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.

 

Neb. bill would tie welfare benefits to drug tests

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I have been saying this for years.

Why should my tax dollars go to someone's drug habit?

Caviat-

I am all for legalization. The government shouldn't have influence over what I put into my body or the decisions I make about my health as long as it doesn't directly effect another citizen. I'm informed. If I want to smoke tobacco, I pay the tax of years of life. I shouldn't have to pay a monetary tax on the tobacco I smoke. If I don't want to wear my seat belt thats my problem. Am I going to kill an innocent person as I'm flying through the windshield? Likely no.

Since I've started paying taxes I've had an issue with welfare in general. It serves a purpose, for a period. As long as something is subsidized, you will continue to get more of it. Provide opportunities, not handouts. Welfare should be drug tested, have a maximum payout of three years (with monthly proof of active employment seeking), and allow the funded birth of one child during the duration of coverage. If you don't like the regulation, you're free to get off welfare.

Any public welfare should be closely monitored and limited.

If you can't find a job, the Army is always hiring- food, house, and health care included.




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
I have been saying this for years.

Why should my tax dollars go to someone's drug habit?

Caviat-

I am all for legalization. The government shouldn't have influence over what I put into my body or the decisions I make about my health as long as it doesn't directly effect another citizen. I'm informed. If I want to smoke tobacco, I pay the tax of years of life. I shouldn't have to pay a monetary tax on the tobacco I smoke. If I don't want to wear my seat belt thats my problem. Am I going to kill an innocent person as I'm flying through the windshield? Likely no.

Since I've started paying taxes I've had an issue with welfare in general. It serves a purpose, for a period. As long as something is subsidized, you will continue to get more of it. Provide opportunities, not handouts. Welfare should be drug tested, have a maximum payout of three years (with monthly proof of active employment seeking), and allow the funded birth of one child during the duration of coverage. If you don't like the regulation, you're free to get off welfare.

Any public welfare should be closely monitored and limited.

If you can't find a job, the Army is always hiring- food, house, and health care included.


They already have a five year limit and a requirement to prove you're job hunting.

What I found out is that it prejudiced potential employers against you. I had to get the manager to sign on a paper stating that I turned in an application. The managers would immediately start in on people applying just to keep their benefits. They'd see the sheet and immediately judge the applicant as lazy, thus making it unlikely that the applicant would get hired. I had a manager almost hire me, but then he saw the sheet I was holding and changed his mind, but at least he signed the sheet first. I was a hard working student in school and even had 100 average in algebra my entire freshman high school year, yet I was labeled a lazy bum because no one would hire me. Well gee, if someone hired me so I could work, then maybe I wouldn't be unemployed. Duh....!

Yes, take a single mother and force her into the army and put the kids into foster care for years. Yes, that will have no psychological effects on her or the child(ren) whatsoever...
A large portion of the women on welfare left abusive homes. So, a battered wife now has more hurtles thrown at her than society threw at her before.

Right now it's an employer's market, and will probably remain that way. Most employers want employees who can work open availability, especially nights and weekends. Day care is typically open 6am to 6pm M-F. So, who's supposed to watch the children while mom is working nights and weekends?? Many mothers don't have any family, etc to help them with child care. The system is set up for them to fail. There are little to no opportunities right now for people to have a job.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


No force involved, only choice.

God forbid anyone choose to serve the nation that has so graciously provided for them in a time of need.

My question is, why should I subsidize the bad decisions of others?

Though times are universal. You can pull yourself out of tough times. I'm all for helping people out when they need it. I donate to worthy charity. I'd have more to donate if it weren't for government mandated donations to questionable and/or downright objectionable causes.

The problem with government charity is that it perpetuates corruption and exploitation. The ten people I help who are legitimately on welfare are negated by the one drug dealer that my money goes to.

Why should I pay for someone to have cable TV, an iPhone, and a new car when I can't afford these things for myself? Surely not everyone on welfare acts as such, but that one person ruins it for everyone else.

Why should I pay for those who refuse to bend down and grab their boot straps?

Do we even wear boots in this country anymore?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
See that's the thing though, this is something on a state level. A state matter, something the federal government has no hand in. Nor should they have a hand in regulating this. If they put this to a vote in Nebraska and the people approve of it, then it's their choice.

I agree that anyone that receives public money should be drug tested, as well as alcohol testing and continual oversight of their spending etc. Maybe if we can get leeches off of the public teat then they'll either actually try and make something of themselves or die off. I have no problem supporting truly disabled individuals but if you're to stupid or have to many kids, you made your bed, you lie in it.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I can understand where this would seem like a good idea but in reality it does more harm then good.

Working in the human service field I can see that its the children that suffer from a bill like this. If the parents are on drugs they are addicts and will not stop due to a test. Most likely they will lose benefits and the children are the ones who go without food and proper nutrition becuase these adults will still use and be largely unaffected by the punishment.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by Fingersoup
All I can say is "Thank God!" I hope this catches on to disability recipients too. I am so sick of paying for my fellow Americans (most of which are perfectly able to work) to sit around on their butts all day getting high while I'm busting my ass at work.

I'm speaking of something I witness first hand every day not in generalities.

If you want to get high for recreational purposes then that is your own prerogative - I'm a live and let live type guy as long as it don't hurt anyone else - but Not on my tax dollar!


So, if someone is on disability because he/she is dying of cancer or some other type of painful ailment, you would want them cut off because they use drugs to cope with the pain?

Some disabled veteran wants to take a swig of whiskey and you'd want to cut him off?



No they would more than likely be on pain management paid for by the state. (you and me) - they wouldn't need to use recreational drugs. Where would you draw the line at recreational vs. medically beneficial? - I'm sure everyone would have their own opinion about that. Hell we can't even get people to agree med marijuana is beneficial because of plain old igornace and the stigma from of all those years of negitive propaganda. - Not going to turn this into a pro med marijuana thread.. back on topic:

I should of clarified, You want to take a chunk of my money for assistance, it better be for assistance - not so you can lay around and abuse drugs. ---

Does that seem more fair? --- It's not an attack on people for what they choose to do with their body, it's simply me not wanting to be forced to pay to enable their irresponsibilty - no one is forcing them to take assistance but with the assistance should come accountability.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
To all those out there knocking this idea to test, heres a wake up call.

I work every single day with Medicaid and Medicare. I have myself over 200 clients that I over see, and ill tell you right now that 55 percent of them are just using the system, and self medicating with marijuana and other hard drugs. Yes, alcohol is bad Im all for testing them for that to, they must be sober. I do agree that the gov shouldnt be in every facet of our lives, but if you are going to have them there, put them somewhere that will actually help people and cut spending. The people who honestly need these services wont be affected by it, those that are using it will be cut out..or the majority at any rate, saving us billions.

These people are using ever facet of the system that they can, milking their needs, and playing it up as far as they can get it. The extra money goes to feed the drug habit. What they DONT get, they use the system that buys their high dollar pain meds, and they SELL those on the streets to other people, including YOUR kids.

These people arent incapable of working, they just chose not to. Why work when uncle sam will put you up in an apartment, with your utilities paid, a food bank down the road, money in your pocket for drugs, and a food stamp card? Who needs to work?

Im all for this plan, I watch our tax dollars fly out the window like candy at a parade every day. And theres nothing we can do about it till it is fixed, you think its bad now, wait till Obama gets his way with this new plan.




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Got my support. And while we're at it can we figure out a way to not reward welfare single moms producing extra children to gain more money per month? It's a sensitive area but it needs some attention.


There have been caps on this for about two decades now. Any new children do not get added to the cash case.

So much for not having stereotypes and preconceived notions.



In the bill that Obama signed shortly after being inaugurated, the bail out bill that no one read? Well, he reversed Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Act. Fact.

He is spending more money on Welfare now, than ever before. Women *do* get WIC increases for every child they have. It's been over a year now since the bill was signed and the Welfare Reform Act was undone. Shame not more people know this.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Buried within the stimulus bill rammed through Congress by President Obama and the Democratic leadership are measures that dismantle the momentous 1996 welfare reforms and create a massive new infrastructure of dependency. According to Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, who played a critical role in crafting the landmark legislation passed 12 years ago, the stimulus bill would increase welfare spending by close to $800 billion over 10 years, about $22,500 for every poor person in the United States and more than $10,000 for every family paying income taxes. Worst of all, it contains a new mechanism that virtually insures welfare spending and caseloads will rise in the future.




www.roadtothemiddleclass.com...


T IS CRUEL, Mr. President. It is corrupt. It is wasteful, it is unjust. And it is delusional.

What I am talking about? I am talking about the reports from Benjamin E. Sasse and Kerry N. Weems, Mickey Kaus and from Robert Rector that your stimulus bill is repealing welfare reform.

All reports agree that the provisions in the bill that remove incentives to the states to reduce welfare caseloads will result in expansion of welfare programs. The bill will result in a return to the status quo ante 1996. And that is wrong.

I think it is fair to say that nowhere, Mr. President, did you say that you would be turning back the clock on welfare reform. I am talking about the rotted, dysfunctional welfare system that had been a national scandal for 30 years before President Bill Clinton signed off on the landmark reform bill in 1996.



www.openmarket.org...


The stimulus package will gut welfare reform even more than previously feared. That’s the conclusion of Mickey Kaus, a moderate Democrat who now appears to regret voting for Obama. The stimulus package will reward states that promote welfare dependency, even more than federal subsidies did before the 1996 welfare reform law, and reduce economic growth.


www.heritage.org...


A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.




Actually, it is up to the states to decide how much new mothers will get for welfare babies. Just know this, they get funding of 4$ for every 1$ they spend. Why not encourage it?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fingersoup

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by Fingersoup
All I can say is "Thank God!" I hope this catches on to disability recipients too. I am so sick of paying for my fellow Americans (most of which are perfectly able to work) to sit around on their butts all day getting high while I'm busting my ass at work.

I'm speaking of something I witness first hand every day not in generalities.

If you want to get high for recreational purposes then that is your own prerogative - I'm a live and let live type guy as long as it don't hurt anyone else - but Not on my tax dollar!


So, if someone is on disability because he/she is dying of cancer or some other type of painful ailment, you would want them cut off because they use drugs to cope with the pain?

Some disabled veteran wants to take a swig of whiskey and you'd want to cut him off?



No they would more than likely be on pain management paid for by the state. (you and me) - they wouldn't need to use recreational drugs. Where would you draw the line at recreational vs. medically beneficial? - I'm sure everyone would have their own opinion about that. Hell we can't even get people to agree med marijuana is beneficial because of plain old igornace and the stigma from of all those years of negitive propaganda. - Not going to turn this into a pro med marijuana thread.. back on topic:

I should of clarified, You want to take a chunk of my money for assistance, it better be for assistance - not so you can lay around and abuse drugs. ---

Does that seem more fair? --- It's not an attack on people for what they choose to do with their body, it's simply me not wanting to be forced to pay to enable their irresponsibilty - no one is forcing them to take assistance but with the assistance should come accountability.


The state medical assistance often doesn't pay for pain meds that would actually treat the pain. It's like taking sugar pills for the little good it does. Like the doctor giving advil for severe pain?? They don't pay for narcotics oftentimes.

I remember after my surgery (hysterectomy) they wouldn't approve my pain meds. I had to find a way to pay for it out of pocket. Most people on assistance don't have it. I had money left over from student loans.

Alcohol is not illegal to use.

I don't use any illegal drugs at all and never have. I always saw them as weak for taking illegal drugs. I was in physical pain every single day without relief because the aleve and other over counter stuff wouldn't help. My husband beat me really bad during one particular beating and left me with neurological problems. He got away with that too, being a government employee and all. Businesses have deemed me too unworthy to hire and the government deems me not disabled enough for disability. lol But now economy is even worse and there are not enough jobs for everyone. I guess they're meant to be homeless and starve to death. So much for mercy.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


There is also state funded child care. Lots of it. Up to age 26 if the child is disabled or has special needs. Up to 13 otherwise.

Then, they have afterschool programs, too.

Surely, if you tired hard enough, you could find other moms in your area that would gladly trade two days of weekday childcare for two days of weekend childcare.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, rather than making excuses there are no ways at all.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
I don't agree with this why target one portion of the population. Not all on welfare are lazy some had circumstances that are beyond their control. My sister was fired from a job and she is 8 months pregant. She worked hard for 8 months and had to apply for welfare to get by.
Not all poor people do drugs. The people who do the most drugs are those who have the money to afford it so let's drugs tests all the rich as well!


Then she wouldn't have anything to worry about if she isn't doing illegal drugs, right? So why all the concern?



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Got my support. And while we're at it can we figure out a way to not reward welfare single moms producing extra children to gain more money per month? It's a sensitive area but it needs some attention.


There have been caps on this for about two decades now. Any new children do not get added to the cash case.

So much for not having stereotypes and preconceived notions.



In the bill that Obama signed shortly after being inaugurated, the bail out bill that no one read? Well, he reversed Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform Act. Fact.

He is spending more money on Welfare now, than ever before. Women *do* get WIC increases for every child they have. It's been over a year now since the bill was signed and the Welfare Reform Act was undone. Shame not more people know this.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Buried within the stimulus bill rammed through Congress by President Obama and the Democratic leadership are measures that dismantle the momentous 1996 welfare reforms and create a massive new infrastructure of dependency. According to Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, who played a critical role in crafting the landmark legislation passed 12 years ago, the stimulus bill would increase welfare spending by close to $800 billion over 10 years, about $22,500 for every poor person in the United States and more than $10,000 for every family paying income taxes. Worst of all, it contains a new mechanism that virtually insures welfare spending and caseloads will rise in the future.




www.roadtothemiddleclass.com...


T IS CRUEL, Mr. President. It is corrupt. It is wasteful, it is unjust. And it is delusional.

What I am talking about? I am talking about the reports from Benjamin E. Sasse and Kerry N. Weems, Mickey Kaus and from Robert Rector that your stimulus bill is repealing welfare reform.

All reports agree that the provisions in the bill that remove incentives to the states to reduce welfare caseloads will result in expansion of welfare programs. The bill will result in a return to the status quo ante 1996. And that is wrong.

I think it is fair to say that nowhere, Mr. President, did you say that you would be turning back the clock on welfare reform. I am talking about the rotted, dysfunctional welfare system that had been a national scandal for 30 years before President Bill Clinton signed off on the landmark reform bill in 1996.



www.openmarket.org...


The stimulus package will gut welfare reform even more than previously feared. That’s the conclusion of Mickey Kaus, a moderate Democrat who now appears to regret voting for Obama. The stimulus package will reward states that promote welfare dependency, even more than federal subsidies did before the 1996 welfare reform law, and reduce economic growth.


www.heritage.org...


A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.




Actually, it is up to the states to decide how much new mothers will get for welfare babies. Just know this, they get funding of 4$ for every 1$ they spend. Why not encourage it?



I hadn't heard of Obama signing something like that. Where can I read up on it?

Here in KY, there is still a five year limit. I used mine up years ago. I been trying to find a job again. Briefly had one. I'll need to move out of this state after my final semester of college because there's just no jobs here. I lost touch with most people I went to college with over the years because most had to move away to find jobs. I deal with depression a lot (with no meds because I don't like meds) because I've been so long without employment and I'm constantly scared that my ex will become a deadbeat again (he doesn't like paying cs) and I'll have no rent money and become homeless yet again. I've been homeless three times now. Once when I left him (he was extremely violent) in 1995 and in 1996 and in 2008 after the fire. Two times were in the winter too. Not fun to endure. At least the recent episode I had insurance and they gave me $600 right away to find alternative shelter and I got my apartment a few days later. In 1995 I was homeless while pregnant and ended up forced back with him when a blizzard hit Jan 1996 and dumped a few feet of snow on the town. Then I left again after baby was born and was homeless again for the second time, but that was in summer, and I had a car to sleep in, until he found it and took it from me.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by dreamseeker
I don't agree with this why target one portion of the population. Not all on welfare are lazy some had circumstances that are beyond their control. My sister was fired from a job and she is 8 months pregant. She worked hard for 8 months and had to apply for welfare to get by.
Not all poor people do drugs. The people who do the most drugs are those who have the money to afford it so let's drugs tests all the rich as well!


Then she wouldn't have anything to worry about if she isn't doing illegal drugs, right? So why all the concern?


Some legal drugs produce false positives. Would they really believe her if the tests were a false positive??



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


When they perform a drug test, they ask you to disclose all medications taken prior to the testing. There are reasons for this, such as fals positives, as you pointed out. These things are accounted for, it isn't as pure cut as that.

I have had to take drug tests for pre-employment screening, and they do ask. I am also sure that just as there is an appeal process for losing welfare benefits, or food stamps, there will be an appeal process for this, as well. Perhaps providing proof of prescription medications from a physician, etc.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 




I hadn't heard of Obama signing something like that. Where can I read up on it?


I provided 5 links in the post, and you can google for the information.

I am sorry to hear about your situation, I know it is a painful and difficult one to be in. I was also in an abusive relationship, and managed to get away. Thank goodness I was not married, and it didn't involve children.

I do have a daughter, and my grandaughter. She was in an abusive marriage and she left. She managed, barely, but she did. It wasn't easy, and no one said it was. She now has a new husband and they both make 78k a year plus, so I am quite happy for that.

Only for a short time did she have any government support though, even as bad as it was for her. She lost her home, and almost lost her child to chiild welfare services. She too was depressed over losing the father of her child, and the failed marriage, but I taught her to use the anger she felt to focus on herself, to fight to be better because it was the best paybacks she could get on him. She did, and it worked.

Everyones' situation is different, but I do agree that I see too many women with coifed hairdo's, salon nails, hair extensions, nice clothes, better cars than I have - spending their government checks and foodstamps. It really makes me angry.

I am all for helping people in need. People, like I outlined above, are not in need, they are in greed. It becomes a way of life for some.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


There is also state funded child care. Lots of it. Up to age 26 if the child is disabled or has special needs. Up to 13 otherwise.

Then, they have afterschool programs, too.

Surely, if you tired hard enough, you could find other moms in your area that would gladly trade two days of weekday childcare for two days of weekend childcare.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, rather than making excuses there are no ways at all.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Libertygal]


Around here there is a long waiting list to apply for child care because of lack of funding. Then you get called to apply, and then you go to another waiting list for the assistance.

People who left domestic violence situations are usually isolated from other people. What do you do, walk up to a single mom and say 'hi, I'm on welfare looking for a job and I noticed you are a single mom too and so I was wanting you to watch my kid on your days off' ???

And then the employers have to be willing to set the schedules to work around both the moms' schedules??? Since they weren't willing to give you a job working just weekdays during child care hours, why would they be willing to go through all of THAT trouble for you when it's even MORE trouble than that which they wouldn't do??? They want you to be able to be scheduled any time, 24/7, total open availability, and they aren't going to let you only be available two or three days a week so that you can swap babysitting jobs with another single mom. When I first moved out here to KY, I didn't know anyone, and I had no one to watch my daughter. I bypassed the childcare waiting list because I got KTAP and went to college like I was ordered to (since all businesses turned me down for employment). How you going to get a job with no babysitter lined up already?? They ask during interviews. How do you line up the babysitter when you don't know anyone and you don't even know if you'll ever have a job?? I got to KY in May 99 and searched for a job for months and finally had to be forced back into college due to welfare reform and lack of money to pay rent. So now I'm over $100k in student loan debt because no one would give me a job so I could avoid going back to college. It became a vicious cycle. Employers would want open availability, which I couldn't do, so back for another semester of college. Then I used up the five years and also graduated with a worthless degree in a field which already was glutted with people and then the employers said I was "overqualified" when I applied at fast food and retail places. All efforts I put out to find employment were worthless because I still didn't get a job.

I don't have friends where I live. I made friends briefly at the college, but they graduated and moved away to find jobs. I still have a semester left, but there's no jobs in my field. I'm only going at this point to get the financial aid money since I cannot find employment, but this is my last semester for that either way, so I may be homeless yet again by the end of the summer.

Employers around here want you to be able to work ANY shift that they need you for at that time and you usually only find out days in advance what you are to work. My mom often gets scheduled for a few days at a time and then they change it and call her in. That's the way employers are around here. You show up when they tell you to, and if you can't, then they have thousands of other unemployed people to replace you with. That is the reality.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 




I hadn't heard of Obama signing something like that. Where can I read up on it?


I provided 5 links in the post, and you can google for the information.

I am sorry to hear about your situation, I know it is a painful and difficult one to be in. I was also in an abusive relationship, and managed to get away. Thank goodness I was not married, and it didn't involve children.

I do have a daughter, and my grandaughter. She was in an abusive marriage and she left. She managed, barely, but she did. It wasn't easy, and no one said it was. She now has a new husband and they both make 78k a year plus, so I am quite happy for that.

Only for a short time did she have any government support though, even as bad as it was for her. She lost her home, and almost lost her child to chiild welfare services. She too was depressed over losing the father of her child, and the failed marriage, but I taught her to use the anger she felt to focus on herself, to fight to be better because it was the best paybacks she could get on him. She did, and it worked.

Everyones' situation is different, but I do agree that I see too many women with coifed hairdo's, salon nails, hair extensions, nice clothes, better cars than I have - spending their government checks and foodstamps. It really makes me angry.

I am all for helping people in need. People, like I outlined above, are not in need, they are in greed. It becomes a way of life for some.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Libertygal]


Yeah, I saw a lot of those types in the welfare workshops I was required to do. Some of the stuff I saw...

I moved out here originally because my dad insisted that there were jobs everywhere. Yeah, there were jobs back then, but no one would hire me for what I was limited to working with the child care hours. And my dad was violent to my daughter because she's bi-racial. He had never wanted me to give birth to her (wanted her aborted). He actually tried to get me to put her up for adoption and would, in front of her, constantly go on about when will I get rid of that kid. My daughter is really messed up these days and years of therapy haven't helped.

Needless to say, my dad and I don't get along.

I often regret moving out here. I was too weak minded after all I went through to get away from my ex though and was recovering from a nervous breakdown, so I wasn't in best decision making ability.

btw, I was wanting to find the actual bill on the gov website, but I guess I didn't make myself clear lol. I'll try searching it down later. I just assumed you knew the bill already is all.

[edit on 1/16/2010 by Jessicamsa]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
When you apply for a job with a lot of companies, you have to undergo drug screening.

At any time during your employment with some companies, you may be asked to take a drug screen.

When you have an accident on a lot of job sites, you have to undergo mandatory drug screening.



If you apply for welfare or food stamps, you have to undergo a drug screening.

To stay on welfare or food stamps you have to undergo routine drug screening.

How are these things any different from what we voluntarily subject ourselves to? No invasion of privacy here. If you want to be employed by We The People, then pass the drug screen. If you can't, don't bother to apply.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Wow, a person is too poor to afford meds, self medicates and is punished by the government for trying to survive. I'm sure rich people love this bill.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 



btw, I was wanting to find the actual bill on the gov website, but I guess I didn't make myself clear lol. I'll try searching it down later. I just assumed you knew the bill already is all.


I did misunderstand. It is here:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:h1enr.pdf

and here:

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join