It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

page: 35
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by StigShen

I think that is the problem. I do not see scabs or helpless people.
I see people who may be down on their luck, or made a bad choice.
They need to pick themselves up and get back at it.
I think you may be blurring the line between welfare and unemployment. For this argument, there is a difference.

I have gone from unemployment to foodstamps. I'm a "99er." I made the terrible mistake of extending an old claim rather than filing a new one. I didn't think I would ever max the benefit.

And I know all about picking yourself up and getting back at it. My life hasn't been an easy one by a longshot. If it weren't for my tenacity and drive, I never would have survived this long. And frankly, I don't find fault with anyone just because they don't have the stubbornness that I have. It still doesn't mean they deserve to starve to death.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by macman

I don't want to hear any of your up or shut up!

I just don't get why so many on this board want to target welfare while those on a witch hunt have so much debt they can't even afford to pay it back.

Then I get the likes you alleging you owe no one? YOU DO OWE, and you owe a hell of alot more than a dozen welfare recepients put together.

Lets not target the poor....lets target those who walk around with their little arogant noses in the air flashing around all their latest purchases.....that has'nt even been paid for.

It's cheaper for me in the long run to pay someone on welfare than my next door neighbour who has mountains of debt and continues adding to it just to stay up with the "Jones" next door.

Just remember one day, if a mega event happened and you lost everything.......what if a life/death suituation was taking place and only one person was close by to help your wife, child or your own miserable backside......a welfare recepient!

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by StigShen

I will be back tomorrow. Have a good evening.
I do look forward to debating this with you tomorrow, if this thread is still open.

Cheers. Good talking with you. I will probably be around at some point.

Maybe spend the time to check this out when you get back on. It's 47 minutes long, but I think you might enjoy it. It's probably the most important, educational, eye opening video I have ever seen. This is the real problem. This is why we have welfare in the first place, not because of people's poor choices or bad luck....

Google Video Link

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by macman
Oh, 4th amendment revolves around the courts within criminal proceedings.
I see nothing in there about whether the Govt can or can't require welfare recipients to submit to any request.

The fourth amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Has nothing to do court. It has to do with illegal search and seizure. Drug testing a person with no other motive than their economic standing would violate probable cause. Being poor is not a crime.

edit on 3/20/11 by Hefficide because: bb error and grammatical error

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:17 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5

You just won't stop with looking for scapegoats, won't you?

Instead of looking for others to blame, look at yourself in a mirror.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by bluemirage5

The idea here is to make sure that those receiving the benefits should get them... it appears that any acts of accountability that some want others do not...

This battle is getting drawn along some weird lines...

It is not a hunt on the poor... Especially in Louisiana.... the state was in trouble before the current mess

My own theory is that Louisiana is suffering first from being of a more french flavor.. A different system that lends more towards instability and corruption....

Understand this is very basic observation with NO fleshout added...

Add on to the fact Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the union...

the micro-depression we have entered on top for flavor... Louisiana has been hit hard and will be the most hurt but cuts from the FEDS...

I want to add the regional affects to this conversation... The reason I asked for details solutions have to also have a regional basis added in... We have to also add in Louisiana's view with our own limited knowledge...

The idea I believe is to remove a drain on the economy while at the same time leaving hope for treatment.... The civil rights issue (which I do see) can be handled quite easily protecting the interest of both parties....

I would have to add a clause of no sharing of testing results with other agencies....

The question being asked is would it save money or spend more...

Also of note grants may also be available for the drug treatment from the DEA... ( money for the war on drugs)

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Both WIC and food stamps (the largest "welfare" programs) do this. There are no "cash handouts." Of course, there are also no Cadillac-driving "welfare queens" raking in tens of thousands of dollars by cranking out babies, but just try convincing some quarters of this.

It's just another way to say "uppity"

Also to add with WIC, you can only buy certain types of foods. I believe WIC is more there for making sure babies have formula when needed than giving the mother food with all the restrictions to the type of food, brand of food, and amount you are allowed to buy.

A recipient of food stamps receives a card, which they have to use like a debit card. They get less in food stamps if they have unearned income such as from unemployment and SSI. They receive more in food stamps if they have a job. Why? I was told that they do not deduct for anything with unearned income where they do with earned income.

I would never want the harsh restrictions WIC has placed on the food stamp program. Manly because different people have different tastes. I know kids who are extremely picky eaters. One child I know even refused to eat any type of Mac and Cheese after tasting a brand she was not use to. Before, that use to be one of her favorite foods. Being able to buy some pop, snacks, and yes even sugar adds some normalcy to that family's life. It is not like they get so much that they can buy a huge amount of bad food and not hurt later on especially if that is all the food money that family has.

I do know medical is harder to get, and cash assistance even harder to obtain. I never knew anyone who received cash assistance.

As far as testing, I'm not for this. Yes you may be catching some bad apples, but what about the negative effect it would have on those who are trying to get out of their circumstances? For some, having to get on assistance is one of the hardest things they will ever have to go through. The government pries into basically every aspect of your life from your bank account, your job, bills, to personal information. Besides as others pointed out many employers do random drug tests.

At least in my state, every member in the household who is eligible to work has to
A) have a job
B) be looking for a job
C) loose food stamps all together if you don't meet the A or B requirement.

I was told that the requirement to work was relaxed some due to the recession we are currently going through.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Shamatt

It would just show that you don't have any answers beyond parroting that crap that right wing pundits babble on about.

Good luck though!

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by Mr Headshot

Oh boo hoo.

Why not worry about yourself for a change?

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by macman

Perhaps when you decide to join the rest of us in the real world, you can see exactly why your "logic" doesn't make sense.

It's a war on the poor and the sheeple have turned on each other while the fat cats roll around in our hard earned dough.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by macman

Cut welfare and you'll have crime and people clogging the streets.

But hey, they can just give you a gun and tell you to "clean house" because I'm sure that you're used to jumping by now.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by Hefficide

Exactly. The government has no more right to drug test welfare recipients than they do to drug test people who want their tax refund checks,

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:42 AM
I have to interject here...

on the point of those speaking of 'welfare queens'

I have helped people out of stores that paid with foodstamps...(krooger and walmart)

The one that pissed me off the most was the brand new Lexus... Brand new, she had just bought it....

the runner ups,

where cherry red mustang, BMW with under a hundred miles on it, and a brand new Porsche...

they bragged about it....

They do exist.. it is not a myth...

Not ever person is like this... I also gave a woman a ride from the bus stop because she and her boyfriend had just went shopping.. they had paid with the texas foodstamp card... the lived in a pretty bad area... he had been injured and was waiting on his VA compensation and she worked at a hooters I think... They did it on tips....

I have seen both sides... I also think tighter enforcement would work a lot two.... a whole lot

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by The Sword

Can you reply to anyone without being confrontational? I think i could count on 3 fingers the replies ive seen you post that werent going voraciously at someone just because you dont agree with them.....

Do you need a hug?

As to the OP, having worked in the medicaid and medicare system myself, I can tell you for a fact that of the probably 4000 clients our particular company dealt with , about 75 percent had either a history of drug abuse or were currently abusing drugs......

A system in place that would do random testing would save money, trust me, you cut out the people who sell their meds for THEIR drug of choice, and youll save a lot of money NOT providing an avenue for this person to abuse drugs........

People who have these issues, will sell their food stamps and anything else they can barter to continue to their habit.....

Whether you like to admit it or not its a has nothing to do with class warfare...

If you are going to take my tax money, thats fine, but dont spend it on your abuse of drugs....

People who have an issue with this , probably have issues with drugs themselves.....

Half of you people talking about this subject have never worked in the industry, but you sit their like arm chair experts acting like you know what you are talking about.....

Until youve seen the amount of abuse and waste in these programs, I recommend you get off your moral high ground, quit pretending to be holier then thou, and do your research.......

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by ripcontrol

Gross civil rights violation aside, the program is a useless waste of enormous amounts of tax dollars and resources. If they can afford to spend money drug testing welfare recipients, they can afford to help more people.

If a drug test costs $50, figure that by the end of all the paperwork processing and man hours at the welfare office, each test will probably wind up costing 3 or 4 times that. So let's say that each drug test is actually costing the taxpayer $200. And that may actually be a conservative estimate. Well guess what. I live on $200 a month. That is what I get in foodstamps.

It would make a hell of a lot more sense to add another person to the program, who needs it. Because I know quite a few people who could really use the help, but who have been denied. One woman that I see, she is going to school for nursing, and had to move back into her parents house with her three kids after her husband up and left out of the blue. She was denied any foodstamps or other assistance, because she is living in her parents house.

And even if we took just the cost of the test alone, I'll tell you one thing, another $50 on my benefit card every month would be like a godsend. I might be able to buy things like fruit, fish, orange juice, you know, real luxury items. I'm sitting here half starving, literally suffering from malnutrition that I am sure contributed to my hospital stay last month, yet you are going to blow money on screening my piss?

For what? I am not a drug addict. And so what if I did test positive? Now you are going to spend even more money to send me to some class every week to talk about my addiction, and why I feel the need to do drugs? As if suddenly I am going to decide that druggs r baad, mmmkay? Get real.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

I do volunteer work with the mentally ill, most of whom rely upon public assistance (SSDI, Medicare, and food stamps) to survive. Some have substance abuse issues, others do not.

And, FTR, I don't do drugs and have no history of substance abuse.

One of my neighbors is probably on public assistance, though I do not know for sure. He is a veteran of Desert Storm one and he is disabled and in constant pain. The rumor is that he purchases extra pain pills from some of the neighborhood teens to augment the pills the VA gives him.

How do we discern if he's legally high or illegally high when he picks up his food stamps or his SSI check?

Do we include alcohol in this testing? And would that mean that a poor person couldn't accept the offer of a few beers, from a well meaning neighbor, or risk loosing their benefits?

IMO the economy is in the crapper and the knee jerk reaction of the masses is to blame the poor and disenfranchised - even as most corporations are posting record profits in the midst of a depression.

Trust me man... The guy in the trailer park who's getting high is not bringing down the US of A. It is big business doing it, and they are flat out buying all three branches of the Government, through campaign contributions to allow it to happen.


posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by The Sword

Quite the opposite......don't look for scapegoats among the poor and I'll leave you all alone!!!

I look in the mirror every single day and I like what I see; I'm not the one that targets poor people, just idiots who want to target a horse when it's already down.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by Hefficide

It has nothing to do with blaming the poor guy in the trailer park ......

It does have to do with cutting spending and if cutting people off the system who use it to facilitate their drug use and not have to work and still eat, then so be it.........they dont need to be on it anyway.

Im all for helping people, but im not for enabling the abuse of the sytem....

I would say yes, include alcohol in the testing, if you are abusing a substance , and abusing the system it doesnt only mean narcotics and marijuana......

How do you tell what theyve done? Random testing.......

I understand that people have rough times, but there are other programs to help them as well too with their abuse......

Just because we may feel sorry for people , doesnt make them exempt , people have to be held accountable....if people REALLY want help and REALLY want to do better, we have systems in place to help them.

I have no sympathy for people who abuse the system,and take away from people who are on the system who really need it, and people who use it as a step up, and not an avenue to continue addictive behaviors

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

And that leads us back to the crux of the issue... how to differentiate the bad apples from the good ones. And arbitrarily testing them is a Fourth Amendment quagmire. For the guilty and innocent are all caught up in the same net and tries to sort them out after the fact.


posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:09 AM
I want to make sure I have the basis for most of the views....

More expensive to implement....then any real world profit

a)need to have benefits cut
b)draining more then contributing

it is a class war tactic....

Civil rights encroachment....

does this sum it up

top topics

<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in