No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Back in the day the requirements for receiving welfare were more strict.

Actually, no.
AFDC was the 'old' welfare which was done away with in 1996-97 and replaced with TANF:

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF /ˈtænɨf/) is one of the United States of America's federal assistance programs. It began on July 1, 1997 [2], and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act instituted under President Bill Clinton in 1996. The Act provides temporary financial assistance while aiming to get people off of that assistance, primarily through employment. There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods.[3] In enforcing the 60-month time limit, some states place limits on the adult portion of the assistance only, while still aiding the otherwise eligible children in the household.

There were a lot of changes. But notably that AFDC was funded according to caseload, meaning however many people applied and met the requirements determined how much funding was needed. TANF is done by block grant to each state within the guidelines set by congress for qualifying. The emphasis is on WORK...and on reducing out of wedlock births and single parent households, etc.

This reform did increase the amount of recipients in the active work force and has actually decreased case load...53% in the first four years and it has not gone back to the huge numbers it was from 1969 to 1996...but it has not impacted poverty much as far as alleviating it. Now we just have more 'working poor' as opposed to 'non-working poor.'

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

This is in response to the poor thinking of the OP's comments as originally given.
Welfare checks are not a one-time thing. It is a continual drain on the state. So all of those that failed or refused to be tested only cost the state #30 each right?

What would be the average time that a person is on welfare in Florida, a few months, years, a lifetime? Start addding up all of these months where welfare will not be paid on those drug users and I suspect you will come up with a substantial sum that will dwarf the reimbursements to those that passed. Plus, that group of people would be the least likely to eventually get out there find a job and make it on their own.

That maximum that any individual can receive TANF benefits is 60 months (5 years) in their lifetime.
Period.
Some states have opted for shorter time limits.
The money comes from the Federal government via 'block grants' for which the states must qualify according to the program they come up with to distribute the funds. Most have to work in order to get any help at all. Some families only get help for the children and the adults still have to work.

If they don't have money to just get by and have food and utilities...how can they afford drugs?
If they choose drugs over their children, they lose custody of their children through other issues that come up because of the drug use...sometimes permanently.

It's easy to judge if you've always had something to eat and a lighted, heated, place to sleep...not everyone has that luxury (and since when is a NEED a luxury, I ask myself!) and not everyone that does not have it is to blame for being a drug user or a lazy person lacking ambition. There are myriad circumstances but not what most people assume. Most people like to feel as if they are doing SOMETHING...even when they are poor. Without a job, it gets boring enough...with no money and having to worry about every meal it gets downright depressing...add to that a couple of kids looking to you for food, too...how awful could that be? I cannot imagine. I've not had it easy but I've not had it THAT hard, either. Not yet, anyway.

reply to post by zeeon



That post was very loose and fast with logic.

Like I keep saying....if you want to dictate the morality of the people you are giving money to, just don't give money. There is no moral high ground in creating a maze for rats to run through before they get their cheese.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I can see your points on this. To a degree, I have to agree. BUT,(knew that was comingLOL) privacy doesn't trump subsidizing a drug habit/criminal life-style.

Drug checks are these days an excepted part of society, both public and private, being broke or poor isn't a valid reason for exemption, in my view..

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


sorry, but nothing is free. Good behaviour is and should be rewarded. Poor, not! There are people who need help and merit it. They aren't "rats". It isn't a maze and I have should have a say in who and how my tax money is used.
Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem paying for someone's street drugs under the label of welfare.

lol Damn people lie soo much its ridiculous...it was never to save money. I don't know who they think there fooling.

I honestly do not care about the cost of drug testing these people. I get tested on a regular basis, as do many other people who actually work. If I get tested so should all the people that get free checks. I don't care if it's 2% that can't pass the test(I'm pretty sure a national average would be much higher, you can't tell me the same results would come from CA), that small percent isn't getting free money, and I think that's great.

Great thread I was thinking about this the other day and wondering how this played out for florida....I didnt like the idea of the new welfare fla. law in the 1st place and now i am glad it all back fired in their faces

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You know what's weird though Tex, some old dude like my hubby would do it to make ends meet.

Yup. When some of us are willing to cede our rights to the corporatocracy, the rest of us are forced to do the same.

That's not what I meant, I meant he would do a menial job to make ends meet, apparently we live in a world full of enablers now days.

My husbands a good man, they don't make men like him anymore.

reply to post by nwtrucker


reply to post by nwtrucker


Like I pointed out a few pages back....anyone with a child, a balloon, and a desire to try can flub the drug test without issue every single time.

reply to post by RealSpoke

So, 98% of welfare recipients passed the test.

Well when you have a month to prepare (study) for the test how could you fail?

It should be random! If you’re going to accept free money you should be subject to random visits from a welfare official. I WANT it to be an inconvenience and embarrassing!

Back in the day it was embarrassing enough just to be on welfare.

Just an interjection that I did not include in my previous post in this thread.

Posit this... We kick drug addicts off of welfare... a condition that, despite the hyperbole, is not all McMansions and Lincoln Navigators. What then? We, as a nation, tend to ignore that addiction is a disease - we fail to educate ourselves about it. The CDC says:

Many people, including drug users them-selves, have mistaken beliefs about drug addiction and recovery from addiction. Two of the most pervasive myths are that “a person can get off drugs alone” and that “most addicts can become permanently drug-free.” These ideas stem in part from notions that continued drug use is voluntary and that a person’s inability to overcome addiction stems solely from character flaws or a lack of willpower.

Source

So exactly how do we handle the underlying problem? It's not welfare. It's not free money. It is a disease called addiction. If we want addicts off of public assistance then we need better programs to help cure them.

My .02 cents.

~Hefficide

reply to post by Hefficide

Posit this... We kick drug addicts off of welfare... a condition that, despite the hyperbole, is not all McMansions and Lincoln Navigators. What then? We, as a nation, tend to ignore that addiction is a disease - we fail to educate ourselves about it.

We as a nation tend to ignore the fact that it’s always easier to take a free ride than work for a living. Why should my tax dollars support a person who refuses to take personal responsibility? If you've got enough money for drugs then buy your own damn food!!

This whole “disease” thing is a copout IMO. If it’s important to you to receive that assistance then stop using drugs…it’s very simple. You’d be surprised what you can do when you stop making excuses and just man-up!

Originally posted by seabag

We as a nation tend to ignore the fact that it’s always easier to take a free ride than work for a living. Why should my tax dollars support a person who refuses to take personal responsibility? If you've got enough money for drugs then buy your own damn food!!

They are not "your" tax dollars. They are "our" tax dollars - the nations. Claiming them individually is a bit vain, don't you think? I've paid taxes my whole life. I don't consider the US to be MINE. Taxes are our contribution to the society - not charity.

Would you say that a dialysis patient is refusing to take responsibility because they won't make their kidneys function right? Of course not. Unless you've got a PHD differentiating between one disease and another is just stating personal opinion. Which is fine - but at the end of the day it's still just opinion.

Originally posted by seabag

This whole “disease” thing is a copout IMO. If it’s important to you to receive that assistance then stop using drugs…it’s very simple. You’d be surprised what you can do when you stop making excuses and just man-up!

edit on 15-8-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

I sourced the CDC article stating that addiction is a disease. That would be the Center for Disease Control. Again, lacking a specific PHD - I'll defer to their definition.

I'm left wondering if you've ever had to deal with an actual drug addict on a personal level. They usually end up in situations that you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy... and it isn't because they lack fortitude. It is because they are sick and need help.

~Heff

reply to post by RealSpoke


Do you you think drug testing of state, county, and school board employees would survive a cost benefit analysis?

It certainly doesn't pass the 4th Amendment test.

reply to post by Hefficide

They are not "your" tax dollars. They are "our" tax dollars - the nations. Claiming them individually is a bit vain, don't you think? I've paid taxes my whole life. I don't consider the US to be MINE. Taxes are our contribution to the society - not charity.

When I receive my paycheck it’s a deduction from MY CHECK, not the country’s check. I should have a say how MY money is spent. Why don’t I have the option of opting-out of paying for some douche-bag's welfare?

Would you say that a dialysis patient is refusing to take responsibility because they won't make their kidneys function right? Of course not. Unless you've got a PHD differentiating between one disease and another is just stating personal opinion. Which is fine - but at the end of the day it's still just opinion.

You’re disingenuous if you’re comparing a crack head to a person who developed kidney failure.

That’s a bit of a STRETCH, no?

I sourced the CDC article stating that addiction is a disease. That would be the Center for Disease Control. Again, lacking a specific PHD - I'll defer to their definition.

Is this the same CDC that perpetuated the supposed ‘swine flu epidemic’ so they could stick needles in more people? Apparently I’m more skeptical of government agencies that want to put things into my body than you.

I'm left wondering if you've ever had to deal with an actual drug addict on a personal level. They usually end up in situations that you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy... and it isn't because they lack fortitude. It is because they are sick and need help.

Addiction is for people with weak minds. I think people make a CHOICE whether or not they quit a certain habit. If you want to fight for your life and have any willpower at all you will overcome any addiction.

And yes…I was a smoker for 2 decades.

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
When I receive my paycheck it’s a deduction from MY CHECK, not the country’s check. I should have a say how MY money is spent. Why don’t I have the option of opting-out of paying for some douche-bag's welfare?

If being part of society and the concept of contribution to society offends you, there are remedies. Once that money leaves YOUR check it goes into a pool with ALL THE REST OF OUR money and ceases being yours.

As far as options go? Don't pay taxes. Roll the dice.

Originally posted by seabag

You’re disingenuous if you’re comparing a crack head to a person who developed kidney failure.

That’s a bit of a STRETCH, no?

Is comparing cancer to Parkinsons, in a general sense, disingenuous? No. They are both diseases. As is addiction. A disease is a disease is a disease. For the sake of this conversation we need not banter about which may be more tragic, severe, difficult, or treatable. We only need to recognize that addiction is a disease.

Originally posted by seabag

Is this the same CDC that perpetuated the supposed ‘swine flu epidemic’ so they could stick needles in more people? Apparently I’m more skeptical of government agencies that want to put things into my body than you.

Other than some misdirection and unsourced speculation, I see nothing here that counters my initial statement. If you do not have a PHD in the proper fields then my point stands, via the link I provided. If you wish to argue this point - then please do so with sourced, peer reviewed, scientific fact - not opinion.

Originally posted by seabag

Addiction is for people with weak minds. I think people make a CHOICE whether or not they quit a certain habit. If you want to fight for your life and have any willpower at all you will overcome any addiction.

And yes…I was a smoker for 2 decades.

Nicotine addiction is a nasty thing. But it is nothing like addiction to street drugs. You are comparing apples to oranges - and if you refer to the quote I entered earlier - it directly addresses and disputes this entire point - almost verbatim. Your lack of a direct answer leads me to assume that you've never actually had to watch a person slowly dying of drug abuse. It is every bit as pitiful as watching a person die of any other disease.

~Heff

The lack of empathy displayed by posters is disturbing, considering how much America has been raped and robbed by the selfish, politicians, and their corporate & military buddies... if you stack up the money lost to the insanity that is "our" corporate/military dominate oligarchy V.S. the moneys given to feed and clothe poor people and their kids, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We probably spent more on 1 war(pick one) than we will ever spend on feeding and clothing people in the U.S.

Here's to never being hungry.

Oh yea... the MINUSCULE amount of people found to be using drugs were mostly marijuana users.... sooo. NOT crack heads...

Originally posted by BobNoxious
The lack of empathy displayed by posters is disturbing, considering how much America has been raped and robbed by the selfish, politicians, and their corporate & military buddies... if you stack up the money lost to the insanity that is "our" corporate/military dominate oligarchy V.S. the moneys given to feed and clothe poor people and their kids, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We probably spent more on 1 war(pick one) than we will ever spend on feeding and clothing people in the U.S.

Here's to never being hungry.

I was thinking the same thing. It's a scary trend I've noticed as well. People are more than happy to ignore and even justify the suffering of others if they can at least be partially blamed for it. The lack of humanity displayed by such behavior never has and never will make sense to me but then again according to some posters I'm just a weak minded fool unwilling to work hard enough to live comfortably in the monetary system.