Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Uh it's because the intention is not to get them help it's to kick them off benefits


Most of you geniuses haven't thought through what happens when a family gets thrown to the street and how much that will cost when the kids become wards of the states and the parents become more desperate and you end up paying for them in jail.

I guess you all would rather pay to punish these people than to feed them.

Sorry I did not read through this whole thread. However My daughter just graduated from High School. At this time she said she wants to go to work and build up some cash for school later. It took her 4 days to find a job ( in an areas of 7% unemployment) that pays $10.00 and hr. I know that may not sound like a lot to many but in the area we live that is way above average for 1st time job. Welders with 15 years experience are getting $12hr in this area.

Anyway she said the place is hiring but they can not get anybody to work there. They said most the people that apply turn down the job because $10hr part time will keep them from getting their welfare.

I worked with a lady in 2008. She hired on part time. I asked her why she did not take the full time position. She said she had 7 kids and taking a full time position would remove her welfare and reduce her child support and remove her ability to get the earned income tax credit. She said she gets $10,000 a year in earned income tax credit so why work full time to make that when she can get it free by working part time......

originally posted by: luthier

Uh it's because the intention is not to get them help it's to kick them off benefits

Most of you geniuses haven't thought through what happens when a family gets thrown to the street and how much that will cost when the kids become wards of the states and the parents become more desperate and you end up paying for them in jail.

I guess you all would rather pay to punish these people than to feed them.

What you see as a punishment, others see as help.

Most of you geniuses haven't thought through what happens when you stop giving a drug addict free money that they use to buy their drugs. Oh, perhaps they stop buying drugs, and start getting a job?

Taking away their drug money is the best help they can get.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Uh no

Getting them help is the best way to clean up a drug addict. In fact most drug addicts can not do it without rehab.

Cutting them off benefits puts their kids in danger and makes them commit crimes to get drugs.

a reply to: luthier

If the family is living off walfare, art they already wards of the state and living off tax payers money?

a reply to: luthier

I would think getting kids already living off welfare and tax payers money by proxy away from addicts would be healthier. Especially if they live in a home that is a meth lab?

Ever notice how it's infinitely easier to get disability for being mentally unhealthy than it is to be physically disabled? Why?

Because they want you to give up your integrity and self worth. You missing 3 fingers and severe spinal injury....no matter, you have two good feet and a working hand. (True story, just not mine)

On the other hand, if you are a waste of space but willing to trade in your soul and integrity, paychecks be rolling in.

They (government), needs a welfare state to make them relevant BUT only if you are willing to concede you are worthless. It's a trap and keeps people right where they want them.

a reply to: Orionx2

That baffles me though. I wouldn't have more kids then I can afford. Condoms are pretty cheap.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

It did need to be done.

And the results were expected.

It doesn't prove that welfare recipients aren't on illicit drugs either though.

It could mean that they have got ways to mask/conceal what they're taking to tests.

Working in the mining industry, we are constantly tested, and I know for a fact that many who do use illicet drugs don't ever get caught.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

there is a reason that poor people are poor. you can be rather adept at making it through day to day life, and still have an iq that is below average. and lacking insight and logic skills....things like consequences may seem a bit to abstract to guide your decisions.



So what we have here is an example of the governor of a US state giving play to a racist/classist stereotype. its a lot easier to blame the poor for their plight (hey, they are all junkies, right?) than it is to extend understanding to people who may lack the insight needed to truly be successful, of find circumstances beyond their control too much to withstand. Its not like our criminal justice system is designed to empower people.

Its pretty reprehensible. I certainly hope that he doesn't find his way into re-election.

originally posted by: Chadwickus


It could mean that they have got ways to mask/conceal what they're taking to tests.

exactly. it sure could, and in the end it might only mean that the recipients were either smart enough to not answer the 30 question quiz in a way that gets them flagged, or they take countermeasures that are commonly known to Google.

but, as i mentioned, in the end its a step that promotes a stereotype on an official level. when people say "the law is racist"....this is what they are talking about.

a reply to: neutronflux

You don't think the beauracracy increased with legal fees, judges in courts, the entire cps and foster system.

Also most of these folks will be popped for weed. Thats the one that stays in your system.

A drug test failure does not indicate addiction or that the person is running a meth lab.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The argument for it though, is that if I am required to have a full medical and drug test before starting a job, and having random tests all the time, then why not welfare recipients?

It's a fair argument, but it needs to be implemented properly.

Much like giving food stamps/eftpos cards to selected groups of people so they don't use their welfare money on alcohol and drugs.

That sounds like a good idea on paper, but that too gets abused by simply bartering food credits for whatever they desire.

That program is being tested in a few select communities here in Australia at the moment....race based also...but that's a whole other kettle of fish

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Orionx2

That baffles me though. I wouldn't have more kids then I can afford. Condoms are pretty cheap.

Right? But her $2000 a month mortgage is paid by child support and she lives off her part time job and welfare. She works part time, has a nice house, a newer car and only has to work part time (not to mention she is severely over weight for her size). I had to work full time and live in a mobile home and drive a 25 year old car (at the time, this was several years ago).

The welfare system is not conductive to getting people to get off their ass and work. There are a lot of open jobs in my area and nobody is applying because they get paid more on unemployment. Our state unemployment rules says we don't have to take a job that pays less than our previous job.... And yes, our state is one of the highest taxed and run by progressive liberals.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Which indicates you have never seen what it's like to grow up in the projects.

Not a lot of education going on at school or at home.

a reply to: luthier

Again, child services is already doing what your complaining about. Wouldn't it be nice to have a way to detect early stages of addiction and prevent a full blown child services intervention?

a reply to: neutronflux


Explain how that happens?

If your saying you get them treatment then I agree with you. If not you don't understand addiction.

And no cps is not already doing that.

I didn't know drug tests were that inaccurate.

a reply to: Orionx2

I have a scammer ex. Complete pos that abuses the system. Takes out Pell grants and all kinds of stuff. I have had custody of the kid for 10 years and she still files every year for the eic.

That being said I also teach wrestling to very poor kids in South Carolina and do some musical mentoring. I have seen people who are doing their best.

Ultimately people will scam. You can't stop it.

There are two solutions. Mitigate the beauracracy that makes it easy to scam.

Or give everyone a basic income and eliminate all benefits other than the basic income everybody gets.

Second.

The Govenors should be focused on getting companies tax breaks and providing law enforcement to protect the companies to provide actual jobs that don't require assistance to meet the cost of living. Also providing the job training necessary to do the jobs.

As it stands there are millions of more people jobless than there are jobs.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Im in Michigan here and for unemployment..its quite different. Get laid off? You can get benefits. Get fired? You cannot. BUT.....

For unemployment to proceed, you have to register to work as able bodied and ready to take any offer..ANY OFFER. You must submit..MUST...2 places and contact persons where you applied for work...every 2 weeks. And they check.

Lastly...if you refuse ANY job offered to you out those two or more a week required...if you refuse work for any reason...unemployment denied.

Michigan Works (the State Agency)provides you the computers, copy machines, resume builders, workshops etc...to help you find work WHILE you seek work and receive unemployment.

It is a TRAVESTY that the requirements for WELFARE are not the same. It makes NO SENSE. No sense at all here in Michigan.

I just thought a Michigander should chime in with the reality.