La Bruzzo wants to drug test welfare recepients...

page: 5
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by BAMstomper
so why not free up money by disqualifying those on welfare who test positive for illegal drugs? It's a government funded program after all...


Ever heard the phrase, "we have bigger fish to fry"? There are many bigger and more crucial ways to shore up finances than spending millions for a program that will only save thousands.


But by freeing up Americans and giving them no hand outs, they will then have to get a job which in turns stimulates the economy.

Tipping point



* The Power of Context: Human behavior is sensitive to and strongly influenced by its environment. As Gladwell says, "Epidemics are sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of the times and places in which they occur."[11] For example, "zero tolerance" efforts to combat minor crimes such as fare-beating and vandalism on the New York subway led to a decline in more violent crimes city-wide. Gladwell describes the bystander effect, and explains how Dunbar's number plays into the tipping point, using Rebecca Wells' novel Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, evangelist John Wesley, and the high-tech firm W. L. Gore and Associates. Gladwell also discusses what he dubs the rule of 150, which states that the optimal number of individuals in a society that someone can have real social relationships with is 150.[12]




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Of course not everyone is on illegal drugs, no one said that. But, it is a place to start. I also think that in addition to drug testing, participants* should also have to prove that they are trying to find work, in order to get assistance.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by gougitousakusha
 


Exactly. It will find mostly only people who use marijuana, a drug far less damaging than alcohol yet somehow illegal. While I agree with this rule to drug test, because many on welfare partake in hard drugs, I think that marijuana should be made legal. But that is an argument for another thread


Way to post this story though, I had never seen it. Keep up the flow of information!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Good chatting! I have to run, though. Some of us have a job, in the morning. I may just post a picture, cleaning toilets, for you non believers.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by thorazineshuffle
 


No you are wrong.

Obesity and those with drivers/gun licenses is a good start!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Nah. The three big costs to US taxpayers are war ("defense" is such a stupid term), tax breaks for the upper brackets, and at the state level, subsidies.

While welfare and social services do take a sizable chunk of the budgetary pie, it's pretty much zero-loss, and by some measures, actually profit. All that money eventually comes back to the taxpayers, as the people using Food Stamps, WIC, and the like, patronize local businesses. That is, people on welfare programs end up reinvesting it. And since most of these programs have time limits (both in terms of how long you can remain in the program and in the sense that monthly allotments are not cumulative) that reinvestment tends to be fast and total. These programs also help support the "working poor," which manages to keep them on the job that much longer and diminishes local debt.

By contrast, the "defense" industry and tax breaks tend to be pure outflow. That money is not reinvested, it's banked, usually outside US jurisdiction in countries that seem to exist solely for such purposes. Subsidies tend to be reinvested with a little more regularity, but still see significant outflow.

Put a cork in the outflow, instead of cutting into the reinvestment cycle. Problem solved.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by BAMstomper
 


See my above post


Also? Good luck getting government assistance if you can't demonstrate either employment or a good-faith effort to gain employment. Just 'cause some New Yorker editorialist is pimping (which is surely an accurate term in this case) the notion that everyone on welfare sits on their asses all day doesn't make it the least bit true.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thorazineshuffle
 


How about those on welfare with mental, biological and physical disabilities? How about those who are 65 years of age and over? Yeah yeah.....lets get em!!!!!

How about the fathers on welfare but taking cash jobs so they avoid paying child support? How about the self employed fathers who keep their businesses in their new wife's names to avoid paying any child support? Or self employed fathers who cook the books?

How about those who are obiese costing the tax payer more than they pay in personal tax? Taking up too many beds in our hospitals.....

How about those who got layed off from work because businesses are shutting down?

I could write a long list but I don't plan on being here all day.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thorazineshuffle

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


I hope it goes through and I hope NJ and Florida and Pennsylvania follow suit, actually I hope the entire united states follow suit!!!!!
Then when the ones that fail the test should have to return all the money back to the states and CS offices and they should be put in jail for fraud and have their children removed. *however if it's just weed I don't think they should have those stipulations, I am talking the real stuff you know heroine, crack, coc aine, meth, those things, personally I don't think pot should be illegal, as it really never killed anyone, all the others have.


Sorry, dude. If it can prevent you from getting a job, you can not exclude it. Besides, it is the gateway drug, from what I've heard.


Yeah that is the biggest fallacy about marijuana, but that is an argument for another thread!

They think this dude's (govenor) harsh, boy they really would hate me if I was governer there in LA, because like you can see in my post I am very very strict!
But to those who say state workers don't get tested~~~~~WRONG!!!! I held a state job we had piss tests at the drop of a hat not mentioning the one you MUST pass to get hired!!!! Also ALL SCHOOL PERSONELL ARE TESTED AS WELL (to whoever made that retarded comment about charter schools?) I know plenty of TEACHERS MY aunt and a cousin ARE TEACHERS!!!!! And furthermore to the totally DAFT person that says "Americans won't scrub toilets" WTF???
I did this for FOUR JOBS!!!!!! PLUS TRYING TO START MY OWN HOUSECLEANING SERVICE LAST YEAR (WHICH INCLUDES SCRUBBING TOILETS MYSELF AS THE ONLY WORKER!!!!) to NO avail because the GD ILLEGALS are taking those jobs and yes they do undercut the price, guess what it isn't just GD jobs they undercut they undercut small business from GETTING OFF THE GROUND!
For a place that denies ignorance I sure see A WHOLE LOT OF IT HERE!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You are spot on....and may I suggest these Welfare receients do put that money back in to the system to keep people employed.

yes thats right folks.....they DO buy food, clothing and other necessities to.....keeps many of us in the retail sector employed!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Of course welfare recipients should be drug tested!!!

If you're on welfare in the first place, you number one priority should be getting a better job, and if a parent, finding a better way to support your family. No one who is getting money handed to them from my pocket should be using drugs. I have no problem with people using drugs in general, it's a personal choice. But make sure you can support yourself before doing so. Giving money to a drug addict is the same as giving beer to a homeless alcoholic. Just makes the situation worse.

Of course people have, or should have the right to put into their bodies whatever they please, as long as it doesn't affect others. Someone on welfare is not currently in a situation where they are able to support themselves. Their only priority should be finding a way too support themselves, as soon as possible. Get their lives in order. In my opinion, this should have happened a while ago, and it's about damn time someone spoke up and said something about it.

No one who is receiving money from others, because they're incapable of supporting themselves, should be able to just go blow that money on drugs.If you have money to spend on drugs, then get the hell off welfare! Not my job to supports your drug habbit, nor will your drug habit help you out of the situation you're in.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You are spot on....and may I suggest these Welfare receients do put that money back in to the system to keep people employed.

yes thats right folks.....they DO buy food, clothing and other necessities to.....keeps many of us in the retail sector employed!

And they are the rudest customers I have ever had the pleasure of waiting on, probably cause they were going too long without a fix that day... I think by keeping a lot of them out of the stores would be a better working place for retail workers. I quit my job at wal mart because of these people!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I quit my job at wal mart because of these people!!!!


...I... you know, I'm just not sure what to say to this.

Congratulations?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Oh, so you asked them if they were unemployed or not?

Let me tell you about Walmart when I was over there......I COULD'NT FIND ANY STAFF for assistance! I found Walmart no different to Kmart here.

I never had a problem with these people, I treated them with the same equal respect and dignity as I would of a gold card Amex holder......but let me tell you that in the past 5 years every person I sprung shop lifting was VERY well dressed and from the "upper class" social spectrum.

I like the welfare recepients....they don't try bartering for a cheaper price like the snobs with more money to throw around.

One day you will find yourself without a job and my bet is you'll see things differently, mark my words on that and that time may come sonner than you think.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


It's nice to see a politician with some balls.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


Ok.........I'll keep that in mind and explain it to my 20 year old son with a severe biological disability that he should have his urine tested for illegal substances. His little friend with CP also.......

And when your parents are over 65 years of age who no one will employ.....can I tell them their own child wants them both tested for illegal substances?

Are you fine with that?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


My bet is they did a better job for less.......

There's aint nothing like some good competition in the market place!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Now to add before I move on......

are any of you aware of the costs involved having every welfare recepient take a drug test?

It would cost MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars when that can go towards more important things.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


When you consider the millions and millions of dollars that are raked in by the government when a person is on Diversion or Probation, like from all of the money spent on UA's, classes, court, etc., I'd say it's really not that much money in comparison. When I was on Diversion for just a minor possession charge, I probably spent a couple thousand of dollars total on all of the expensive fees they charge for every little thing. Take just 1/100th of the amount of money made from a person being on Diversion/Probation, and that's enough for a basic drug test.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Yup, I made that point, actually.

A statewide program that not only covers the expense of screening and supplies, but also the extra bureaucracy, and of course the money needed to fight the inevitable litigation. We're looking at a pricetag of several million.

Also worth considering? These users may have dependents. Which adds a whole new level of cost if we either cut the welfare out, or seek to incarcerate the user (and being Louisiana, I'm sure that'll be the next bill proposed; private prisons are almost as big an industry there as in Texas, after all).






top topics



 
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join