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

a reply to: Irishhaf

quite simple to explain actually...

the employer is paying for the drug test when you apply for a job

we the people are paying for it when we test welfare recipients

originally posted by: veracity



I guess you are not aware of the house, senate, president checks and balance system.

I never once saw a single liberal or "journalist" defend Bush by saying. it's not his fault, dont you know there are checks and balances?". You're partisans and you're rationalizing your partisanship.

a reply to: TheBulk

sorry, I am not aware of what you saw or did not see but there IS a checks and balance system, this is no lie...don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: JimNasium

whatttt??????

www.examiner.com...

www.tampabay.com...

www.miamiherald.com...

www.palmbeachpost.com...

Ok so is the problem the drug tests or who is picking up the tab?

Personally the drug tests dont matter to me, I have never taken "illegal" drugs and dont plan to... forcing everyone to take it was a waste.

A Much more efficient way, would be something similar to the military way (accept actually random) and have a random percentage each quarter chosen randomly to test. This gives the threat to help get the drug users cleaned up gets a small percentage of them and cuts down on the cost significantly.

a reply to: Irishhaf
I dont think it makes any sense to spend more money on benefits which any drug testing would do.

They were banking on the fact they could save money by kicking people off benefits and the preliminary testing failed.

if anything we should spend the drug testing money on rehab instead and help the people who may be on benefits because of addiction. At least there are stats to show percentages of people helped by rehab that have a high possibility of getting off welfare.

Why is everything always a penalty now? Why not provide incentives and reward positive behaviour.

Like hey you don't polute and provide steady jobs at a good cost of living you get a tax break. Instead of penalizing older bussinesses who may have trouble retooling. The tax break may be an incentive to absorb the cost? Anyway that's a whole other issue.

a reply to: JimNasium

The more I think about it, the more embarrassed I am to be an American.

Why do some people hate the poor so much?

Hey dumbass conservatives (yeah you know who you are)...

Would it be better to just let the poor wither away and die? Is that what you want?

a reply to: veracity

People hate the poor because that's partly the design to keep you from becoming one.

The other is guilt.

We know we are failing and we know the handouts liberals have used in many cases to get votes (classic strategy, repubs do it with their donors and gov contracts).

So the solutions failed and most middle class and upper class don't hang out in the crappy part of town so they rarely think of the macro phenomenon that occurs with injustice.

100 percent starts with education. It's like prison for the poor. Literally their schools are like jails. I was a wrestling coach at one.

The overlying task being cleaning up corruption in law enforcement. Gangs get leaders with the money power of large corperations and infiltrate the political and private sectors. They buy property, holdings etc and then bribe. Keeping their poor base of bussiness in the ghetto and dumb and poor is a priority.

What are the demographics of welfare recipients in Michigan

a reply to: onequestion

It varies between cities and rural areas. Industry fallout really hurt the state.

If one knows a drug test is coming......one can thwart said test with a multitude of products & a multitude of websites to purchase them from. Random testing & the outcome is different I would suppose.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually it is really hard to fake a piss test when there is someone watching your genitals while you pee. Want to be a public servant? Prove it.

a reply to: Irishhaf

It isn't so much who is picking up the tab, but who is enriching themselves and their cronies with it.

Rick Scott of Florida just happened to be married to somebody who was active in the industry that dispenses or produces drug testing equipment.

I am not going to bother searching out and providing links to prove what I just said to save you the time of doing your own research.

You have one of those computer "thingies" and can do it all by yourself.

a reply to: luthier

Like I said do it like the military... say 5 people per district (or how ever this is divided) per quarter, and everybody wins...

I can count on 1 finger the number of times I saw everyone tested in a unit.

I agree actually... rehab is a much better way, but you have to be able to give them hope along with the rehab or the rehab will probably not stick 9 times out of 10.

So its linked to needing work so self worth can rise up as their system gets clean... training in trade skills may help as well.

I dont know the answer... most of what ive said here is just a mental exercise.

If I was running for office and this was a concern in my area I would introduce it just like I suggested, small number each quarter chosen at random, that should placate almost everyone..

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Oh yea.. .Rick scott is a straight up crook...

I am embarrassed to say I was born and raised in Florida.

300 Rejected saves close to $500,000 a month I'm all for it and I do live in Michigan. Let them move to another state.

a reply to: mikell

It may save $500,000 a month that isn't paid to recipients, but I am sure it is wasted way more efficiently on something that does less good for people and the community and state still.

Like now they can put stop signs at intersections where there is only a right turn to be made, and stick a "right turn no stop" sign there too, so butt stupid (most) people don't get confused.

a reply to: Irishhaf

For what reason are you testing? To kick them off benefits or get them help? Which drugs are you kicked off for? If you were at a family party can you drink someone's wine? If you are in a legal marijuana state can you smoke a friend's joint?

How much are we just trying to control people?

What if I was an engineer, got cancer, and am going bankrupt? Can I use marijuana if it's medically legal? I don't know man it just sounds like philosophically lthere is no reason to control someone's liberty no matter what income level they are at. After all the government t itself is responsible in some cases for the injustice that led to financial ruin. Like forcing industry out with high taxation.

For instance what if my cheating ex takes me to the cleaners in the family courts (not exactly due process) and the judge decides he believes her sob story. The case is dragged out no lawyers are provided in family court unless you come up with a sob story for an advocacy group or qualify financially. Even then it's rare. So instead of winging it you get a lawyer for 250 an hour. Your job is also laying off all the engineers. Moving to China.

Meanwhile she wins takes you for all you got and you have 50k in legal fees.

Sure it's my problem if thats me (thank God it's not)

Now I get to be treated like I am on parole by the gov too?

a reply to: luthier

If its legal then no it shouldnt even be tested for. (you can achieve this by not writing zero tolerance laws)

I understand the desire to test people and punish them, worked at a convenience store in a ghetto type area...and I saw a lot of what gets people bent out of shape over welfare.

Man and woman living together, not married driving around in a high dollar suv while getting 1600 a month in food stamps.

While E-1's and E-2's in the military have a ton of trouble getting any assistance (E-1 makes less than 20k a year before taxes).

There are abuses, some quite significant and folks rarely get caught... folks want that stopped, forcing everyone to be tested was a bad idea period.

Testing a few people ever quarter is not a significant hardship for the tax payer, and can still achieve what backers want... Personally I would rather see a go through rehab or lose your benefits approach.

a reply to: Irishhaf

People abuse the system...yes, however the system does more good than harm.

Perhaps if it were easier to trap someone who was abusing it then that would make everyone happy bc we do not want to take away or force drug tests to those who its working for.

Maybe we could take the money that would normally go into drug testing and put it into setting up a new platform...a website to take leads from anonymous... then a system of private investigators (just an example) to catch those who are abusing. For example, if one is collecting unemployment bc they cannot walk, too much pain to work, then the PI catches them bending over working in their garden and mowing the grass multiple times...then ... I dunno...mark them as abusing the system and do what you do...take away benefits, have a hearing...I don't know, but that is the problem, the abusers. Not poor people in general.