No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Maybe years of hardships and having to make my own way have made me a little intolerant, yes, come to my house I will feed you, but you better do the dishes,

You know that old saying when the going gets tough the tough get going.

There comes a time in ones life that they have to help themselves, if they are capable.

edit on 093131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

Damn straight.

Not only do the dishes, but you also better tell me I am the best cook you have ever come across!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


We also consume a wide array of fine chocolates, exotic handblown glassware, pay per view UFC fighting, video games, and are very likely to do jobs that other folks can't handle, because when you are ### it is easier to deal with asshole people.

reply to post by scrounger


I provided sourced scientific information and fact.

You retorted with emotional and self-absorbed ranting.

See how this doesn't help your position? Stomping your feet all you want won't change reality.

~Heff

reply to post by scrounger


I truly fail to see how your lengthy reply actually addressed the points I made.

~Heff

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by okyouwin

 

They are a threat to capitalism. They spend very little on things other than music and are more nature driven. Why do you think the hippies were disliked so much in the sixties. They weren't hurting people that much but weren't stimulating the economy.

Hey, hey hey, I resemble that remark.
youtu.be...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Maybe years of hardships and having to make my own way have made me a little intolerant, yes, come to my house I will feed you, but you better do the dishes,

You know that old saying when the going gets tough the tough get going.

There comes a time in ones life that they have to help themselves, if they are capable.

edit on 093131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

Damn straight.

Not only do the dishes, but you also better tell me I am the best cook you have ever come across!

and they all said, Amen.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


ya know, i frequently lead the prayer/pledge for our Rotary group. We all are talking to the same guy...i just use wording that they feel better about.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I see you take things too personally and literally. Maybe you missed that "princess" is not refering to your manhood, ego or whatever seemed to be bruised at the use of a (maybe) time specific phrase.

If I told you "dont have a cow" you take it as me calling you a four legged bovine? Or if I said "dont be a spaz" you take it as a mental illness thing?

If you wish me not to use that type (maybe era based) comment then so be it. I can adapt.

Now on to your long and due nature rambling.

You seem to agree with the basic premises that

1. Welfare is not a right
2. The money for welfare is from THE PEOPLE NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Where you and others seem to get hung up on is this idea that having REQUIREMENTS for MONEY YOU AGREE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN equates to humiliation.

As with your "princess" comment your opinion of whats humiliating is yours but in the place of such business transactions as mortgages, jobs and WELFARE it does not mean SQUAT.

True humiliation is not only defined by Law but a REASONABLE EXAMPLES.

The fact YOU FIND DRUG TESTING HUMILIATING means little in the court of law.

But now if (for example) to get welfare you had to come into the office crawling on your hands and knees and the ONLY by the workers SOLE OPINION you are granted or denied then your argument of humiliation has weight (as well as above scenerio being ILLEGAL).

In all transactions which is not a right/nadatory/required such again as mortgages, jobs or welfare if you feel it is humiliating, beneath you, or whatever then simply FIND SOMETHING THAT IS/ANOTHER WAY.

For practical example there are hundreds if not thousands of those from the great depression generation that found hand outs "humiliating". Did they demand (like you seem to) that those providing aid change their reqirements/tone/whatever so "someones itty bitty feeling did not get hurt"

HECK NO they did whatever they needed to do (work two jobs, dig ditches, go without so kids got what they needed, ect) so they did not take welfare.

Or they were thankful and did whatever it took to get off it.

The reality of life is there are requirements for anything you do from what loans you get to what job you want.

In short (using me as a case) some find it humiliating to have a job where you clean toilets (in my case maintenance/janitor in a factory) and would find something else to do. At the time I did not find it humiliating to have a job where I was earning money to survive.

It is not the bank, employer, or government job to worry about what your "feeling are" as long as there are clear, legal, and unbias criteria to recieve something that IS YOUR CHOICE to take or not.

Spare me the "welfare is not a choice". As you like to try to dismiss my "mother with 3 kids by different fathers" example. (aka career welfare recipiants) Just go to any welfare office, housing project, currency exchange, ect and tell me they are the minority of welfare receivers.

So again you want to set the standard of "humiliation" by YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS and not a set of REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS.

So again tell me whats wrong with those who CHOOSE TO BREAK THE LAW from recieving welfare which YOU YOURSELF AGREE IS NOT A RIGHT?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Now let me quote (for accuracy) and respond to your comments about me.



Quote.

Then you are not willing to help. What you are willing to do is humiliate other humans before you will allow them to receive your help. Either give the money, or don't

You are right, I am unwilling to give my HARD EARNED MONEY from what would go to help MY FAMILY for
People who use ILLEGAL DRUGS while demanding money from WELFARE PROGRAMS
People who consider welfare a "way of life" and "their right".
Those who (for a common example) " delibrately choose to have multiple kids they cannot affoard and expect me to pay for them".

Funny I am RESPONCIBLE and want the money to go to people WHO REALLY NEED IT, APPRECIATE IT, AND TRYING TO GET OFF WELFARE.

I know how dare I be so responsible.


the only reason you have given to thinking welfare recipients should be drug tested are:

- that you have given up your right to privacy, and feel that they should have to also

Again you ignore even your own previous statement.."WELFARE IS NOT A RIGHT"
It is also not a right YOU GET WELFARE WITH NO REQUIREMENTS.
So your comment about "giving up rights" is nothing more than deflection away from even your previous opinions.
As well as if you feel its invasion of privacy for this VERY SIMPLE REQUEST OF OUR MONEY BEING GIVEN TO WILLFULL LAWBREAKERS or YOU JUST FEEL OFFENDED, then DON'T TAKE THE MONEY.


- that you are sick of women having so many children by so many fathers

Again you try to deflect by wilfully leaving out part of my comment. The part you left out is "and expecting me (and other taxpayers) to pay for your children which you cannot take care of yourself". Funny I am responcible and limit how may children I have to what I CAN AFFORD and NOT EXPECT OTHERS TO PAY FOR THEM.




On a side note, you also mention denying your daughter the nutiritional content she needed via WIC because you are too proud to accept a public benefit. Of course, everything turned out ok....luckily.

This personal attack is made more sad in the fact you not only don't give the WHOLE COMMENT I made but you again try to justify/deflect your point by it.

For those out there who may have not read my previous comment I stated my daugher is special needs and I qualified for both specialized therapists and WIC.
The therapists were used to get my daughter to a level she could be part of society and we could then continue to take care of her to make her self sufficent and supporting someday. WE ONLY USED IT UNTLL SHE DID NOT NEED IT which she doesn't.

What this poster did not want you to know (and WILLFULLY LEFT OUT) was althought we qualified for WIC ...WE COULD AFFORD TO FEED HER WELL OURSELVES.
Thus leaving those LIMITED funds for (hopefully) SOMEONE WHO TRULY NEEDS IT.

What he also maliciously left out was his comment to me on this is "you pay taxes you should have taken it".

Now I will give him credit that in this he unintentionaly summed up what the problem is with welfare and his own Hyparicy.

Welfare was meant TO PROVIDE WHAT HELP YOU NEEDED, NOT WHAT YOU COULD TAKE in the short term.

It is the very definition of GREED that he (and many others on welfare mentality) is TO TAKE ALL YOU CAN GET IRREGARDLESS OF NEED, WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOURSELF, OR WHAT YOU LEAVE FOR OTHERS.

The money for welfare is drying up and you sir are INSISTING I TAKE LIMITED RESOURCES I DON'T NEED FROM THOSE WHO DO.

The truly sad thing is when THE CHASTIZES BUSNIESSES FOR TAKING ALL THEY CAN AND CALLING THEM LEACHES, GREEDY, AND UNCARING.

But then tells me ,who took the honerable and just course, by not taking what I qualified for but DID NOT NEED as "denying nutiritional content she needed" to justify his case.

This is not only the lowest most desperate attempt to shame into silence anyone he disagrees with.
Not only does it show the depths to which he will try to deflect form the core issues.

But when I showed how taking what you don't need is ok for welfare but not the business world (which I dont think is right either for the record) is the very definition of a hypocrite.


IMO


.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by scrounger

 

I provided sourced scientific information and fact.

You retorted with emotional and self-absorbed ranting.

See how this doesn't help your position? Stomping your feet all you want won't change reality.

~Heff

Right nice quick comment without a shred of adult debate or comment.

I could repost what I said but those who care to look back one page can see clearly it was not a "retorted with emotional and self-absorbed ranting"

As for your "facts and sources" not only were they more opinion and thin (at best). You did not even debate as to what I said that was wrong...even in your opinion.

To briefly sum up his opinion and mine.

He feels everyone's money should be taken from you because its "belongs to the society" and taken "for society benifit". Irregardless what you think.

He also feels that drug and alcohol addiction is a disease.

All I did was on point one show that the money PEOPLE EARN is not societies and should not be just taken from you without cause or by the will of the people who earned it. Unless you view it though communist society.

As for point two I bought up that (in a nutshell) addiction is not a disease since it would the the only disease in history where the person can MAKE THE CHOICE (no matter how hard that may be) to stop it in its tracks.

I used the example of a breast cancer patient would gladly give up a substance (no matter how hard) to stop their cancer and save their life. But with much more detail.

IMO I found it offensive that someone who CHOOSES TO AND CONTINUES TO PUT A SUBSTANCE IN THEIR BODIES that is not only illegal, but very harmful as a disease.

Then begs for money to help them (through welfare for example) and then make the CHOICE TO GO BACK TO THE SUBSTANCE.

Especially in the light of those with TRUE DISEASES like cancer that can't (I never said it would not be hard so save that canned talking point) make the choice to stop taking something and their disease goes away.

For the record I am not against helping an addict get clean. But not over and over and OVER.

But hey I guess adult debate (even if I disagree) is not something some wish to engage in.

reply to post by scrounger

Originally posted by scrounger

Right nice quick comment without a shred of adult debate or comment.

Stating that I had already exhaustively sourced my argument is not "adult". I suppose walls of CAPS LOCKED filled condemnations and rhetoric qualify as adult?

Just wanting to know where the lines are here.

Originally posted by scrounger

I could repost what I said but those who care to look back one page can see clearly it was not a "retorted with emotional and self-absorbed ranting"

This is opinion. Mine is based upon the unsourced, and now twice mentioned wall of text, CAPS LOCK style of writing you choose to engage in.

Originally posted by scrounger

As for your "facts and sources" not only were they more opinion and thin (at best). You did not even debate as to what I said that was wrong...even in your opinion.

You do understand that people reading this thread can read? You wish to assert that a page linked directly to the CDC is "thin (at best)". And whenever I state opinion it is my usual custom to define it as such. If you wish you can look through my posting history and query most people I've debated with. I think you'll find they all consider me honest, fair, and courteous.

Originally posted by scrounger

To briefly sum up his opinion and mine.

He feels everyone's money should be taken from you because its "belongs to the society" and taken "for society benifit". Irregardless what you think.

I never said any such thing. I said that we all have social responsibilities. As far as the "irregardless of what you think part" taxes are the law of the land and we all live under those laws. So your point seems misguided.

Originally posted by scrounger

He also feels that drug and alcohol addiction is a disease.

I don't "feel" anything, I directly SOURCED this fact. It is not speculation. If you wish to dispute this as fact then I suggest you find sourcable and valid argument that is strong enough to trump the CDC information I sourced.

Originally posted by scrounger

All I did was on point one show that the money PEOPLE EARN is not societies and should not be just taken from you without cause or by the will of the people who earned it. Unless you view it though communist society.

This shows me a lack of understanding of the concept of Republic - or most other forms of government for that matter.

Originally posted by scrounger

As for point two I bought up that (in a nutshell) addiction is not a disease since it would the the only disease in history where the person can MAKE THE CHOICE (no matter how hard that may be) to stop it in its tracks.

Again you persist in ignoring my sourced definition and standard - while doing nothing more than repeating your unsourced emotional and person feeling that you are right. Prove me wrong if I am wrong - with something more convincing than a wall of text and a caps lock key.

Originally posted by scrounger

I used the example of a breast cancer patient would gladly give up a substance (no matter how hard) to stop their cancer and save their life. But with much more detail.

And many alcoholics/drug addicts would also willingly go to great steps to end their afflictions as well. Again, avoiding the disease issue causes irrational bias upon which you keep relying.

Originally posted by scrounger

IMO I found it offensive that someone who CHOOSES TO AND CONTINUES TO PUT A SUBSTANCE IN THEIR BODIES as a disease.

You are free to find it personally offensive. But that does not make you an expert or qualified to diagnose whether or not addiction is a disease.

Originally posted by scrounger

But hey I guess adult debate (even if I disagree) is not something some wish to engage in.

You'll notice I rarely resort to walls of text, or my caps lock key. Source your arguments and you may find more accord.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide



Sigh I see you have to resort to the grammar or more accurately cap lock police. Ok I will not use cap locks.

That is a fair request.


One I know what a republic is and we are a democratic republic to be accurate. There is nothing in such a system that says the money anyone earns is presumed to belong to the state.

Call it for "social responsibilities" if you will but they exist not based on any required or mandated ideals, but at the pure concent of the governed. Yes taxes are the law. But the law that was approved by people voting for representatives. As such we can and do alter what we collectively want our money to go to.

We as a group however are not required to provide even half of what the taxes pay for now.. In the specific case of welfare it is not directly mandated by the constitution.

You may infer under public good, and on that we could have some interesting back and forth debates. But unlike defense (for example) the idea anyone is owed welfare with no restrictions (such as drug testing) and everyone is morally and legally mandated to pay for it case closed is IMO bs.

Now if we the ones who are the voters did what started this discussion elected people to put the drug testing as a requirement for welfare then for someone to try to say we are being unreasonable or somehow violating the constitution is not also understanding the democratic republic.

Now you may quote the CDC and some studies they state. That is a fair source.

But as sometimes is what the "experts" say and reality the two shall not meet.

Here is your quote "And many alcoholics/drug addicts would also willingly go to great steps to end their afflictions as well. Again, avoiding the disease issue causes irrational bias upon which you keep relying".

Note I did nor never say (i have addicts in my family) you won't rid yourself of suseptablily or craving for your addiction of choice. Nor did I say it would be easy to stop taking or not craving the drug of your choice.

But you sir continue to deny a basic fact.

If you stop drinking (for example) and don't touch another drop (as hard as it may be) you stop the effects of the addiction. In other words you choose to be effected/harmed by the drug.

A breast cancer patient has no such choice at all. They are at the whim of the disease and can only hope whatever treatments they take (which chemo alone makes some withdrawls look like a cake walk). will force it into remission. They have no control what so ever on if it comes back or not.

Now do you see why common sense says (and my anger at the comparison) that an addiction is by the basic fact controlled by the person and a disease (while can be effected by choices the person makes) you have no such control.


That is why I challenge you to defend how someone who makes a choice to put a substance in their bodies and in essence can and does have direct control over their condition can be called a disease.

When again I point out the person with a disease has no such total control.

I admit this is becoming a now nicer conversation.

reply to post by scrounger

Originally posted by scrounger

Sigh I see you have to resort to the grammar or more accurately cap lock police. Ok I will not use cap locks.

That is a fair request.

Not policing... just asking for standard netiquette. Caps locks is considered yelling on line and, therefore, poor form in debate.

Originally posted by scrounger

One I know what a republic is and we are a democratic republic to be accurate. There is nothing in such a system that says the money anyone earns is presumed to belong to the state.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

16th Amendment

That seems to be precisely what our system of Government says, in its own Constitution.

Originally posted by scrounger

Call it for "social responsibilities" if you will but they exist not based on any required or mandated ideals, but at the pure concent of the governed. Yes taxes are the law. But the law that was approved by people voting for representatives. As such we can and do alter what we collectively want our money to go to.

We as a group however are not required to provide even half of what the taxes pay for now.. In the specific case of welfare it is not directly mandated by the constitution.

You may infer under public good, and on that we could have some interesting back and forth debates. But unlike defense (for example) the idea anyone is owed welfare with no restrictions (such as drug testing) and everyone is morally and legally mandated to pay for it case closed is IMO bs.

Most of this defers back to my previous entry in this post. For clarity - I never have once argued either that people deserve welfare, nor that it should be done without restriction, nor that everyone is morally and legally mandated to pay for it - case closed.

What I have argued is that it is fiscally irresponsible to drug test welfare recipients due to the lack of cost/reward. It is simply not cost effective for each "positive" result.

Any and all "social responsibility" statements I have made address varying degrees of the argument(s) inherent in this debate but do not imply that I have communist thoughts about evenly spreading wealth. I do believe in equity, charity,and taking care of the elderly and sick - but that's my personal opinion.

~to be continued in next post:

reply to post by scrounger


It just so happens that there are currently programs ( and laws about those programs ) that happen to agree with my sense of social responsibility.

Originally posted by scrounger

Now if we the ones who are the voters did what started this discussion elected people to put the drug testing as a requirement for welfare then for someone to try to say we are being unreasonable or somehow violating the constitution is not also understanding the democratic republic

I never argued against Constitutionality. I argued against the fiscal pitfalls of the idea.

Originally posted by scrounger

Now you may quote the CDC and some studies they state. That is a fair source.

But as sometimes is what the "experts" say and reality the two shall not meet.

I invite you to fully read the article I sourced here and to Google, Bing, Yahoo as much as you wish. I can assure you finding valid, peer reviewed, widely accepted contradiction will be difficult.

Originally posted by scrounger

Here is your quote "And many alcoholics/drug addicts would also willingly go to great steps to end their afflictions as well. Again, avoiding the disease issue causes irrational bias upon which you keep relying".

Note I did nor never say (i have addicts in my family) you won't rid yourself of suseptablily or craving for your addiction of choice. Nor did I say it would be easy to stop taking or not craving the drug of your choice.

But you sir continue to deny a basic fact.

If you stop drinking (for example) and don't touch another drop (as hard as it may be) you stop the effects of the addiction. In other words you choose to be effected/harmed by the drug.

Again, I invite you to read the link and research the standing and current medical evidence of brain chemistry/body chemistry change in drug addicts and alcoholics.

Originally posted by scrounger

A breast cancer patient has no such choice at all. They are at the whim of the disease and can only hope whatever treatments they take (which chemo alone makes some withdrawls look like a cake walk). will force it into remission. They have no control what so ever on if it comes back or not.

Now do you see why common sense says (and my anger at the comparison) that an addiction is by the basic fact controlled by the person and a disease (while can be effected by choices the person makes) you have no such control.

A lung cancer patient may have smoked cigarettes for years, or worked with metals/fiberglass/chemicals/mining - knowing the risks of their job. The fact that they knew the risks does not change their diagnosis - nor my compassion towards their plight.

Originally posted by scrounger

That is why I challenge you to defend how someone who makes a choice to put a substance in their bodies and in essence can and does have direct control over their condition can be called a disease.

When again I point out the person with a disease has no such total control.

My reply is a culmination of what I've stated above, but add that many diseases can be avoided. Diabetes, hypertension, hypotension, etc. The fact that they were avoidable does not negate that they are diseases.

Originally posted by scrounger

I admit this is becoming a now nicer conversation.

I am much happier conversing than debating and happier debating than arguing!

~Heff

reply to post by scrounger

You are right, I am unwilling to give my HARD EARNED MONEY from what would go to help MY FAMILY for
People who use ILLEGAL DRUGS while demanding money from WELFARE PROGRAMS
People who consider welfare a "way of life" and "their right".
Those who (for a common example) " delibrately choose to have multiple kids they cannot affoard and expect me to pay for them".

Funny I am RESPONCIBLE and want the money to go to people WHO REALLY NEED IT, APPRECIATE IT, AND TRYING TO GET OFF WELFARE.

I know how dare I be so responsible.

Your hard earned money is being paid in taxes. If you don't like your taxes, or the way the money is spent, then please for the love of God help our nation by voting out every DNC and GOP affiliated official and demanding that our tax system be rewritten, and our socialist system be reviewed.

But to say that you want money to go to people who "need it, appreciate it", etc....is that need based on your assessment? Or theirs? Who decides what really makes a "need"?

And you consider yourself responsible....yet.....

Again you ignore even your own previous statement.."WELFARE IS NOT A RIGHT"
It is also not a right YOU GET WELFARE WITH NO REQUIREMENTS.
So your comment about "giving up rights" is nothing more than deflection away from even your previous opinions.
As well as if you feel its invasion of privacy for this VERY SIMPLE REQUEST OF OUR MONEY BEING GIVEN TO WILLFULL LAWBREAKERS or YOU JUST FEEL OFFENDED, then DON'T TAKE THE MONEY.

Do you not see that there is an invasion of privacy? Do you really feel it is responsible to demand that people, before taking a handout, have to cede their rights just so that some people in our country can feel better about giving them money? Do you not realize that you are forcing your view of morality on people by having such a requirement?

To be a responsible American you have to first understand the rights that you have, and be willing to protect those rights in other people, even when you disagree with those other people. Like you....i disagree vehemently with your viewpoint, but would die defending your right to have that viewpoint, and continue to voice it.

Again you try to deflect by wilfully leaving out part of my comment. The part you left out is "and expecting me (and other taxpayers) to pay for your children which you cannot take care of yourself". Funny I am responcible and limit how may children I have to what I CAN AFFORD and NOT EXPECT OTHERS TO PAY FOR THEM.

Perhaps. But the road you are walking down with this statement is called "Intolerance".

Again you try to deflect by wilfully leaving out part of my comment. The part you left out is "and expecting me (and other taxpayers) to pay for your children which you cannot take care of yourself". Funny I am responcible and limit how may children I have to what I CAN AFFORD and NOT EXPECT OTHERS TO PAY FOR THEM. ....snip....

I left out parts of your quotes because I have a character limit on a post. Since i was over my character limit, i had to "trim my quotes"....which is a site guideline here at ATS. Just so you know there was no maliciousness involved. People are free to scroll up, read what you said, then make a conclusion.

Having said that....I will restate for you and anyone who cares: WIC is not Welfare. Completely different programs. WIC is an attempt by the government to idiot proof parenting. It is there to ensure that kids get the minimum needed while creating a program that allows professionals to have a chance to identify infants who are at risk (preventing cases of child abuse, etc). Bill Gates, were he a resident of this state, would qualify for WIC. All you have to do to qualify is be a resident, and watch a video.

You want to pretend that you have some moral high ground because you declined WIC. I am simply pointing out that it is there for EVERYONE to ensure that their kids are receiving the basic nutrients needed to prevent developmental difficulties.

And I was pointing out that your avoidance of WIC for your own children, in the context of the purpose it was intended, put your child at risk. This is a much, much more accurate repsentation of the facts than your claim that WIC is welfare.

Something else I would point out is that businesses are not people. They don't go hungry. I am unsure why you would call it hypocrisy.

reply to post by scrounger


I want to clarify one thing for you, in a separate post: No one is smearing you or saying negative things about you.

You insist that WIC is Welfare. Then take pride in how you avoided WIC (which, in your mind, means you avoided welfare....which is incorrect as WIC is not welfare). You use this pride to denigrate others who choose to take WIC so that they can ensure their children recieve adequate nutrition.

My statement was solely to point out that, from the perspective of the antithesis of your viewpoint, you are putting your child at risk by denying them WIC. If you were to ask someone from the department of WIC, this is what they would tell you. They would then tell you that WIC is not welfare, and is available to all parents with qualifying children.

Originally posted by WildWorld
They shouldn't be reimbursed. If you want welfare you pay for the test and pass.

Are ye daft? to anybody who needs welfare thirty dollars is a small fortune!
But derail much......
This lttle experiment, just goes to show that those cheesehead redneck arseholes who sit around bashng the poor have their heads in a dark place.
Its all fine and dandy to blame the poor for their plight.....but i put the blame on the socety that creates them and keeps them there....
What kind of monsters are we?even the workng class help the rich do this.....
The whole point being we are all stuck here having a life, and theres absolutely NO REASON it should be horrible for ANYONE.
Food,Shelter, and EDUCATION, must be made freely available to everyone regardless .....
Instead of making people WORK FOR WELFARE......they shpuld be made to go to SCHOOL FOR WELFARE>>>>
Their checks dependant upon passing grades!
The make work for welfare will not SOLVE anything...
Making SCHOOLING mandatory for welfare would....
We see everything in such illogical fashion.....
The social stigmas we live by, hardly ever get examined for sanity......

reply to post by RealSpoke


So they passed it for this VERY brief testing period... Lets see how they do when its year round, and lets see how those figures look stretched across the country... That sample size doesnt represent the whole country and shouldnt be the only reason why they abolish this beautiful idea...

Personally, Im sick of the welfare recipients who are abusing this system... and i know, there are good people out there who truly need help, but there are numerous individuals who arent even trying to get back to work...

And for those who call this unconstitutional, its not... To get my job I have to be drug tested and they can test me whenever they want. Welfare recipients dont deserve any special treatment...