Florida governor to impose drug testing on welfare recipients...will get rich out of it

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by saturnsrings

 

Where are your facts to back up that claim?

Google is your friend.

By the way, I know very much history, you apparently don't or choose to ignore it, like I'm going to do with you.

By the way 2...........I voted republican in the last presidential election. The bashing from the right, when they are wrong on so many fronts, gets tiring. When proof is provided to them, they still don't believe it.

If it helps you sleep at night thinking the republicans have all the answers, I'm happy for you. Someday you'll learn the truth.

Have a great day. And if you're at work, please stop stealing your employers time, by posting on their time. Thanks.

reply to post by Vitchilo


FL is getting what it deserves, as is most of the U.S.

It is "stand outside naked barking at the moon" stupid that so many Americans fail to do even the most basic research before voting ... or don't vote at all. A modicum of research would have told any sentient human that this is what these people are all about. But, no. The useful idiots read their bumper stickers, watch their "news entertainment" and thrust out their chest as "proud 'merikans" as the "pull the lever" for another troglodyte.

As many have said, you get the government you deserve. America is getting it now in spades.

The world is marginalizing us as fast as it can as they refuse to permit American stupidity to drag them down to Hell with them.

Proud of my country? This Vet says ... not on your life. Who can be proud of a Nation that let's millions die for want of food, clothing, health care etc. because a handful of uneducated morons can't stand labels defined for them by their slave masters? I'll tell you what kind of Nation ... one that will soon die.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Your interpretation is twisted. If you follow the article back to its origin, you will see the flaw in everyone's replies.

Original Link & Article:
Bill Requiring Welfare Recipients to Take Drug Tests Headed to Governor

Secondary Link & Article:
Welfare Drug Test Bill Heads to Fla. Gov. Scott

HB 353 requires all adult recipients of federal cash benefits — the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — to pay for the tests, which are typically around $35. The screen would be for all controlled substances and applicants would have to disclose any legal prescriptions.

Recipients who test positive for drugs would lose their benefits for a year. If they fail a second time, they lose the benefits for three years. Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.

Why would I want to pay for a drug addict's health insurance? If they are able to kick their addictions, they can ultimately assimilate back into the work force. Once they are able to obtain a full-time job, they can afford to buy their own health insurance.

Short-term this will cost $35 per person; however, the long-term costs to the taxpayer will go down. As more people are able to obtain jobs, by recovering from addictions, they will no longer be on the taxpayer system. Spending a one time fee of $35 to test each person is less than spending $2,000+ for one year of health insurance.

So... What is the conundrum?

reply to post by saturnsrings


Interesting in all of your ranting and raving, you never mentioned one fact that can be proven. Much like your political party. Accusations and name calling are great, but when it comes to facts, those are hard to come by. I'm sorry your not well versed enough in Hisory to understand what political systems are succesful and what ones are not. I'll give you a hint. Socialism doesnt work, or any form of it.

And to educate you further about myself. I hate google. I like books and libraries. They're these big buildings filled with books. Try finding one.

And the recession. Funny you blame it on Bush. Wonder who had control of the House and Senate in 06-08'? Gee I wonder, were they liberal? Yep They were. And to give you a political science lesson, the house and senate determine the budget, not bush. That is why you see the spending increase during those last two years of bush's term opposed to the other six.

Here is a neutral website giving 10 reasons to the recession. Not once did they mention GWB policies.

www.morebusiness.com...

The New York Times(most liberal paper) came up with the top 25 reasons for the recession.
They only listed Bush as number 16.

It sucks to be wrong doesnt it?


P.S. Im on vacation and currently typing from my laptop on a white sandy beach. Thanks for the concern.

As a person who's job is dependent on Welfare recipients I LOVE this idea. Why should my money pay for someone's illegal drugs? I go as far to say that around 50% of the people on welfare don't even need it. I hear people say all the time that it is so hard to get a job. I could go out of my office right now and get a job, and i live in a small town in Texas. If i lived in Houston or DFW getting a job would be no problem at all. Yea i might not enjoy the work but its money.

1 - how often does the governor get tested?

2 - how much opium does Solistic deal?

3 - I will gladly trade you my prescription drugs and walefare money for the right to smoke weed.

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Your interpretation is twisted. If you follow the article back to its origin, you will see the flaw in everyone's replies.

Original Link & Article:
Bill Requiring Welfare Recipients to Take Drug Tests Headed to Governor

Secondary Link & Article:
Welfare Drug Test Bill Heads to Fla. Gov. Scott

HB 353 requires all adult recipients of federal cash benefits — the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — to pay for the tests, which are typically around $35. The screen would be for all controlled substances and applicants would have to disclose any legal prescriptions.

Recipients who test positive for drugs would lose their benefits for a year. If they fail a second time, they lose the benefits for three years. Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.

Why would I want to pay for a drug addict's health insurance? If they are able to kick their addictions, they can ultimately assimilate back into the work force. Once they are able to obtain a full-time job, they can afford to buy their own health insurance.

Short-term this will cost $35 per person; however, the long-term costs to the taxpayer will go down. As more people are able to obtain jobs, by recovering from addictions, they will no longer be on the taxpayer system. Spending a one time fee of $35 to test each person is less than spending $2,000+ for one year of health insurance.

So... What is the conundrum?

edit on 12-5-2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

So, druggies without kids will get their benefits withdrawn for up to 3 years? That's got to be a good thing. The druggie cleans up and gets a job - the drug-test company makes loadsa money - taxpayer saves loadsa money - everyone gains. Thumbs up there. But drug related crime could escalate. Never mind, build more jails with money saved

Druggies with kids will continue recieving all their benefits, but via gran/auntie/pal/whomever. So why bother testing parents if it will make no difference to their benefits? Tests done on these people will be money thrown down the proverbial drain. Money lost here will cancel out any money saved in withdrawn benefits to childless druggies.

It could also encourage a rise in single parent drug addicts who will have a kid solely for the purposes of obtaining welfare. Please let us not be naive enough to imagine some drug addicts wouldn't do such a thing. Addicts will do ANYTHING to get money for drugs. At least this way they won't be burgling your houses for their fix money

Originally posted by LosLobos
They should drug test everyone who gets state money then. I'm pretty sure those Florida CEO's getting welfare checks have piles of coke in their boardrooms.

That I can agree with!

Originally posted by LosLobos

Originally posted by nenothtu


Nor are we the Sugar-Daddy.

So you admit its more of a philosophical issue than a necessity?

Philosophical? How do you get that?

I think the whole damn thing is academic, and there should be NO government sponsored welfare to begin with, neither for the individual nor for corporations. I pay taxes to keep the government running, not to keep the world up.

There is no such thing as "too big to fail", and humanity got along for thousands of years without these ridiculous "social umbrellas" just fine, and was both smarter and stronger for it. We have finally dumbed down to the point that we will kill ourselves with kindness.

Originally posted by jonco6

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by SpectreDC
I hope the people who wade in here arguing this is a good idea can rationalize the cost it would take to do this.

At roughly 45-50$ per test it isn't cheap, and that's only a standard drug test that only covers a handful of substances.

Notice that no one for this so far in this thread can fulfill my request.

No problem. I'll bite.

It said that the testing was to be paid for by the welfare recipient. Even if the government had to partially or wholly subsidize it, 45-50 bucks a test will save money over the totality of the welfare payments a druggie would potentially collect.

Either way, net savings.

now add in the cost the gov will pay in dressing the dead when thoes they kick off cant afford to eat or the cost of the crime rate going up because when people cant afford to eat they get grumpy etc the cost of puting these people in jail your still feeding and clothing them its cheaper to just leave them on welfare untill they can find a job

edit on 12-5-2011 by jonco6 because: (no reason given)

Pay them so they won't kill me? Sorry, I don't play that game. In my neighbor hood, you pays your dime and you takes your chances. Most folks around here know I'll do anything I can for you - as an individual - until you piss me off, then I'll do anything I can TO you.

It works out pretty well. It's a rough neighborhood, but I have plenty of friends in it, and not much trouble at all. Matter of fact, the ONLY trouble I've had here has been from outsiders coming in and, not knowing the drill, thinking they could do as they please.

They managed to learn otherwise pretty quickly though, to their credit.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by SpectreDC
I hope the people who wade in here arguing this is a good idea can rationalize the cost it would take to do this.

At roughly 45-50$ per test it isn't cheap, and that's only a standard drug test that only covers a handful of substances.

Notice that no one for this so far in this thread can fulfill my request.

No problem. I'll bite.

It said that the testing was to be paid for by the welfare recipient. Even if the government had to partially or wholly subsidize it, 45-50 bucks a test will save money over the totality of the welfare payments a druggie would potentially collect.

Either way, net savings.

They will continue to recieve their welfare payments. And now, in addition, the test has to be paid for.

No net savings - Just huge additional expense.

A pointless and very costly law. It serves only one person - the governor.

No, they WON'T.

It said very clearly that someone else will receive the CHILDREN'S payments. Presumably that individual will have to be one who has PASSED the drug screening, so the money will go to the kids, rather than the local crack dealer. I take it from that that the druggie in question will not be receiving their dole, just the kids.

I don't see a problem with that.

If you want to support drug habits, you should start your own - privately funded - drug clinic to pass out the goodies to the junkies.

Now, really, I don't care one way or the other about drug abuse. It's not my problem to decide for other folks how they destroy themselves. At the same time, I feel no particular compulsion to fund their habits for them.

In neither case is it my problem - until they start taking from me. THEN there is an issue to be resolved.

Originally posted by Jrocbaby

Anybody that says how you should live your life and control what you can put into your body, should be put to death, for those are the real enemies of the human race.

Now, I agree with that.

At the same time, anyone who says that you have to fund someone else's habit is no different, no different at all.

reply to post by thehoneycomb
Sir socialism and communism are not the same thing at all. The form of socialism predominant today is Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism supports a socially responsible and well regulated capitalsim where owners make a profit but not at the expense of workers or society as whole. It is a system that works quite well in countries such as Sweeden and Denmark and to varying degrees in all of Europe. It is a system we should try here frankly.

There is a school of thought I lean towards that avers Capitalists actually created Communism as a foil to Socialism. Socialism per se had no "dictatorship of the proletariat" and it was tending toward a democratic evolution. This was the last thing various elites desired and hence chartered the creation of a totalitarian version that they began calling Communism. The creation of Communism and the success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution conflated Socialism into Communism. There was nothing at all democratic about Communism it was a totalitarian top down power structure that only valued the collective and not individuals.But since communists always claimed not only to be socialists but the only socialists the term got a bad rap. So again, Communism and Socialism are not the same.

reply to post by blair56


It isn't that easy for everyone to get a job. It took me over 5 months to get a job that would at least pay half of my bills, and I tried every place imaginable. My problem is that I had 2 dui's and am a high school dropout. Soo, with thousands of people that are looking for employment that don't have any duis and have a high school diploma or a college education will most definitely land a job over me.(dui's and lack of diploma/college ed are used as a process of elimination when reviewing applicants, I used to be a hiring manager I know how all that works) Which I believe was the circumstances in my case. You have to look at it from all angles IMO. Btw, one job actually told me I was over qualified for the position I applied for

Back on the subject, I am all for the drug testing. I myself receive a little assistance. I havn't always been on assistance and I never wanted to be but sometimes things don't always work out like you intended them to. I see many people in my area abusing the system, which pisses me off. I have to take a drug test to gain employment and also to maintain employment. Tax payers shouldn't be footing the bill for capable people abusing the system, a staggering amount use their cash assistance or even sell their food benefits for money get high. I would say that in my region around %50 do not need any assistance, they all make a crap load of money selling drugs. I can honestly say that 8/10 people I know that are on assistance use drugs frequently.

lol it's a good gesture on the government's part but what they don't realize is the chaos that would ensue by kicking a bunch of drug addicts off of welfare!

If they're going to drug test people then maybe they should test EVERYONE..just in case!Who knows how many doctors are doing drugs..right.What if people have died because of some drugged up doctor?Or what if some worker somewhere didn't do his job right because of drugs and sent some product out that hurt someone?

If they're going to do it they should do it everywhere..not just the poor people lol.

The problem with this country is that we are half capitalist and half socialist.

If the government wants to provide, then provide for ALL... otherwise, stop giving out handouts and people might consume and procreate a little less.

reply to post by GodIsPissed


But for the most part taxpayers arent paying for a doctors medical assistance, food assistance and cash assistance, we're not supporting the doctors drug habits, they support it themselves with their jobs, like is the case with many welfare recipients. There is a difference there. But I do agree with you to an extent, anybody whose profession puts the lives of others in their hands should be tested just solely on that principle.

Originally posted by Acetradamus
this is plain retareded unless they test as well for alkohol and nicotin....

im really "befuddled" by the grade of indoctrination ATS ( who should be the least indoctrinated) show...not only in this thread

Errr.... I think the idea is to find out what % ends up on the black market and..... Grow up, the illegal drugs trade destroys a lot of lives and is illegal. Move to Amsterdam mate.

Originally posted by president
1 - how often does the governor get tested?

2 - how much opium does Solistic deal?

3 - I will gladly trade you my prescription drugs and walefare money for the right to smoke weed.

I believe the governor pays tax and is employed.

Opium isn't heroin.

OK, I'm with you on that...... Weed IS very much related to psychosis for prolonged heavy use. Which is exactly how i would describe most weed users I know.

Originally posted by president
1 - how often does the governor get tested?

2 - how much opium does Solistic deal?

3 - I will gladly trade you my prescription drugs and walefare money for the right to smoke weed.

You already have that right.

You have the right to ingest whatever harmful substance your little heart desires.

It appears that you may be confusing "rights" with "legal permissions" which seek to abrogate those rights. The only way such abrogation can occur is by your willful consent.