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.

 

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

page: 12
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner...
I'm also surprised the ATS drug nazis let this info get through!

While I think its great for those on welfare to be required a drug test, I disagree for those on unemployment. Many businesses dont drug test, not even randomly, mostly businesses in business, and you know how many there are of those.
If someone lost a job, then whatever, they should get unemployment regardless. But to impose it onto people who are just living their lives like everyone else is silly.
Those on welfare aren't contributing much and yeah, they shouldn't be buying the drugs in the first pace, I say go for it.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

Can you all not see why people are upset by this?


No, I cant. Show me some data. Show me some numbers that outline how many of these welfare recipients are;

1) staying on welfare for long periods. (more that 2-3 years)
2) using drugs
3)how giving up the little protections we have left regarding unreasonable searches is worth getting revenge for the 1% of my tax dollars welfare costs me.


Have you ever heard the saying "cutting off your nose to spite your face?"

Thats what setting legal precedents that undermine our Constitutional protections simply out of spite do. You end up cutting your own throat because you believe the propaganda about how the poor are ruining everything instead of looking at the actual numbers. We all know people who are cheating the system. Personal examples are not necessarily indicative of general trends.

Show me the data that tells me I am currently losing more than my freedoms are worth, and I will set fire to the Constitution with the rest of you.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you are on welfare, how would you afford illegal drugs?

Just how many people that get welfare, can buy that stuff when they need food, and other things.

Can there really be that big of a problem of welfare people on drugs.


um... that's actually the point of the law. If you can afford meth, coke, pot, prescription abuse etc, you obviously don't need welfare, do you?

Kick the drug addicts off, I am 100% with this! .. It will leave welfare open only to those honest people down on their luck, not the leeches of society.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bloodcircle[/i

Lol, yeah those scumbags should be punished for being unemployed.. How fair is it that they are living like kings while us hard working folk sacrifice our lives for them....

How do you expect people to LOOK for work, if theyre picking up your trash?

This threads an eye opener...


I was referring to people who are habitual welfare receivers, not people who have lost their jobs and take advantage of unemployment insurance.
There is a big difference. Unemployment is not welfare. It's amazing to me that people don't know the difference, so, yes, this thread is an eye opener to me as well.

People who are on unemployment know when it is going to run out, and most times will actively seek employment and find another job before it even runs out, where there are some people who permanently make their living collecting welfare.

No, it isn't the fault of some people that they end up on welfare, and if they need it to support their family, wonderful. I have a problem with people who feel they are entitled to collect if for years on end, or for life.

Oh, and thanks for the insult about my having a swastika hanging on my wall. Unfortunately, it wouldn't do well there on my wall, past the mezuzah hanging on my doorway.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Blanca Rose]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Ya it amazes me to, that people think unemployment is welfare or public assistance. Both you and your employer have to pay premiums and you have to file a claim. UI is a huge scam anyways as they take in far more money than they pay out each year. Mandatory drug testing of any kinds is a human rights abuse.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

No, it isn't the fault of some people that they end up on welfare, and if they need it to support their family, wonderful. I have a problem with people who feel they are entitled to collect if for years on end, or for life.



Well, there just arent actually that many people staying on welfare for life. Thats known as "propaganda."

www.apa.org...




Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.


Notice the correlation between education and staying on the dole? Is that because they are just lazy worthless people? Or because it is hard to find and keep a job that pays a decent wage without education in this country?

Our country is currently being run into the ground by the most privileged and highly educated people in America. They are increasing your tax burden enormously. And people here want to continue to chip away at our Constitutional rights to spite people over the 1% of your tax dollars that goes to support the poor. Only some of whom are "gaming the system."

Do you not see anything wrong with that at all? I dont hear any calls for our politicians and bankers to be drug tested. Even though the way our economy has been run off the road indicates someone was driving under the influence of something.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Just one thing to add, the moralistic view is one of the KEYS to conservatism, dont forget that. And being that the issue IS your money, this is a plan that you should be for, considering its YOURS and MY money it would be saving from being blown on either drugs, or enabling the people that abuse them


Market based moralism is what my conservatism is based on. If it is good for my bottom line, then it is good for the economy. If the economy is good then people like Patria Friedman will continue to invest in things like the longevity project, and Sea Steading .

Yes I agree moralism is key to conservatism. However, it should be relevant to today's situation. What most people try to pass off as moralism today is nothing more than fundamentalist fear based reactions to the unknown.

We need to exercise our freedoms to create true diversity of peoples and cultures in order to create a sustainable economy.

That my friend, is the conservatism I speak of. Not the false conservatism of dead religions.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Well, there just arent actually that many people staying on welfare for life. Thats known as "propaganda."


Uh huh. I included people being on it for years. I consider 4 years, being on it for years. Also a flaw to the study is it is general. Try living in one of the two poorest states, and you will think differently. Where I lived, there are people I know who are able bodied, but have remained on welfare for at least a decade. Also, they now have children who repeat the pattern by having children out of wedlock. Also in said state, the local churches are packed on sunday in some areas, because telling people how to receive benefits is part of the sunday service!

Thanks for the information, though.


Notice the correlation between education and staying on the dole? Is that because they are just lazy worthless people? Or because it is hard to find and keep a job that pays a decent wage without education in this country?


I completely agree. That is why it is important for parents of children who collect welfare to be attentive to their children, and not be indulging in drugs. I was not able to afford to send my children to college, but I paid enough attention to them to make sure they had good study habits. They all got scholorships for college, and what wasn't covered, they paid for with student loans. I worked though, raised 4 children on my own without ever being on any type of government program, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I am also a firm believer in the saying, "Where there's a will, there's a way!


Our country is currently being run into the ground by the most privileged and highly educated people in America. They are increasing your tax burden enormously. And people here want to continue to chip away at our Constitutional rights to spite people over the 1% of your tax dollars that goes to support the poor. Only some of whom are "gaming the system."


I don't agree with this at all. If only 1% of people are gaming the sytem, then how is it I know of several people alone who do this? One example of gaming, is women collecting welfare as a single parent, yet who live with a guy that makes 80,000 a year. It isn't just people on welfare messing around with drugs. Like has been mentioned in this thread several times, the whole system needs fixing.


Do you not see anything wrong with that at all? I dont hear any calls for our politicians and bankers to be drug tested. Even though the way our economy has been run off the road indicates someone was driving under the influence of something.


I agree with this as well. People in charge of where our dollars are spent, should be tested also, since they receive their pay from tax dollars! Several people who have responded to this thread have said the same thing.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I agree with this. If people are going to use my taxes to benefit themselves then I want to to know that what little money they are making doesn't go to buying drugs. But it really does not matter because what ever money we will save by kicking people off the welfare ride will only be shuffled into the pockets of corrupt government officials.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Do you require a urine test for drugs when handing out your charity money???



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



I Think they should do drug test before giving bailouts !!!!!!!!!

My concern is that is only to cut expenses from state than prevent drug addiction, they didn't consider that last year.

Like Emmanuel and The mexican savior say: never let a good crisis pass.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

I don't agree with this at all. If only 1% of people are gaming the sytem, then how is it I know of several people alone who do this?


I never posted data about what percentage of people are gaming the welfare system. The 1% is how much of your tax dollars go to welfare.

And I am glad that your kids were bright enough to get scholarships to college. You seem pretty bright yourself. Think there might be a correlation there? Its a bit self righteous to say that "where there is a will there is a way" or "I did it why cant you?" I also grew up poor, and I too made it through college. On my own dime, no scholarship, because being bounced from home to home in foster care tends to make it highly unlikely you will have the kind of grades in school that will lead to a scholarship. You know, all that being pulled out of one school and transferring to another, or being locked in detention home until they get you a new placement. If only my will had been stronger. I am sure I could have willed my way to the kinds of grades during all that upheaval that would have gotten me a scholarship too.

Your life is not everyones life. Your experience is not everyones experience. The average foster child is turned out onto the street at 18 with no real money, a choppy education from all the moving and what not, emotional trauma, and no one to help mentor them. Some of them end up getting pregnant and then on welfare. Clearly because they are just lazy bums wanting a free ride.

I was lucky. My last foster home was a good one. (The only one of many that was) They didnt throw me out when I turned 18, they kept their door open while I learned the ropes of fending for myself. You know, like a parent does. I was also lucky that I was smart. But not everyone has a high IQ. Thats a stroke of genetic luck, not something someone is entitled to pat themselves on the back for. I think it is nasty natured to say "anyone can do it," when clearly some just cant. Have you never met anyone who just wasnt book smart no matter what they did? I have.

I could never change anyones mind who thinks it is a good idea to beg the government to gut our Constitutional protections simply to punish the free loaders among the poor. I know that. Because you dont use your mind to make that kind of judgment. You use your emotional response to freeloading, and then your mind is used after the judgment is made to rationalize why you judged that way.

There is no logic in this call for action. None. It is pure emotion, and it is misguided and will do more harm than good. Much like the emotional response to 9-11 that led to the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Let's all make a "gentlemens bet" on this. It will never pass in any state that is now considering it.

Without a long explanation as to as why. Believe me, this will never pass as law in any state.

The CIA, will as a national security measure, will speak to local lawmakers. The new law, dies. Bet?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I know "sigh", this is common sense proposal that should have been passed along time ago. What they are trying to do is pick up peoples moral and character. Hey if your on welfare or tapayers money because of certain situations and using "hardcore" drugs, its showing that some of these people are not trying to make an effort changing their and their childrens lives. If they are going to enforce this policy, they would think that it would help the people get off their seats and find a job and support their own and I understand that sometimes you can be put in that situation. Now is it going to stop people using from drugs? No. They will lose their assistance and continue to use drugs and "this" society will fall faster below sea level because some people just don't care no matter what happens to them. It will for sure cost the taxpapers lots and lots of money but who can afford it? Its a good deal but their would be more homeless people and starving children. Will it work in California (smile)? No!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I think that this should be done, however it needs to be coupled with a rehabilitation program, because most all of the folks who live in housing projects and/or recieve public assistance have small children, the kids would be the ones that suffer the most if they are cut off from their monthly funds or thrown out of public housing. If the drug testing can accomodate this, it could be a successful way to clean up the programs.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by son of PC
 


I really wish I could say in my gut that you are right...but with all of the laws passed in the last decade for the "safety" or "betterment" of our society, I'm gonna have to say there will be a number of states passing this absurd legislation.

I can think of 13 states that have passed laws that allow medicinal marijuana. So all of those elderly or sick that use the dope will no longer receive their benefits (Medicare/Medicaid) and will be out on the streets. Thank god, my grandparents passed away when it was a much better country. Oh, let's not forget the Social Security that will be affected as well. Yes! Finally the baby-boomers get it in the rear and I won't be paying into a meaningless fund.

I like my lawn to not have any weeds in it. But you know what, speaking from a botanist standpoint, that lawn is unhealthy because it does not have diversity. So damn the land of the FREE and the BRAVE! Round up the druggies, the bums, the homeless. Let the executions begin. And it would only be right that it be on Pay-Per-View. So us more fortunate has the luxury of watching the less fortunate take it in the shorts. Simply amazing at the thoughtlessness that some members have spoken of. Simply amazing.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
Many jobs in this country require random drug testing, so why not welfare and state assistance recipients?


Because it is a human rights issue in that it is meant to be a form of social support to keep a person from falling through the cracks, and it is a given that many people who first apply for assistance, are indeed people with some drug problems or substance abuse.

However this gives Social Assistance a chance to get involved with their life, instead of theme falling through the cracks and becoming a bigger problem to the tax payer, as a result of crime to pay for their food, and then the tax payer is feeding them for free.

Making hungry and cold people in criminals does nothing for people to keep them into society, and out of jail and into crime. Compassion is the key for the day.

If there is any drug testing, everyone in society should have it done, working or not. And drug testing in the US is not allowed in Canada under human rights, unless they are in a position where public safety is an issue.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I also think it is 30 years too late to do this. It's a very good idea and we know why. Does anyone have the percentages on how many people in this nations is on welfare and those who will fail the drug test, you better bet they will lose their housing and funds. We are talking about ALOT of people and children that will go homeless. Where will the state step in for the children? Huh..oh we forgot the cost of drugs testing and its resources. In my opinion they're trying to give the middle class citzens a chance who recently lost their jobs to give assistance to. Move over veteran welfare receivers, we're going to help the needy and not the greedy, true? Yes. But will this become a positive outcome or a nightmare? We will have to wait and find out. And as for California....good luck trying, no rabbit will be coming out of the hat anytime soon..



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
How about if we all say no to the corporate machine drug testing any of us?

What business is it of theres what we do in our free time? Is this China? Or is this the land of the free?

I swear this country is full of stupid ignorant hypocritical people. FREEDOM!!!! Let it ring!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Good, finally I see a ray of light coming from Washington. First bright idea I've seen in years.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join