http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM%3APOLITICS

 

"Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it 'downright unconstitutional.'"

 

Since when have the democrats cared about the constitution? Oh right, only when it is in their favor.

 

I think its great that the taxpayers there dont have to support drug addicts!

I fully and wholeheartedly support this.

And if you really want to PO the Dems, make NORPLANT (birth control injected under the forearm) the rule to get Welfare too!

And if you really want to PO the Dems, make NORPLANT (birth control injected under the forearm) the rule to get Welfare too!

 

 

or even simpler.. and at a cost of free...

 

disallow increases based on additional children.. look at it as a financial incentive to be cautious..

I fully and wholeheartedly support this.

 

I'm always the odd man out in these discussions... but I disagree with this policy. My initial thoughts were that poor children may now suffer even further since their already drug addicted mother now cannot obtain government assistance. I know other trustees may receive the funds in lieu of the individual failing the drug screen. These people may not have anyone else that is drug free or able to be trusted to receive the funds.

 

Second, Why would any of us be excited about a precedent that requires government invasion into the very body of a citizen? It's a precedent that I will never support. Financial status should NEVER be cause to allow for a government search of your person or such a serious invasion of privacy.

 

What's next? Want a student loan...get a drug test. Want an FHA mortgage, get a drug test. Want your social security benefits...?

 

I'll never support an idea like this, while I am of course against people spending welfare on drugs.

or even simpler.. and at a cost of free...

 

disallow increases based on additional children.. look at it as a financial incentive to be cautious..

 

Are you kidding me?

 

They multiply like rabbits and never with the same father. My solution is certain. Yours is like Natural Family Planning or No F.....ng Protection! LOL!

 

I feel sorry for the kids though....it's not their fault for being made that way.....

And if you really want to PO the Dems, make NORPLANT (birth control injected under the forearm) the rule to get Welfare too!

 

 

So, you would sterilize those you find socially less desirable or worthy? A few regimes in the world have had that policy in the past..

I'm always the odd man out in these discussions... but I disagree with this policy. My initial thoughts were that poor children may now suffer even further since their already drug addicted mother now cannot obtain government assistance. I know other trustees may receive the funds in lieu of the individual failing the drug screen. These people may not have anyone else that is drug free or able to be trusted to receive the funds.

 

Second, Why would any of us be excited about a precedent that requires government invasion into the very body of a citizen? It's a precedent that I will never support. Financial status should NEVER be cause to allow for a government search of your person or such a serious invasion of privacy.

 

What's next? Want a student loan...get a drug test. Want an FHA mortgage, get a drug test. Want your social security benefits...?

 

I'll never support an idea like this, while I am of course against people spending welfare on drugs.

 

 

I responded somewhere else at length why I do not agree with this law..

I don't agree with this law either. You should be able to get welfare for 6 months - one year max per allocation, must have a minimum of 7.5 yrs between allocations, and a maximum lifetime allocation limit of 5 yrs on welfare. Then there's no need for all of these "other" contingencies, agencies, state workers, etc.

 

But I'm a mean and nasty racist far right wing conservative.

I don't agree with this law either. You should be able to get welfare for 6 months - one year max per allocation, must have a minimum of 7.5 yrs between allocations, and a maximum lifetime allocation limit of 5 yrs on welfare. Then there's no need for all of these "other" contingencies, agencies, state workers, etc.

 

But I'm a mean and nasty racist far right wing conservative.

 

I could get behind that rule.

 

The major problem I have with this is: How much does it cost to test all these people versus how many will you actually be able to cut off welfare due to a positive drug test. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. I think that it will cost MORE for the testing than any savings. It's a minor victory for FL that they don't have people on welfare spending public funds on drugs (on paper anyway.) It would be a lot easier to cut off welfare off after time X OR make the recipient provide proof that they've had made SIGNIFICANT attempts to find work and couldn't. I'd sooner give partial payment to someone who at least tried than this endless faucet without end of public assistance.

So, you would sterilize those you find socially less desirable or worthy? A few regimes in the world have had that policy in the past..

 

No, I would sterilize those who've already demonstrated the need to reproduce to obtain more benefits! What number of offspring will it take (from different sperm donors) for you to realize that some of them produce more kids for a bigger check, 3, 5, more?? One or two "OOpses" with different losers is quite enough, thank-you!

 

Socially less desirable or worthy are your key-words. I merely want to give the women affected the chance to get clean, get trained, get a job and feel good about themselves. To become someone to look up to, to become someone that their kids can look up too.

 

Break the cycle, NOW!

I too am against this legislation. To me, the problem is with the policy, and not with the people-- as Dan pointed out. I also agree that this is the sort of legislation that can snowball into bigger issues, as also pointed out.

 

As for eugenics, yea, people who support that are, well, imbeciles. Strong words maybe, but I feel strongly about it.

I dont think it would snowball. You have to drug test to get a job with the govt and get a paycheck, why shouldnt you have to drug test to not have a job and get a paycheck from the govt? Its not an invasion of privacy/forced testing, if you dont want to get tested dont go looking for welfare. Same with jobs. If you dont want to get drug tested dont apply at a company that drug tests.

As a former UPL let me just say EEEEEEEeeeewwwww!!!!

Seems I'm in the minority here when I say I agree with this law, at least on this forum. I love the idea behind having to drug test welfare recipients for drug use. The way the law is written if a welfare recipient is tested positive for drugs all welfare is stopped, the children are taken by CPS and they are given a chance to sober up and stay sober. If they can't abide by those rules then they are SOL. And I agree with this. The kids are given to a family that can take care of them, in an environment that is non hostile. And I don't know about you guys, but I REALLY don't want to pay for some one's crack habit, especially if it means putting a child in danger.

You have to drug test to get a job with the govt and get a paycheck, why shouldnt you have to drug test to not have a job and get a paycheck from the govt?

 

+1

 

You want the money, get the test. No test, no money. It's a simple concept.

 

If you can't get off drugs for any length of time to pass a test, I see no reason to feed your habit with my tax dollars.

I don't think it would snowball. You have to drug test to get a job with the govt and get a paycheck, why shouldn't you have to drug test to not have a job and get a paycheck from the govt? Its not an invasion of privacy/forced testing, if you don't want to get tested don't go looking for welfare. Same with jobs. If you don't want to get drug tested don't apply at a company that drug tests.

 

+1

If I get drug tested to earn my money and give them their share, they should get drug tested to receive it. If I fail a drug test at work what happens, my money stops and I dont have a job any more. Well guess what if you are getting money for nothing, a little drug test aint shiat. Also if I had my way, if you are on welfare you WILL work community service. It will be anything from mowing grass for the elderly or handicapped to picking up trash on the side of the road. YOU WILL SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY THAT IS SUPPORTING YOU!!!!!!!!

problem: too many people take part in "career welfare"

 

solution 1: create regulations that govern the length of time people can participate in various welfare programs... remove incentives to abuse the system..

 

result: people are forced to generate some income at some point since being on welfare forever is not an option..

 

solution 2: drug test individuals on welfare..

 

result: more administrative costs for people to administer these tests.. more overhead for testing supplies... and YES you will catch some.. and kick them off... but others will simply get around the system.. drug tests can be beat with pretty readily available products..

 

 

solution one works because it DIRECTLY addresses the problem of "never ending" welfare.... solution 2 while it may work in catching some.. it is not the core of the problem.. drug abuse is an issue but it is not the core issue.. the issue is baby factory career welfare.. a system in which the deeper of a hole you get into.. the more freebies you get... oh single mom? 2 kids? yeah we got you covered.. oh my single mom 5 kids and a "back injury" hell you will never work again.. let me sign you up..

 

I don't think that welfare should go to drug addicts.. but I just do not see that as the biggest problem.. certainly not a problem I want to pay MORE for...

I'm always the odd man out in these discussions... but I disagree with this policy. My initial thoughts were that poor children may now suffer even further since their already drug addicted mother now cannot obtain government assistance. I know other trustees may receive the funds in lieu of the individual failing the drug screen. These people may not have anyone else that is drug free or able to be trusted to receive the funds.

 

Second, Why would any of us be excited about a precedent that requires government invasion into the very body of a citizen? It's a precedent that I will never support. Financial status should NEVER be cause to allow for a government search of your person or such a serious invasion of privacy.

 

What's next? Want a student loan...get a drug test. Want an FHA mortgage, get a drug test. Want your social security benefits...?

 

I'll never support an idea like this, while I am of course against people spending welfare on drugs.

 

Welfare is a Choice..I dont see you up in arms about the fact that IM Subject to random Drug tests as a Police Oficer. Is that not an "Intrusion" into MY Body by the Govt??..the answer in my case if i find it that offensive is "Get another Job"..the answer to the Welfare rats who dont want to be drug-tested is GET a Job. There is no Constitutional REQUIREMENT for Charity. if MY Effing tax dollars is going into these folks pockets then goddamn it I think we the people SHOULD have some say in "WHO" gets it.

So, you would sterilize those you find socially less desirable or worthy? A few regimes in the world have had that policy in the past..

 

 

Hyperbole much??? NORPLANT is not permanent "Sterilization" it is a temporary Birth control that stops as soon as the injections do. Want to have Kids?/ SImple answer....get a JOB so the REST of us dont have to foot the bill for your F$%# Trophy.

 

Since you brought up Social Security earlier let me address that now.. Enough is enough It's a Ponzi Scheme. The DAY Congress decided to take that money and put it in the general fund, (where it was spent like an 18 year-old Sailor's muster pay in Po City) it went from a Social Contract to an unsustainable sinkhole. Phase..it..out. Anyone over say 25 NO longer Pays into it. Those between 25 and 45 may opt out of paying but recieve NO benefit if they do. in say 60 years, we can wash our hands of that boondoggle altogether... Fund it fully until the last recipient dies......then NO MORE. Retirement is between you and your employer, whether through a "Pension Plan", 401 K or private, personal retirement plan but there's one less HUGE, Bloated Bureaucracy down the line.

Welfare is a Choice..I dont see you up in arms about the fact that IM Subject to random Drug tests as a Police Oficer. Is that not an "Intrusion" into MY Body by the Govt??..the answer in my case if i find it that offensive is "Get another Job"..the answer to the Welfare rats who dont want to be drug-tested is GET a Job. There is no Constitutional REQUIREMENT for Charity. if MY Effing tax dollars is going into these folks pockets then goddamn it I think we the people SHOULD have some say in "WHO" gets it.

 

 

right but it is still an emotional knee jerk reaction.. the problem is we can't afford to fund all these people forever.. that is to me a far bigger problem than some guy who is on welfare and smokes a joint.. because at the end of the day his drug habits are irrelevant to me.. what is relevant to me is the financial burden that individual creates.. so put in firm solid limitations on length of benefits.. and that actually nips the problem in the bud.. far more than drug testing... the two seem to go hand in hand.. as far as your job?

 

you are not routinely drug tested.. so what.. you took one drug test a hundred years ago? unless your department is the exception to others I am familiar with, it is not like they are pulling random monthly urines from you.. so same system for welfare? one drug test to get on the program? then yeah.. even more useless.. pass one test and you are good to go..

Fund it fully until the last recipient dies......then NO MORE. Retirement is between you and your employer, whether through a "Pension Plan", 401 K or private, personal retirement plan but there's one less HUGE, Bloated Bureaucracy down the line.

 

 

I agree with this completely.. the government is incapable of managing money..

I agree with this completely.. the government is incapable of managing money..

 

They couldn't even run a profitable whore house in Vegas...

 

Harry

They couldn't even run a profitable whore house in Vegas...

 

Harry

 

Harry,

NOW THAT IS JUST FUNNY!

Agree 100%, good post Glenn.

right but it is still an emotional knee jerk reaction.. the problem is we can't afford to fund all these people forever.. that is to me a far bigger problem than some guy who is on welfare and smokes a joint.. because at the end of the day his drug habits are irrelevant to me.. what is relevant to me is the financial burden that individual creates.. so put in firm solid limitations on length of benefits.. and that actually nips the problem in the bud.. far more than drug testing... the two seem to go hand in hand.. as far as your job?

 

you are not routinely drug tested.. so what.. you took one drug test a hundred years ago? unless your department is the exception to others I am familiar with, it is not like they are pulling random monthly urines from you.. so same system for welfare? one drug test to get on the program? then yeah.. even more useless.. pass one test and you are good to go..

 

I get tested at LEAST once a year we do 10% of the department every month

I get tested at LEAST once a year we do 10% of the department every month

 

 

fair enough.. if that is the case I guess it varies.. but I still disagree based on the policy.. I just see it having minimal impact in regards to the biggest problem..

If I have to get a drug test, finger printed, and have a background check done to make $12 an hour.....AND contribute to the pot that pays for welfare, I don't think it's unfair to ask the same of those who are TAKING from the pot.

They couldn't even run a profitable whore house in Vegas...

 

Harry

 

Hell, NY state can't run an off track betting parlor for a profit. The best racket around is toll bridges and they manage to Foul that up as well and can't seem to make a proft.