It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
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.

Sorry, basic income? Were will the money come from? The people that actually get off their ass and work will now be more taxed to pay people to do nothing? Why will people be motivated to work or improve themselves if they get free money?????




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Orionx2

So because you have never read economics you assume this?

Ted Cruz was proposing this same thing. So do Austrian school economists and libertarians.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You stop it by not using walfare to reward bad behavior, root out corruption, or a reward for voting a certain way. You complain if you take wefare away, kids will starve? Yet there is alwsys money for cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. We have fought the war on property to the point social security and Medicaid is broke? And the states and federal government are how far in debt? Illinois is to the point of being bankrupt. How is that helping anyone. Again, florida was taken for one billion in welfare fraud in 2012. 2 million in drug testing is only .2 percent of what was paid in fraudulent claims?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Midas hasn't worked so well.

Yes though these are good things.

However take detroit. It had double the unemployment as the rest of the state. Perfect example of industry leaving town.

If the tariff laws were not completely uneven to the American workers it wouldn't have been so bad.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't believe in welfare.

I just don't think cutting it off over night is humane or makes social sense.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Orionx2

So because you have never read economics you assume this?

Ted Cruz was proposing this same thing. So do Austrian school economists and libertarians.

No, I am 40. I have been in the work force since I was 15 (yea I worked the last 3 years of high school and managed to graduate). I Spent 10 year traveling all over the USA for a welding/machinist job. I spent 3 years working with convicts on work release. I was a construction foremen and production line lead for many years. I was in charge of hiring and firing. Many people will do the minimum if givien the opportunity. You give people free money and they will never work. Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Orionx2

I don't know I work because that's my ethics.

I flipped houses and and work for myself now making guitars, doing sound engineering, and I volunteer teaching wrestling and judo.

Most people when educated will work.

There will be less and less jobs as we proceed however. So we need to figure something out.

As it is there are far less jobs than jobless people.

I am 43.

Why do you care what other people do.

Taxes suck but I have been able to stay out of debt and bought our last home with cash from fixing up three others.
edit on 24-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So the programs you are complaining about were going to cut people off cold turkey and not help them with addiction? You don't want to catch cheats because there will always be cheats? But the system is flawed. You are worried about children staving cause a program might get addicted parents help, but you don't believe in welfare. People are worried about drug testing costs when compared to what was paid in fraudulent claims in Florida was only .2 percent. This became a pretty useless line of dialog to pursue.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Only when you think we have to stay on the same path.

There are other solutions.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I didn't know drug tests were that inaccurate.


They have about a 5% false positive rate and a 1% false negative rate.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You sure? The test specimens are usually split up. Three test portions and sapmle reserve. If 2 out three test positive, then its called positive. The sample reserve is kept for legal reasons on positive samples? I have to say your figures are for individual tests not the process as a whole.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Orionx2

I don't know I work because that's my ethics.

I flipped houses and and work for myself now making guitars, doing sound engineering, and I volunteer teaching wrestling and judo.

Most people when educated will work.

There will be less and less jobs as we proceed however. So we need to figure something out.

As it is there are far less jobs than jobless people.

I am 43.

Why do you care what other people do.

Taxes suck but I have been able to stay out of debt and bought our last home with cash from fixing up three others.

But that is not the case.. There is a lot of jobs available but people will not take them or get educated to get them.

America's persistent problem: Unskilled workersIn Iowa, Jobs Are Plentiful but Workers Are Not
Hundreds of jobs available in Horry County, but qualified applicants lacking
1700 jobs available
3,795 Full-Time Jobs Available Within 10 Miles Of Chatham
Plenty of summer jobs available, but employers struggle to fill them
Sheboygan County has 3,000+ Available Jobs, So What Gives?


This is just a small example. There is millions of jobs available all over the county but people will not take them because unemployment/welfare pays better...... Seriously, give people free money (basic income) and the only benefactors will be the Mexican drug cartels.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I would "bitch and complain" until the following items were addressed.

1. No spending the money on illegal activity.
2. No spending the money on luxuries.
3. No selling your "card" to others for cash to do #1 or #2.
4. The kids (if any) come first.
5. No illegals...go home.


#1. SNAP comes on cards through stores that are authorized to make payments, the person spending the money cannot do so illegally. Cash assistance typically comes on prepaid debit cards which again gets spent through legitimate vendors.

#2. What do you consider a luxury? If you really want to split hairs everything is a luxury. Bottled water? There's tap. Chicken breast? You can eat SPAM. Croutons? Your salad doesn't need them. That's all luxury items. Literally everything except for the most basic item is a luxury. Would you consider a 1 bedroom apartment a luxury too? It is, you could always have 2 roommates afterall.

#3. I never see people selling their cards for #1 or #2, but if they are does it even matter? A certain baseline income is still required for survival and they're probably foregoing luxuries like living alone in exchange for roommates and getting some under the table cash. How would you ever police this though? I really think that like the "drug problem" it's just a boogeyman... it's so ineffectual that I see no reason to enforce it, but if you're happy wasting money then sure... go for it.

#4. You're in luck on this one. Our welfare system is not designed for the support of adults beyond basic food assistance. It's designed to support children, that's what the money is for the adult simply rides along and gets some extra food and shelter by taking care of the kids.

#5. Illegals do not get welfare other than SNAP. SNAP is provided to everyone for a few reasons, first of all because it's bad to have people starving on the streets, but more importantly because providing people with food is much cheaper than trying to repair the damage from the crime that will occur if people don't have access to food. Do you support a higher crime rate?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Then people are usually retested before legal action is taken?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
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




If everyone in the US was required to get punched in the nose before being hired, would we expect the same to happen to welfare recipients? I guess that is how abuse is perpetuated: we tend to do unto others for the sake of "making it fair". A similar strategy is used in all manner of government programs. Rarely to any beneficial effect, and often the opposite.

It just seems like two wrongs somehow making it right.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The only thing conservatives can do is simplify the system as much as possible. The system need to be designed understanding fraud is a possibility.

You can so that by taking away deciding who gets what. You cut Medicaid, SS, healthcare needs to be set up for market interstate competition, snap and all the other benifits and use the basic income.

Or you simplify beauracracy to lower the chances of fraud. Like one welfare not several programs.

Your proposal is actually just adding beauracracy. Your proposing spend 2 million on top of the fraud that still will go on. Failing a drug test isn't even directly related to the fraud issue.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly. Very well said.

How many of the seven deadly sins are involved in that?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And thinking families lose walfare cold turkey on a positive drug test is not part of it either. Children that are already on public assistance?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And how do stop cheats / fraud by not using preventative monitoring and oversight?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
Again, I don't care if people smoke pot, it should be legal anyway. But thinking that 0 people actually did drugs ...


0 out of 303 is completely possible given the rates other states have found drug testing to be at. However, if you read the article it sounds like $300,000 and 303 people were set aside for the program, they've spent $300 of that budget so far, which would suggest they've only tested 3 people in the initial sample and are extrapolating from there.



new topics




 
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join