , to be robbed by Caesar's laws, for the benefit and support of those without honor or integrity or self-respect – THAT is cruel.
One can even remove religious influence, just step back 150 years or a bit more, and you will see a socioeconomic representation of Darwin's theories applied to the way civilization worked. Even back then, Mr. Boyd, your ideology was diametrically opposed to that of nature, both man's nature and that which abounds across the face of the Earth. Survival or death has been a perfectly balanced equation for eons; but has slowly been pulled under since the 1860's, by wave after wave of forced charity at the hands of a government drowning its' own roots.
Just that recently, and for millennia before, it was CRUEL to one's family, neighbors, and oneself to even contemplate the ideas of rights of entitlement, or a social contract that bears any clause which removes the natural expectations of duty, living by one's own labor, or survival and prosperity defined and limited only by one's own will. Before and well after the complication of money infected the way we procure essential resources, those who chose not to take care of themselves and their family, or to work half-assed while expecting others to pick up the slack – those who chose these and any other irresponsible ways of life simply died…
Until the progressive movement spawned from the guilt of the unjustifiably wealthy, who knew they weren't worth their own gains. That's when the liberal concept of a public duty, which should financially assist anyone who was teetering on the high wire of poverty, started to overlook the sentiments and convictions of our nation's fathers. Progressives implemented all the social programs, or their ancestors, which have expanded beyond protecting just the crippled, the naturally incapacitated, or the unfortunate who were unwillingly pushed from a job and fight desperately to work again. This altruistic bubble kept filling with hot air when it took on the cause of the lazy, the socially apathetic and self absorbed, and anyone who needed brief help but never weened themselves from Mother Liberty's tit.
Ok, my blood pressure is up again and my wife, bless her heart, is badgering me to get up from the computer and stop upsetting myself. So, I will end with a silent prayer that Graham Boyd never reap the anguish of true cruelty – another for Craig Blair's efforts and convictions, that he will deliver a healthy and whole drug test clause from the womb of his mind into the waiting arms of his constituents.
Also, one last prayer that soon others around this great land will follow Mr. Blair's example.
Something needs to be done about public assistance. As cruisecw pointed out, it is not a threat to civil liberties since welfare isn't a right.
Recently, I was sitting in the common grounds with friends at my college. A few boys came up and sat down with us. We started talking and the conversation somehow turned to video games. One boy, who was carrying around his really expensive guitar, was talking about how he has two PS3s which he said he bought when they first came out. The combined cost of these two would easily be over $1000. He also has his own car and apartment furnished with an HD wide screen in order to play the games. He smokes pot, plays games, and takes an occasional class or two. I was like "How do you get all that without your parents help?" He smiled and said "Government." Even when I walk by the financial aid office at school some of the kids applying for financial aid are wearing designers from head to toe. I'm from California, so when I say designer I mean $400 for a t-shirt type designers. Outrageous, no?
1. Drug tests (In the article, a man – read: liberal – claimed drug tests were costly. It is OUR money that is going to pay for these people, thus I do not mind if they must be subjected to drug tests. I would gladly like to know my money is going to drug tests, and the amount of savings from people getting kicked out of programs would cover the drug tests.)
2. Limits for how long one can be on welfare
3. Community service for those on welfare or college (If you aren't working you HAVE to do something with your time)
4. Must be a legal citizen or resident for so many years
5. Welfare recipients receive help finding a job
6. If you recieve a job, the money recieved is lowered and eventually the person is taken off
7. You don't get any extra money if you keep having kids
8. Instead of straight money to pockets, government should pay necessities only. Rents, bills, bare mininum for clothing, etc.
9. Once a person has been off welfare they should be required to pay a portion back.
10. Classes for people on welfare on how to balance a checkbook, have a budget. In fact, make this mandatory for all schools as well.
True. It's called, " lovin the gov."
There is always a way around rules and regulations.
Parents go as far as getting divorced to acquire government funds so their children 'get' a college education.
Why do we value college education so much, does it really make a difference?
Do you really have to know anything if you can just believe in something?
How about this, No government funds for students unless there SAT scores are above 1300 and their GPA is 3.5 or better and/or they major in Mathematics, Science or engineering. Everyone else pays the full boat — no exceptions.
I live in Washington and the illigals and crack heads who fried their brains on drugs are on welfare and food stamps. Do you know anyone who uses $2000.00 per month on food? I've seen mexicans with that on their food stamp cards here. I've also seen them cash in their welfare money and go gambling with it . Our govenor ask us how to save 5 billion and I told her stop the welfare fraud. We used to make bets when we would see these people come into the store where I worked. Bet they have a 50 or 60 thousand dollar car out there and we'd watch and sure enough they did.
Looks like when the tax payers run out of money these free loaders will have to get a job or go back home. Drug testing is a joke and a waste of money because if they want to they can beat the tests and know how to do it.
True, Carol, all welfare people I know have boom boxes, IPODs, and cell phones. Since Obama is changing the names of everything we know (war on terror, etc.), these people must be the "new" disadvantaged.
We prpbably wouldn't have any debt if we stopped giving welfare to people who didn't deserve it. As for the drug testing it should be random. They have to go to the office to fill out paperwork they could require a drug test right there. I know companies who do random drug testing. When you get to work they come over and tell you it is your turn. There is no time to prepare or try to take something to cover up the drugs. One company I worked for sent you to a lab and you weren't allowed to take anything in with you because they found people were hiding someone else's urine in a container. That came out when a man's urine showed he was pregnant. How do you explain that one.
I read many of the comments. I did not see any that asked, Who would administer the test? My guess free loading bumbs that could not get a real job in health care, collecting a government check from your tax dollars. Also how about those that write these laws be tested, all government officals, include tobacco and Alcohol?
"Free loading bumbs that couldn't get a real job in health care"….who are they? What do you mean by that? Lab companies and health care companies get government checks for doing work for the government everyday. Remember the polygamists fiasco? Would you be suprised to know that all of the paternity testing was done by a corporation out of North Carolina? They were paid tax dollars for that. Did you know the same company and others like it are the ones who administer drug test for state and county workers? Are you saying test them for tobacco and alcohol? These are not illiegal substances. Everyone has the right to use tobacco porducts in this country and until they finally take it away no one sould be penalized for doing so. But I agree that ALL government officials should be tested for drugs before they can take office and radomly throughout their tenure in office.
All I was attempting to point out was that people were saing that I dont want my tax dollars going to drug users. The principle is the tax dollars go to someone eles vie the government. instead if freedom and free market. As to the tobacco and Alcohol was purely rhetorical. With reguards to your reaction it seems as if I touched a sensitive place and I apoligize for that.
They should already be doing drug test on all gov. officals. They test all the military but not themselves(gov employees) We should require this off all officals including the president. It should be done in a random fashion, like I did when I ran a trucking company. I was mailed a list of truckers to drug and alochol test. It was handeled by an outside company. If the gov. would do this and submit to randon(not knowing when it would be)I could support it. "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!" It needs to be fair for all. One other thing..what about those who use medical marijuana? My state does not do this but several states do. How do you handle that. I know you can go to a doc and get a script for it whether you need it or not. There are always those who will find a way around it, including our elected officals.
Awesome! No more public funds going to buy drugs, now if they will only enforce it like the need to. I speak from experiece, I personally know someone who has been on welfare for about 11 months or so, and does all kinds of bad bad stuff. He has no desire to get a job, or do anything other than get high.
GO TO MSNBC [Today ] AT http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/ [Obama] VOTE TO TELL, [ MSNBC ] WHAT GRADE OBAMA ,HAS EARNED SO FAR. Thanks RJK [11:40 he is still at 50/50]
God Bless you sir. I am married to an Army Combat Veteran. I just attended the Wake of his Platoon leader (61 years of age) who was a good leader and a fine man whose two sons are both in the 82nd ABN. He had a Silver Star, Three Bronze Stars with V's a Bronze for Merit and a Purple Heart. He came home with terrible PTSD and apparently may have contracted Agent Orange related health issues, as well. But he never collected one dime from the VA and did not ever get one bit of care from them. Furthermore, he will not collect one dime of social security money. NOT ONE DIME. Which branch of service were you in and where did you serve? I love hearing about veterans!
I can understand the 'PTSD' as they say it, at least I can understand what he felt. We didn't refer to it much back then, and certainly didn't have that name for it, but my mother always said to me for years afterward, that I had "brought home the weight of the world." It really isn't something most of us like to think about, but we feel it nonetheless. It's an ache in your heart, like the shrapnel in your knee, and they're both medals and burdens the same.
I hate every scar, but love knowing that each one is on me and not on some other fella that might not have been as lucky.
I served my Corps as infantry with 3rd Battalion, 2nd Regiment of the 2nd Marine Division. I was at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan and Tinian, and Okinawa in WWII. We had a couple rests in New Zealand and Hawaii, but it was a very long few years. I think someone told me later it was 208 days of combat altogether.
I spent a good bit of time in Korea too, but in a different capacity.
The boys I see today, they don't seem to have the same look. Stories I hear of this kid enlisting, or that kid, and so many of them for money or college. I was told by a poker buddy that his grandson had gone in because he was bored at home after high school! I don't know how they do over there in the Middle East, but regardless of how they went in, and what their reason was, the ones who were really 'in it' come home with the same looks as us boys in '45.
PrplHrt_Patriot, sir I would like to tell you a story if I may. I have seen the likes of those that join for the "glory", to "blow stuff up",for college money, etc. Here is a piece of my life. I was a stand out middle linebacker in high school football. My father had pushed me hard for many years to be the best. My senior year came around and the college visits and the letters from universities all over the midwest came pouring in. The pressure became more than I could bare. I wanted with all my heart to play college football, but I wasn't sure it was the right path. My father having mercy on me decided to give me my graduation gift early and took me on a tour of our nation, just me and him. One of our stops was Arlington. My mind couldn't process what lay before me. As my father and I walked and talked amidst that hallowed place it became clear to me what I had to do. So many had given all that I may live in peace and enjoy my freedom. So many. When I returned home I locked myself in my bedroom and began to pray. Pray that God would guide me in my decision. 3 days later I walked into a MArine Corps recruiting office and asked for the quickest ship date I could get. I signed on the dotted line 0311. My ASVAB scores were outstanding and they tried their best to get to take a different MOS. Finally a rather confused SSGT asked me "Son why in the hell do you want to dodge bullets when you could fly a helicopter? " I replied " Well because I owe a debt I will never be able to repay, and this is the least that I can do in return." 6 Weeks later I was standing on those little yellow foot prints in San Diego.
All this to say don't lose faith sir….by the way I am 26 years old. Semper Fi
I am usually just an observer here, but I want to speak up now. I'm 85 years old. I am a veteran of two wars, with far more medals than I deserve, and far more lead inside than a Chinese toy truck. I was there through FDR's "New Deal," and my bones are aching now, telling me another storm of Deals is rolling in. The things we find counter-intuitive in the modern govt. assistance programs are going to be looked back on as the gold ole days in a decade. I fear that movements such as the one Craig Blair is fighting for, will not become law in this country.
On the contrary, and even more scary, is the likelihood that the current state of unemployment benefits and assistance programs will only grow more dirty and counterproductive than it is now. I am not usually a doom and gloom man, but I am sickened by the things I have watched and experienced over the recent twenty to thirty years. I am speaking of all these programs and those that "support" all us former protectors of the rights to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of prosperity through the toil of one's own hand.
The assistance for the "impoverished" is as alcohol poured over a gaping wound. It inflicts horrible pain and sorrow on a wound which it claims to soothe and heal. Beyond that, the negligence of care and lack of supervision that follows, only serves to promote infection and permanent damage to the patient. Mr. Blair's proposal, in my eyes, is the very least that should be done.
Dog gone it, I want to see mandatory and frequent drug tests of every recipient of financial aid. Also, there should be financial advisory requirements and monitoring of how every dollar is spent – no amount of public aid should find a way into the pocket of any person or business that provides an unnecessary product or service, or is spent in any way but that which benefits the forward progress of the recipient back to work. I'd even step further and require the recipient to sell all superfluous and wasteful belongings like those shiny hubcaps, all that gaudy jewelery, and anything that booms their music from their car down the block all the way to my home. It should be a larger list than this, but I'm already saying too much, and likely being seen as a grumpy and heartless curmudgeon.
I won't even go into my lovely administrators and legislators who preside over the VA, and I am now silencing myself on the damn aid issue before I suggest things that may label me "selfishly conservative." I may find another topic to add my humble opinions to, and if so, I will try to be filled with less hot air.
One last thing: Mrs. Nurse, you were the old lady on the temple steps with only her two talents. God bless you, and may that woman you aided in line find the strength to lift her family up, and pass on the generous heart you gave her.
BRAVO!!!! PrplHrt_Patriot…………I couldn't have said it better myself! And thank YOU for your service to our country. God bless you……….and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Thank you ma'am. I appreciate it.
PrplHrt_Patriot, I already gave you a nod for your remarks in another topic area, however give credit where credit is due. You my friend are on a roll. I am enjoying reading your thoughts. I only wish there were more like you to pass on the torch to younger bucks like myself. You sir truly possess the virtues of an American as we were meant to be. I am honored to contribute to these forums with you. Semper Fi
Hello again, my friend.
It may be a surprise to many many people younger than myself, that there ARE more like me. They're in almost every town, every county, state, and region. I'm 85, and I am by no means the last of my generation. There are about a dozen or so buddies who fought beside me in one place or another, and now fight against me for my chips at the poker table.
Look around for us, we're never going to turn away from a genuinely intended conversation. In fact, we are the ones who ought to honor you and your peers serving now. We served a nation that loved us, supported us, and understood much of what we were doing for them. You soldiers now, you're more brave, for you engage the enemy on the battlefield, knowing the whole time that your country is fractured, and all things military are tainted by the disdain of the doves.
My buddies and I fought with a country behind us – and you all fight with yours turning their backs.
That is something far more honorable.
@PrplHrt_Patriot, Thank you for your service and for your continued patriotism. No need to rein yourself in or fear being seen as heartless, grumpy or curmudgeon-like. Opportunity and personal responsibility are gifts that the compassionate give. Our family loves to give. It's big fun! Having our money taxed away from us is not fun; It's wrong. It's not even forced charity; it's theft, and more specifically, armed robbery. I must be more curmudgeony than you, because I believe government has no place at all giving any tax money welfare, and that family and the church and neighbors should be the source of a leg up. Talk about accountability! Those people are there to see how the money is spent. God bless you, and thank you again.
I actually agree with everything you said, and do feel welfare has zero place in our nation – but if it has to be here, it better be a clean operation instead of this muddy, smelly mess.
I am with you that individuals should be the purveyors of charity. Churches and neighborhoods are the ideal avenue by which the unfortunate may find the map back to prosperity. I'm not sure where you live, but around me are very few true churches, and fewer still individuals who give a damn. I would rise up and fight again, even at my age, if it somehow would smack the masses out of their stupor long enough to see they aren't the only ones with problems, and likely far less life altering challenges.
If there are folks around you who get it, and are taking it to the enemy of misfortune, then I envy your forces. May God bless you as well. Thank you for your kind words.
This Marine salutes you sir. Not only for your service, but words. The Vets are the last on their mind except during election. The same with SS. I caught this gem in the local TASS, those on SS most likely will not get a COLA increase for the next 2-3 yrs. BUT, congress gave themselves a$4,000 some COLA in Dec., for 2009. As a vet who has given much for this country and a retired citizen, how many times can they insult us(I'm not ready for SS yet, but getting close), but as usual, we'll stand up and keep defending America.
Do we really want to give the government the power to start drug testing? I like the idea but it will be taken to far. Everytime we give them an inch they take a 100 miles.
I agree with everything you said. How 'bout this. Have included in that same law that WV legislators must submit to the same drug sceen. Would that make you feel any better? It would me.
They already have it, all transportation, military and public service (Truck drivers, airline pilots, train engineers, police, firefighters, ambulance ect.) along with part of the hiring process now almost every employer requires drug testing. Since that ship has sailed, why should the taxpayer who funds welfare and social programs, not expect that the people they are forced to support through confiscatory taxation of their hard earned dollars; do not fund someone’s drug habit? Are not the possession, distribution, use and sale of drugs illegal? What is the old saying, "what twisted webs we weave, when we seek to deceive." the government’s penchant for trying to control every facet of our lives has created an awesome Gordian knot.
This kind of legislation would definitely be a double-edged sword. It may make taxpayer feel a little better about their gov't's spending caution, but will likely increase crime and domestic violence. There will be those who find a way around the requirement. It will likely cost more than it will save in implementation costs, although it may create a few jobs. It will open the door to test for tobacco, alcohol and caffeine. Then it is only one short step from testing for cholesterol or sugar. It sounds good in theory, but it amounts to more government control of individuals and does not address government control of the substance.
Welfare and unemployment are for people who are down and out – but are expected to get back up one day. And you go on unemployment to help assist you while trying to find another job. How can you expect to find a job if you are on drugs? I see this abuse specifically in my life. I have a cousin with 3 little girls – she receives welfare, social securtiy and now her husband is drawing unemployment. But each month, when the checks come, they have spent the money in less than a week on drugs – while those little girls have no food. There is no check on this like their should be – that money should be to help get her on feet and feed her children, but instead she buys alcohol and painkillers while the children go hungry. Absolutely disgusting.
Yes fjj, my comment you have replied to is for unemployed Agree no “free Government handouts” for those who abuse the system and are generational welfare recipients. In these cases the drug testing is a great idea.
I always say the same thing … I'm all for the "hand up, not a hand out"!
I agree as well. To me it all boils down to the fact that for most people who work you have to pass random drug tests to continue to work there and receive a paycheck. If a person is unable to work and is looking for assistance in the form of food stamps/WIC/unemployment (whether the compay he was let go from pays into his/her unemployment or not – thats extra money the company could put towards raises or a job for another person) they should also be held to the same standards. That only makes sense to me. IMHO the ACLU needs to tone it down a notch, they have gone way overboard on some issues.
Federal unemployment (FUTA) tax, unemployment is paid by the employer as a payroll tax (up to a certain limit per employee) according to a formula which varies from state to state, but somewhere around 2% to 3 % of the employee's salary. When the employee is laid off, the employer no longer needs to pay the unemployment for that employee, but its unemployment tax rate will increase for the next year on the rest of its employees.
I see abuses by the entitlement system daily. People on disability that are perfectly capable of working. People drawing food stamps by falsifying information, People drawing unemployment as if it were vacation pay. There are no checks and balances in these entitlement programs and that is the problem. But, peeing in a cup might be a bit on the overboard side. I like the idea but constitutionally speaking it smells . Want to install some good checks and balances I am all for it. But violating civil liberty's to do it really is not a very good idea.
Nobody's forcing them to take government money. They're coming to the government, and they're requesting help. You're screened when you get hired for many jobs, and this should be no different. There is no Constitutional right to unemployment and welfare, and we need to make sure there isn't obvious abuse of the system.
Amen. I couldn't agree more. So many jobs require drug tests now that the State Lawmaker is correct; if they're drugged up, they're not going to get a (decent) job anyway. I do think though that there should be something different after 60 days; if you fail after 30 days you enter a state-mandated rehab facility for 30 days or lose your benefits at the end of that term. There's no point to the program if we're not serious about actually helping these people.
I know the Libertarians are probably screaming at me, but right now drugs are illegal, so the program is sound. If we end up decriminalizing marijuana later, then smoking weed would no longer cause a failed drug test. Quite simple.
One of the big reasons these people are unemployed is that they DO NOT WANT TO WORK! It is easier to make babies and excuses and collect all the freebies that our government hands out. Money they take from the working people and hand to the parasites. Sorry, but that is what they are. And if the government forces someone to be hired under affirmitive action, the employer has to pay someone for "showing up" for work and the other employees have to carry the weight of the non-productive "employee". These people are the dregs of society and our government keeps importing more of them. They put somalis into productive communities and they drain the taxpayers with entitlements. They allow the border-jumpers to take jobs from Americans by working cheaper. We need to understand that the politicians are for themselves and WE THE CITIZENS no longer matter. We will have to take this country back from them and this website I hope will allow us to organize and do it in a peaceful manner.
I am not sure how I feel about this one. On the surface, I love the idea of requiring entitlement/ unemployment recipients to be drug free, I do not like the idea of my tax dollars being used as a handout to people who cannot be bothered to try and help themselves.
On the other hand, I see something like this being a pathway for even more abuse. Who would do the testing? I can see some tech in some lab calling the recipient and offering a "clean" test result for $500. How would a potential recipient dispute a "false positive" result? This is the government after all and if you have ever tried to get something fixed in a governmental system you know that it is next to impossible. What safeguards will there be to prevent the use of the results for political gain?
I've read the comments on this one and I think we've got some great arguments here, but there's one thing…
Who pays the cost of the testing? Would it outweigh the money saved by not paying people on drugs?
I agree that if someone is getting government assistance, they should be drug free. You don't need drugs to survive. The money should be used for food, shelter, and other necessities.
Personally, i don't care if someone spends their own money to buy drugs, as long as they don't put others in danger- you know, driving drunk or high, things like that. However, when you get tax money to make ends meet because you can't make it on your own, you shouldn't spend the taxpayer money on non-essential items. End of story. If you're a drug addict, you shouldn't be getting taxpayer money, because maybe, just maybe, your addiction to drugs has something to do with the fact that you can't get or keep a job. Nobody made you smoke the rock, shoot the junk, or whatever it is you do.
Most employers require a drug test before hiring an new employee and random tests after hiring. It would seem fair if one must be tested to work then one certainly needs testing not to work.
I find some of the arguments against drug testing in the article interesting. The argument that those that receive unemployment paid into it……really? And the point there is? All the rest of us that aren't on unemployment paid into it too. If your not doing drugs then you've got nothing to worry about correct?
Welfare, of any kind, should be a hand up not a hand out. And yes, I am aware there are elderly, disabled and people with special needs. I am not talking about them. I have no problem with a little old man or woman who cannot work now and cannot live of what little retirement they have left. I have no problem helping someone who was hurt and can no longer work. No problem helping those that are physically or mentally handicapped. I don't have a problem helping people or families that fall on hard times and are trying but are having no luck.
I do, however, have a huge problem with people that lay in bed til noon, watch tv all day or hang out with their friends doing nothing and then cashing their government check and buying their groceries on our dime with no intention of getting off their butts and getting a job or an education. They lay around whining how bad life has been to them and how they should get more than they have and how unfair it all is. Yes, indeed I have a huge problem with people that CAN work but chose not to simply because they've learned how to play the system.
And if they fail the drug test, then NO I do not feel it is the taxpayers job to help them get clean. You got yourself into the mess. Get yourself out. It is a proven fact that people with addictions have to come to a place in their lives where they decide for themselves they have to change for rehabilitation to work. Ask any alcoholic. You can't force them to quit anything and expect it to stick unless they decide it's something they have to do for themselves.
And there will be those that say "Well what about the people who have families…should their families suffer too?" . Well if the mother or father of said family puts buying drugs before putting food on the table then I'd say the family is already suffering because of them wouldn't you?
As for paying into it, that doesn't guarantee you'll see it anyway.
I lost a job about 5 years ago in NY state. I applied for unemployment and started getting it. When I had trouble finding another full time job, I tried looking for freelance work as well. NY didn't like that.
Even though I was not yet making any money freelancing, NY decided that I was self-employed and could not collect unemployment. I was told any time I checked the mail and found a response to something I sent out or any time I called someone looking for freelance work, that was considered a day of work and I was not eligible for unemployment that day. When all was said and done, I wound up having to pay back everything I received.
I think the unemployment system (at least in NY) is geared toward keeping people on the government dole and punishing those who want to try and get off of it.
And after all that unrelated venting… I completely support drug testing for anyone on the government dole and think it should be expanded to include politicians.
Not only should they be tested, but any money they receive should not go for anything (i.e. alcohol and tobacco, big screen tv) other than the bare necessities. Then maybe they could even afford to send lunch to school.
It's about time a lawmaker had the balls to introduce this. Of course the chance of there being enough of them to pass it are slim to none. I'm also sure that the ACLU will want to get involved too, but one hurdle at a time. At least someone is bringing it forth.
Ex. Gov.George Allen did this in Va. ….anyone on welfare had a time limit, if you need a job he'd find you one, if you refuse to show effort in getting a job or you don't like the ones they offer, you're dropped. Also the number of kids you had when you signed up is the amount you are credited, in other words if you get pregnant while on welfare, you won't be covered for it, because why are you having more kids when you can't afford the ones you have. The only problem I seen is, the beginning of every month people on food stamps (who looked like they were abusing the system, on drugs etc. ) would sell them to people who couldn't get on food stamps, that's how they got cash. I'd see them in the parking lots the beginning of the month selling them. They would get 50.00 cash for 100.00 worth of stamps. I know this because my sister worked at the CPS Dept. Empty cabinets in most of these homes. And the problem is the crooked people running the programs, they know what's going on, but fail to do anything. That's why my sister left there!
It is refreshing to see a little common sense from the local Government – send a copy to D.C.
The bill is officially dead. It will not get to the legislature for a vote. I don’t think anyone really believed any bill of this nature would be enacted that would have jeopardized even a single vote for the demoncrats. Welfare is simply too large of a voter base for them and another method of buying votes. Politics in this state is not hampered by those pesky principles and values.
This is a complicated topic to say the least. My gut reaction is that this is a great idea and it very well may be. However , it will increase the size and scope of government and that is the main hang up in my view. If it helps to prevent the formation of a government dependent under class then it would be a good thing. People getting checks in the mail tend to get lazy and not try very hard to stop the flow of free money. That free money is probably addictive just like drugs. The main question is will it help the people in the unemployment program? I think it would. Not to mention the taxpayers that have to fund the program . We can kill two birds with one stone on this one. No pun intended.
It is GREAT Law. It's about time people get tested before they get the money. You can't get a job without being tested. If I went to work high I would get fired. Welfare people get more money. If you walk up and hold out your hand for money you should expect it to be pricked for a blood test.
I believe in Singapore you are arrested if you are tested and you are positive. THerefore, they have almost 0 drug use. I like that, too! But try that here, and the lefties will yell at you–maybe because they are all using it–that would make sense, since their brain and logic are no longer in sink. NOW would be the perfect time to have some sort of law pass–it will solve the cartels problems in Mexico.
I dont want government in my home.. or in my toilet… I have disabled grandkids, and the government is up my a## all the time, give them a reason and a way to control you and that what they (government) will do. I dont want to give them anymore control over me or mine… IMHO
I remember clinton looked like that too. Tooth picks couldn't keep his eyes opened, than come to find out, he was on drugs.
You have to take a drug test to get almost any good job anymore so why not require a drug test if we are going to pay you to not have a job. If you ever have any hope of seeking gainful employment your gonna have to pass one.
My concern is the cost of doing the drug testing, however, I do agree that if you are collecting unemployment benefits, then you should be subject to random testing. We are not talking about testing everyone. We are talking about random testing. If you ever want to get a respectable job, you will be subject to the same. Many companies drug test, because drug abuse is a liability. Some companies even do alcohol testing as well, because it is a liability. But to be honest with you, we have bigger fish to fry than to deal with this issue right now. I think this thing is going to be dead in the water. On the other hand, if they do pass something like this, maybe we should start with Congress peeing in the cup! They must be on drugs with the way they are acting and spending right now!
What a ingenious idea for those receiving “free Government handouts” who abuse the system and are generational welfare recipients…My fear about this is of course for the children’s welfare whom are living in these homes Especially if the parent or parent’s could not get their habits in control. We then perhaps create an even bigger problem…
Disagree with it and do not feel it is necessary for the unemployed, whom have lost their respective jobs due to our economic times. This would also create astronomical costs to State’s that are already way over budget and trying to find any new way to tax it’s citizens
The Senate is ready to vote on the budget. In there is a provision that allows them to do health assesments to see if the person's life is worth the cost before they can get health care. This is socialized medicine and it is 51 votes from becoming law in this country. Senator Conrad is the budget committee leader. Please people start calling.
Ha! That is a good one! Typical! Since most of the public assistance is in the form of welfare (Medicaid) to little old ladies in nursing homes–you all DO know that this is where most welfare money does go, don't you?– that will be kinda funny. I can just see a W VA swat team closing in on the Whispering Pines nursing home to get their urine or hair samples. Probably won't be too hard to collect.
Now, if they made that rule for child support and ADC, I'd be all for it!
If someone is getting MY money from the government I would expect that they are drug free. No negotiation on that. Drugs are addictive and compell people to stay on them. I do not do drugs and barely drink and I am damn well not going to subsidize someone's drug use or alcohol abuse. If they want my money they play be my rules.
Sounds like the same standard Obama is applying to GM and the rest, hey?
Come to think of it, I expect the same standards to be applied to everyone in Washington for whom I am also paying. Madison, WI, too.
This is finally some good news and common sense.If getting a job makes you do a drug test then by all means if your receiving gov't benfits then yeah why not get drug tested as well.
I think you would find some "dirty" tests. But unfortunately I think its not a good thing to allow the government more liberty. I'm thinking that if you make folks do the community work, it would weed out alot of abuse… because you see many dont want to work… not even for free money. FREE ya right.
This is one of those instances, where I want to say "Hell yeah!", but when I stop and think about it for a second, I realize that supporting something like this is just like supporting the Pres firing the CEO of GM, or the AG of CT using death threats on their families to shake down AIG Execs for their bonus money.
It all grossly oversteps the bounds placed on the federal government by the Constitution.
It would be a far far better thing to simply remove the welfare program outright.
Then, instead of using the abuse of such a program as the basis for gross invasion of privacy, we could instead avoid the question and the moral quagmire it entails entirety.
Just as the bailouts served as kindling for the bonfire that was the AIG bonuses, so too will this "justified invasion" turn into a conflagration of people's rights.
If I was president, my Aunt would not be living in public housing,,, What the hell is wrong with him???
He has a half brother and sister who live in Kenya on less then a dollar a day. I'm not surprised he didn't help his aunt. You can't tell me he didn't know. That is what is scary about Obama. If he treats his own blood like this, how will he treat us?
Since it won't let me respond to my prior post in the appropriate spot, I'll do it here. Someone said that this would save us money, how? Drug tests are not free. If the person is applying for assistance, they don't have the money to pay for a drug test, meaning we pick up the cost. If they send it off to a lab, it will back up the labs so much, they will have to open more just for this purpose. Meaning more money. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, just will be as expensive if not more to do so. Another reason people don't get off housing and such, is it is hard to even get on. When I lived in Texas, it could take up to two years to get on housing. This is a huge reason why once on, people don't get off.
Quote: "Drug tests are not free." No they aren't the average cost is $35 to $50. The average food stamp allowance here in Georgia, for a family of four is $438 per month. The average disability income is $1,350 per month. We would save a lot of money. We (the government) could pay for the first test and if they fail they have to pay for all future retests.
Is it too damn much to ask that if I have to pay to help someone that they at least have the decency to stay off of drugs?
Someone is worried about Civil Liberties? What about plain outright robbery? That is what someone on drugs and taking my assistance is doing. They are robbing me!!!
May I Add to that a little?
If you are getting educated on the Welfare system you should maintain a 3.0 GPA, While maintaining minimum 3/4 work load and have to donate time at a Welfare office Say 8 hrs a week. If you have school aged kids you should have a Pool of Other people in your Area who have same aged kids that you share daycare duty with.
NO FREE HOT LUNCH PROGRAMS…… My kids bring a packed lunch of a sandwich, Chips, Fruit, and a drink daily. Why not the welfare kids? Isn't the check supposed to cover food?
I'm with you! The only thing I would have a problem with is the school lunch, and the only reason being irresponsible parents. The free lunch at school is the only decent meal some of these kids get in a day. You're absoulutely right that the check covers food too, but a lot of those parents don't send a lunch with their kids… maybe you're right though, and we should just find these parents and come down on them! Alright, you may have changed my mind…
I work in a school and a grocery store..(both sides of this). I see kids on a daily basis throwing out most of their lunch, be it bagged from home or hot lunch. Now I'm not saying all the hot lunch is free..or reduced..but even so, the kids don't eat it! Actually, I Iive in the 'burbs, and would bet MOST of the meals are not free or reduced. I'm not sure what my point is, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
con't
Yep! But do you REALLY think kids get the food stamp food and the ADC check or the child support payment? Not really. Give 'em a peanut butter or cheese sandwich. And a bowl of cereal in the morning. That is good enough.
Don't you know you can't give peanut butter sandwiches in schools now thanks to the peanut allergy lobbyists? Pretty soon cheese sandwiches won't be OK either because of the lactose intolerant. Gee, maybe if the kids brought their own lunch it would be stuff they could eat!
I Really hate to be an a$$ about it but I know for a fact Just in my county (Riverside) Alone the Free Hotlunch program runs about 80M a year . (And they just stopped giving the free hot breakfast program before school, NOW they eat their breakfast IN CLASS because it wasn't fair that they came to school early to eat.)That does not count any of the cities Just the unincorperated parts of the county that use the county school system. And I Know they use more or same for the HOLD ON TO YOUR KNICKERS " FREE DAYCARE for siblings of children in the school district. Not affiliated with the unemployment /welfare /disability. This is above and beyond.
This is a matter of personal responsibilty, Your not responsible to make sure your kids have a lunch and breakfast before they get sent off to school , Maybee you shouldn't have kids?
I Know I sound harsh. But it is horrible the amount the taxpayer is on the hook for, and how riddled with fraud the system is. The bueracrates just look the other way because their dept just keeps getting sent more money and they can then justify givivg themseves raises.
"Well gee we have to handle a budget of $100M i should atleast make $150K ,Right?"
I actually like this idea. I do believe that strict limits on who and services need to be tested for though. It really boils down to this. If your drawing YOUR OWN money (i.e social security retirement) than there is no test. If your getting anyone else's money (i.e. welfare, foodstamps, unemployment…etc.) than you gotta pass a drug test.
While I am an ordinary tax paying citizen who plays by the rules I see countless people around me who abuse the system for all they can get. Entire families are well educated in how to live off the government through disability, food stamps, free medical care and on and on. Where there's a will there's a way and millions use our tax dollars for a free ride.
However I would lean toward voting no on drug testing those who receive welfare and unemployment benefits. While the government's intent would be to weed out the freeloaders, the freeloaders would be working hard to stay ahead of the game and continue to get the benefits by any means necessary. It would only create more red tape and cost for the programs that already exist. These people feel they are entitled to free money and will do anything to continue to collect a paycheck for doing nothing except milking John Q Public for whatever they can get.
You are correct…employers pay into unemployment insurance.
We were on food stamps last year. Every couple of months we'd have to go that dehumanizing place and talk to the social workers about what was going on. They had a courtesy phone there right in front of the desks. Besides the people the breadline gabbing on cell phones one thing I noticed a few times was that PEOPLE WOULD USE THE FREE PHONE TO MAKE DRUG DEALS!
Test them.
I wish to amend my previous post. Remove the "RETROACTIVE' comment(s) and that changes the whole complexion of the issue. By doing so, you now are putting new, improved, standards in place (done throughout the history of these and other programs) instead of making folks "pay" back something they had previously "qualified" for.
Please note that I made no comment in my previous post concerning unemployment benefits. That is because I am still on the fence about that issue. However, I am leaning towards requiring drug testing for those benefits as well, based on the numerous points already made on this subject by other participants. If I can be forced by the Feds and/or my employer to pass a drug test in order to get or keep a position then there is no infringement on the civil rights of an unemployment recipient being required to do the same thing. If it could be found to be "unconstitutional" then I offer that it is also "unconstitutional" to make me take such a test to get, or keep, a position.
The state's constitution can, and should, be amended to adopt such a bill into law and it could, and should, be written in such a way that it would prevent the government (both sate and federal) from taking further "liberties" based on this law.
The feds, however, could try to strong-arm the state by threatening to pull funding and support for other programs and I haven't quite got that part figured out yet. If our current administration had an ounce of integrity, it wouldn't be a problem. AHH…Wishful thinking! Politicians with integrity! (Maybe I'm the one that needs a drug test!)
I also, very much, like the 60 day window of grace. 60 days isn't always a long enough time for an addict to get completely straight, especially, if they are a welfare recipient and cannot afford an admission into a rehab facility. So I think there should be some wording about "providing proof that steps are 'actively' being taken to cure the addiction."
Will some body PLEASE hide my soap box so I can go to bed?!!
You sir, are WIN!.
This policy would inadvertantly address another serious problem: drug use. People tend to take action on issues when it directly hits their wallets
This issue has been tossed around the unit I work at (Labor and Delivery) where we see alot of medicaid abuse/fraud. We say the same thing – we had to take a urine test to get this job, they should take one for the benefits that they receive. I love your idea about able bodied persons doing community work, it sure beats them sitting at home!
Interesting story – I was taking a patient down to her car that her "husband" (different last name, but they are "married") was pulling around. She was a medicaid patient, but her husband pulled around in a Lincoln Navigator – I kid you not! We see this ALL the time!
Yes, medicare and medicaid are abused–billions of dollars abused. Do a search on google on
Wheel chair fraud
EG. There are people that are filling for prescriptions and wheel chairs using the Prescriber ID of DEAD DOCTORS! oR: A wheel chair (for the same patient) was awarded by Medicaid 60 times! That is because a crook filed 60 times for it, and got away with it!
Strictly for unemployment benefits, it makes perfect sense. How can you get a job that requires a piss test if you've been stoned. If you can't get employed because of something you did, than you are not able to work. If you check the box that says you where able to work, than you are lying. You want money, you stay clean.
Yes sir…No unemployment money should be paid out to people who can't pass a drug test….I have to test to drive a truck…they should test to drive their couch.
COMel…sorry i should have stated welfare as well…no freeLOADED rides on the tax payers bus.
This I agree with 100 percent. All states should be looking into this. Another thing think of all the money that would be saved.
I deleted a post I placed earlier because I didn't word it right and I'm going to try harder this time. I find no problem with people who want public assistance (welfare,foodstamps) to be tested. My problem is with them changing the rules to employee paid unemployment insurace RETROACTIVELY. I think its fine to say from this day forward all monies collected from you have these conditions. This seems to be happening alot lately, the genie was let out of the bottle i.e the 90% tax on the AIG bonuses, the ability to fire CEO's, conditions placed after the deal was struck. To me a deal is a deal. And also these laws do nothing to stop an alcoholic or compulsive gambler or a sex addict that may spend the money on strippers or hookers, or the obese from squandering the money on ice cream. Lastly the private sector for the most part does at minimum a drug screening prior to employment, this is just more government spending. They need to start testing D.C. starting with the commander in thief. Hope I got my point right this time
After watching him grinning like a loon on that interview, he needs to be the first in line.
Yep, I'd be watching who cleans the suits and the hair brushes if I'd be BHO. One strand of hair is all it would take to warrant an investigation. And yes, I don't think too many folks saw the abrupt mood change from one day to the next, the wacko behavior (smiling like a jacko'lantern) and then the next day, the bags under the eyes, the dull look in the pupils, the pallor and the stammering during the press conference. Looked like what ever he took the day before had worn out.
I really wish they would start checking to make sure these people are actually living in the state. I live in a border town in Minnesota. We have had a HUGE influx of people from Chicago and Detroit. The ones wanted there, move here, sell drugs and destroy the communities. Then there family comes up here and applies for welfare. Minnesota has one of the highest, if not still the highest welfare. They leave the address of the person staying because of criminal activity there. Then go back to Chicago or Detroit and get welfare there as well. When they come, they bring the cheaper drugs and make a fortune. For example a $10 crack rock in Chicago, you can sell for $50 in my city. See why there is a huge problem? Minnesota did an audit and it revealed over $180M was withdrawn at ATM's in both those cities since 2000. That is insane!
We do too, here in Indiana. Lake County Indiana is one of the most corrupt places on earth. I grew up there. You couldn't pay me to live there now. Folks on disability and ADC go from state to state applying for these programs and getting assistance. The biggest scam of all is connected to job training. To assist a welfare recipient (usually a single mother) get off the dole, we hand her money to sit in classes and take job training with the end goal a job. Meanwhile their kids are cared for by a state supported daycare center. They will sign up for the classes, sleep through them, and then quit before they actually finish them. They are allowed to take a program and then drop it at least once. After that, they must complete, but even then, if they get a job, their is no law that they have to keep it. They get hired, work a week or two and never even get on paycheck before they are fired or are a no show, no call. That allows them to start all over again. Sitting through classes that they have no intention on using. Pathetic. So bubba's big plan to move people from Welfare to Work is a sham. Like I said, take the kids away. That is what is done in other countries. Soon there is no incentive to have a gaggle of kids.
But the Democratic Party relies on those people on welfare for their votes. Take a look at who's in the White House today. The Dems don't care about poor people, it's the votes they are after and they got them this time around. But the way unemployment is growing and since white people work in most of the jobs, the new wave of welfare recipients will be regular American citizens with a burr in their butt about this administration.
James:
Sounds like it would be a good idea to get involved at local level and try to stop the problem from speading. Hopefully you have good police there. As for people from a different state getting welfare in your state: why would this surprise anyone? Should O.'s aunt be on public assistence, if she was served with deportation papers? Why is she getting help? But even after the media covered the story, she is still in public housing! WHY DO WE HAVE TO PAY FOR HER??? Why is O. not paying for her to stay somewhere? OBVIOUSLY, HE IS CHEAP! See what I mean? It does not make any sense! the Gvt. is charitable with our money, but when it comes to theirs, some of them don't even pay taxes! And we have one in charge of the IRS! So much for transperancy!
You have a legitimate question. Why is his aunt living in public housing? She is a known illegal immigrant who has been told to go home but she is still getting help from the government. Obama's last book deal would go a long way to support her or buy her safety in Kenya.
I like it! Since I have to take a drug test for employment, then by all means! Also include with that, that all able bodied individuals have to do some kind of community work, i.e. picking up litter, paint over or remove graffiti, etc. How bad do you want that FREE HANDOUT, FREE HOUSING, FREE MEDICAL? Speaking of free hand outs, it should be a law that any illegal immigrant IS BARRED FROM ANY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE! Maybe that will stem the flow of illegals in MY country, where I'm not allowed any help because I dare own a house , which I actually can afford and make my payments on time. How dare I to try to better my life for my family and I!
I agree. If all those able bodied takers had to do community work we would have beautiful cities and highways!!! And they should be limited on how long they get these "benefits". No more generational welfare families.
When I go to a grocery store and the person in front of me is wearing nicer clothes than me, freshly done nails and a cart full of food I can't afford (steaks, seafood) and they pay for it with their foodstamp card, it floors me everytime. Then I am afforded the joy of seeing them get into a nicer vehicle than I have and they turn and look at me like I'm dirty.
Yes, Arrow. You are not allowed to get any help, unless you let the gvt tell you what to do!
As for : illegal immigrants should be BARRED FROM ANY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE: start that law with Obama's aunt who's been living in public housing for 4 years–although she was served with deportation papers. How dare O. tax us more to support people like her? Some people are shameless!!! I don't have anything against LEGAL immigrants–I was one myself–But I do have a problem with illegal immigrants that are drying up the system.
Legals pay taxes and spend their earnings here–illegals don't pay taxes and spend most of their earnings in their native country. No wonder Ca is BK!
You can't see me, but take my word for it, I am giving this a standing ovation! FINALLY, some one is demanding some accountability. My youngest daughter had to be the recipient of food stamps and Medicade because she and her husband, together, weren't been able to make enough money to afford health care insurance. Then when she got pregnant, she wasn't able to afford prenatal care. I accompanied her to several of her Medicade appointments and the office looked like an over crowded daycare but there were only 2 or 3 mothers in there. These mothers were not but 16-20 years old and they all had 3-4-5 kids and, based on what they were telling the receptionist, each child had a different daddy. Most of the daddy's were incarcerated. Probably, I assumed, on drug charges. The same was true for the food stamp office. Now call me cynical, but it is my opinion that you don't sleep with users/dealers without having at least tried the stuff yourself. Fortunately my son-in-law finished his education, got a much better job and can now support his family and they have health care benefits through his job. But, IF there had been mandatory drug testing, my daughter would have gladly complied, though I doubt if any of the other women would have been any where near that office. I do feel bad for the babies that are born into that situation, but the children's benefits can be very closely monitored and prevent them from suffering while Mom and/or Dad are having a party out of my wallet. It might also, eventually, prevent so many babies being popped out like balls from a pitching machine. I'd much rather pay for the kids that are now receiving government aid knowing they will have a chance of becoming productive citizens instead of perpetuating generation after generation of moochers expecting the working class to take care of them.
I will step down off of my soap box now!
That is why I agree WELFARE AND MEDICADE recipients should be tested. BUT there needs to be limits to the law as to who can be tested. Check out James_Madill_II comment….this could get out of hand VERY quickly. Especially with this administration.
I think all of the Acorners should be tested as well. They all look high!
I would like to see more thought put into this. One comment here says that the people who file for unemployment pay for it. In my experience the business that hires the people pays for it through insurance. I am looking at hiring in a couple months and growing my business and one of the costs is this particular insurance. I dont think it is wrong at all to subject people to a drug test for any entitlement. Another person commented that this would hurt the innocent children. I will just say that a child living in a house with a drug abuser is a hurt child. The only way to address a problem is for it to be discovered, and it could be through a drug test. What we really need to do is enforce this on all entitelments; Welfare, foodstamps, etc.etc, and we should also put a limit on these entitlements so that able bodied people dont end up living off us for their entire lives. Im not against helping someone when they are down, they just have to have an equal interest in getting back up. This is a good way to ween people from the entitlement teet.
In a way I like this, in another I do not. If you allow it, where does it stop? If strictly for people getting welfare, unemployment, food stamps and housing. Medicare? SSI? VA? I don't think a vet should have to be tested to receive what they earned. That and an 80 year old grandmother shouldn't have to get tested to get her SSI check. You have to really define this to specific things. That though will be challanged by the ACLU and NAACP as the leader in stopping this. Then there is the question of what constitutes a drug? Nicotine? Alcohal? asprin? anti-depressent? Cough syrup? Obviously drugs like Cocaine, Meth, or Heroin should be top of the list. I think something like this may start out with great intentions, but as with everything with government, you let them do one thing and they do ten things that are BS.
This is the kind of debate I come here for…I am so undecided about this one….is it a threat to our civil liberties or just a good idea?? Appreciate the comment James….and you have VERY valid points.
Many positions in today’s society do demand drug tests. If someone has recently lost their job they have been paying into unemployment. They should not be subject to a mandatory drug test to obtain., what they rightly deserve. If there new position drug tests and they fail then no more unemployment Keep Government out of drug testing for unemployment benefits We the taxpayers would be required to pick up the tab. Would this not also be a way for Government to require testing of everyone employed?. Further raising cost to Businesses, who in return raise the cost to the consumer?.
{btw I would pass the test}
I don't consider it to be a threat to anyone's civil liberties. You are not guaranteed government money to support you. Government assistance is not a right. You are always free to NOT take the money. If I accept a job with a company I am agreeing to certain conditions such as work hours, duties, benefits, etc. It is the same thing to me!
OK then Gregory and Geargrabber…are you saying it is ok only to test for unemployment and NOT for welfare and the rest????
Yep.
No repy again..this is for Forgotten guy….That is my point too…if I am paying I want to know the people getting the money are putting it to good use. I don't use either, have to get tested to work, plus I don't like the crap. BUT…is it the governments job to do that to EVERYONE or just the one getting the benefits…got to be careful how far this bill will reach or we will have another AMENDMENT to OUR constitution by the GOVERNMENT that we all here so want to limit. The state and local of each state should have more say in the lives of LOCAL people than the FEDS!! That is all I am getting at. I would love to see FEDERAL welfare go away and have it be dealt with at a state and local level as it was meant to be.
That is a great law!!! Now if we could only get all our elected officials to do it! Then if they pass they have no excuse for acting like idiots!
ANOTHER WAY TO STOP ABUSE: Offer welfare only on temporary basis. If it's needed, fine. But give the person x years to get their act together. EG. 5–they can get an education and a job within 5 years–no reason to pay the lazy forever!
I could tell you things that would make your blood boil. And until the welfare has a complete overhaul, (like the gov. needs) , it's a waste of our tax money. The people who don't abuse the system is a small percentage.
I agree with you daniela give them 1 year no questions asked, people need help sometimes, if they can find employment on their own, Great! After the year is up then we need to utilize our community college systems and begin to train them in some sort of traid or marketable skill with manditory attendance and revocation of benifits if not attending regurally. Once they have compleated the courses give them another year to find a job on their own and then put them to work for the taxpayers; road construction, city, county and state office jobs, janators in public buildings there are a ton of positions around that can be filled. To quote John Smith 'If a man does not work nor shall he eat'
Sic Semper Evello Mortem Tyrannus
They did that in the 90's with welfare reform, but Dear Leader changed it.
Just to work in the my field I am subject to the same type of random testing. So I am for it, if I can go through this process to get and keep my job, why shouldn't others who are receiving benefits with tax dollar monies?
Perhaps this concept could be extended to all the financial bail out recipients.
They should all (President and down) be piss tested, randomly and often, because they sure act like they are high on spending. I wonder what we'd find?
Is there actually a politician with a good idea? All I can really say is that I agree, but I'm very surprised.
I love it!!! It's a great idea. However I don't think the leaders of our new Nanny state will think too kindly of this type of policy.
The "leaders" of the nanny state are on the government dole too….shouldn't this include them in the testing??? I would go for that!!
I am proud that Florida is looking at enacting this law also. My only concern is that those that are actually in need through no fault of their own will have the help delayed due to testing. Also I used to work with people who have developmental disabilities who recieve food stamps, they take controlled drugs in order to maintain a semblance of a normal life. Hopefully all this is taken into consideration before the law comes into effect. Other than that it sounds brilliant.
I love it! The last thing we need is to give out freebies to drug addicts who then turn around and sell/barter that stuff for drugs, or get a good meal/night's sleep on the back of the taxpayers. The program offers them benefits for 60 days while they get their act cleaned up before it cuts off benefits altogether. I applaud this!
if i have to pee in a cup for the priviledge of providing those benifits, its only fair that they should have to pee in a cup to recieve them. ……remember, PLEASE wash your hands before returning to work.
I agree as far as welfare recipients as that is a handout. One thing in the article that struck me though is that unemployment is an "insurance" we have also paid for as working Americans. I am not sure how to feel about that yet as it may lead to drug testing of every American citizen for any reason. I agree though that as I also have to pass drug tests to work it is not a bad idea to have to pass one not to work and still get paid.
It makes perfect sense. If you are drawing unemployment, you must be looking for a job to get those benefits, and you must be able to work. If you are juiced up, you are not able to work. Pee in a cup, or get the Barney.
Oh geez, give me the cup… I dont want the BARNEY…
The Barney???? Oh, yeah, THAT Barney!!!! Thufferin' Thuctotath! THAT BARNEY! Maybe we should add an HIV and oral Gonorrhea culture while we are at it! I know. You have to think about that one.
What about unemployment extensions…that's government money…right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the former employer have to pay some of the costs of unemployment?
Boopster, you're a good commenter and you hit on some of what I was trying to convey but did it eloquently. thank you… I'd pass too
When you are being paid to sit at home and do nothing I don't think it is too much to ask that you remain drug free.
Although you may pay into unemployment, it is not guaranteed to you when you lose your job. What you rightly deserve or have paid for has little to do with what you get when government is involved.
To be honest, I think the system is targeted to help people who do not want to work (at least from my experience in NY).
Hey, I hear you. But a sandwich and a bowl of cereal is not that costly. Let them have that at least. After three days that the kid comes to school with no money or no lunch, file a report with Child protection. I agree with you about personal responsibility. But I also know what it is like to be a poor kid with nothing in the stomach. I was one, once upon a time. My teachers cut their food in half for me. I never forgot it. And I never forgave me parent'snegligence. I have been to Riverside. Stayed at the Mission Inn once, so I have lived on both sides of the fence.
You are right about the bureaucrats and their spending. Yes, that is how they justify their pay. The best way to fight this is to conduct a study (which is hard to do—kids are protected subjects in any study). Measure the outcomes. Look at the waste. In Chicago, they had a free lunch program where 90% of the food wasn't even being used. A neighbor worked in the system and 'collected' the peanut butter sandwiches that were in a box to be thrown out. She brought them home and froze them, even gave us some of them. They were good. Kept well in the freezer. But that just indicated the program was being poorly run or wasn't needed in the first place.
Good points! The alternative is to have the school nurse give them daily infusions of D5W and Intralipids with amino acids and blood transfusions. Why not? Free Care!!!!!
Yes, and if you lost your job due to suspected drug use or proven drug use. They (the employer)have to the right to challenge your claim for unemployment and most often win
Thank you Billerz. You are to kind!
I agree with making welfare recipients work! Why should we have to hire private, city, county, state or federal menial labor if we have a huge bank of 'free' employees who are already being paid? Why should they NOT work for the money and benefits they receive? They may just learn a skill that can get them gainfully employed or even gain some pride of accomplishment. Oh but wait… these are the jobs that illegal aliens currently have…
The other thing is..the grocery store.
I'll bet most of you don't know that they cover whatever goes in your mouth! Candy, soda, chips, hostess type things. And nothing fries my butt more than these people that come in dressed to the nines, nails done, wearing the newest fashions and pull out their food stamp cards! How about giving up a nail appointment, and buying some damn food?! I sometimes work in the liquor store portion of the store, and I sh*t you not, I've seen food stamp cards pulled out to pay for the orange juice and soda and lemons and limes and the bag of ice to go with the bottle of booze they just bought!
Also teenagers coming in with the family card getting soda and candy with all their friends!
I don't pretend to know everyone's circumstances and I'm positive there are many that really need to use the foodstamps, and use it responsibly, because I've seen that too.
I guess just a rant, but thanks, I feel better
Oh, but James, very few get cathed. They have to just wet the bed. So much less infection, don't ya know than those costly ol' catheters. Another Medicare/medicaid stroke of genius. But it is true. Most people do not realize this……that the most common Medicaid \”welfare\” recipient is white, over 80 and living in a nursing home.
Serious drug users know how to get around the drug tests and sometimes the clinics that furnish the testing are more interested in billing for them than they are on accuracy, so they just turn their heads at the cheaters.
I completely agree. I worked for the health department and as a public assistant specialist. There is just no accountability or responsibility on the part of the agencies or from so many of the people who receive this aid.
I just joined the 912 project and began reading comments and felt the need to respond to this one right away. I agree 100% with your comment. I must add that State and Federal regulations mandate the types and amounts of food that can be served in schools or the district will not receive State and Federal reimbursements. Foods that cannot be sold include candy, soda, foods of miinimal nutritional value, etc.; however, on the other hand, the State and Federal gov't permits these items to be purchased with food stamps!!!!!
Thank you, Aspade, and PrplHrt_Patriot, for your eloquent and thoughtful posts. Bless you both.
You remind me of a chap, spade, a guy who had many promising paths such as yourself. He had the exact same doubts and questions of what direction to take. You both made the most meaningful decision you could ever make. I am proud of you, son, and thank you for reminding me that there still are young men who remind me of myself.
Just do me a favor: stay away from the darkness that comes over your mind in combat. Stay away from those bullets that seem to have your name engraved on them, and never think that any moment of your service could be your last. All soldiers serve forever, in one way or another – so worrying about stuff like that is unnecessary.
Also, when you come home, and start the next chapter of your life, don't lose your hair and grow a gut like some other chap