Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Gee Rick, I guess you were just hating on the poor and disenfranchised..

Source

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who faced criticism earlier this year for his handling of the water crisis in Flint, could face more pushback after the apparent failure of his program requiring drug tests for welfare users.

The Guardian reported that none of the 303 people tested under the auspices of the Family Independence Program have tested positive for drugs as of the end of May.

The pilot program ends on Sept. 30 and received $300,000 in state funding, although a spokesperson for the state health department said only $300 had been spent thus far.

“The governor will wait until the pilot program has concluded and the report is delivered, as required by the legislation, to reach any conclusions,” said Anna Heaton, a spokesperson for Snyder’s office.

The program allows health department officials to require applicants to go through a drug test based on the results of the 50-question screening process. Refusal to do so disqualifies them from receiving financial assistance for six months. However, none of the applicants reportedly refused to go through the test.

And even other states, only found on average 11 out 2700 plus who tested positive.

What a waste of government time and resources as we as a waste of time for those tested.

~Tenth

I personally know 3 women who lost or quit good jobs because of the constant checking up on them at their work to make sure they were reporting the right income and working the hours they said they were. 2 of the women worked with me for 3 years. That information can be verified thru the IRS, so why the bull#! They got so sick of it, they applied for SSI (anxiety), one received it (she was born in another country and barely paid into it), don't know what happened to the other one, she just started walking off the job I assume to get fired (she used to work for the police and fell on hard times, husband left), she had to move,became homeless. I felt bad for her, I watched her slowly breaking down, and still think wtf! She was working, couldn't retrain as she has no car, and could barely afford rent.

Now the other girl stays home all day and drives a brand new car, she was given a free college education as were her kids.

The other girl was a good worker but just lost it from the pressure, her kids had to live with friends of hers I hear; no one knows where she is right now.

Trust me the ones who want to re-educate are busy struggling to pay their rent; and the ones who get the free education barely ever get jobs because they have criminal records or they just don't want to work.

Some are just not critical thinkers and couldn't make it anyway.

If the problem isn't addressed it will end up depleting SSI, which is the new welfare; as most states have a 5 year limit of assistance, whereas, disability does not.


There but for the grace of God ....,

a reply to: Aazadan

Ah, yes, good ol' wealth redistribution.

Well, this conversation is over, if that's going to a support beam that is helping hold up your argument.

originally posted by: KTemplar
That information can be verified thru the IRS, so why the bull#!

Well, I guess that you are disregarding the reality that IRS information can only be accessed by the individual whose name is on the information. But, sure, the employer can just go ask the IRS for that information...why didn't they just think of that?

(the IRS cannot release taxpayer information to ANYONE other than the taxpayer. period.)

a reply to: luthier

Look, the minimum wage was part of all the crap that Roosevelt passed that actually helped extend the negative effects of the depression. While that was enacted toward the end of it, it still didn't do what it claimed that it would--we're nearly 80 years into having a mandated minimum wage, and there is just as bad a poverty problem in the U.S. as there was back when it was enacted.

So, tell me again how it has been such a "solution" to anything for this country. Hell, the states that seem to have the highest level of social programs tend to have some of the highest poverty rates. But the reality is that the poverty rate has remained relatively static since the mid-1960s. I fail to see the always-increasing social welfare safety nets as helping the problem--hell, I'd argue that they make it harder to get ahead because of how much of our income is taxed to pay for all of this.

And by "offset corporate taxes," I hope that you mean decrease them in order to balance out the net cost of doing business because you acknowledge that my points about how that would affect business is accurate.

The point is, though, that the federal government should not be telling businesses what they must pay their employees. I'm sorry, but a Walmart greeter should not be getting paid as much as someone having to get up at the butt crack of dawn to work fast food during rush hour in the morning and lunch--and I'm not implying that fast food employees should make more than they do now, I'm just saying that if your job could be handled by a 10-year-old and be just as efficiently done, you are not earning your minimum wage.

I think it's clear what I am talking about.

If you want to play sides instead of consider solutions that's what perpetuated problems.

You can offset by lowering corperate taxes.

You can make a basic income instead of welfare, medicare, ssi, snap, etc and considerably simplify the irs by changing the tax code.

These are conservative compromise solutions to trends of socialism.

You can either kick and scream and loose or be part of Shaping the future. Obviously the trend is free stuff. Why don't we focus in limiting what the dangers of that are and have market based solutions to some problems.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Ah, yes, good ol' wealth redistribution.

Well, this conversation is over, if that's going to a support beam that is helping hold up your argument.

Fair wages aren't wealth distribution. People need food and shelter, if they can't get that through working they aren't going to work. Either you believe the company having the labor done should be paying those wages, or you think society should. One way or another they will be paid.

If you want to consider the conversation over, then fine. I'm not the one making absurd economic proclamations without backing them up though. Even nations like Sinagpore which is the most capitalist society on Earth has no minimum wage and almost no safety net provides a path to job training that the state pays for in the form of free college and a living stipend while attending college. As a result, 1 in 6 people in Singapore is a millionaire.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Look, the minimum wage was part of all the crap that Roosevelt passed that actually helped extend the negative effects of the depression. While that was enacted toward the end of it, it still didn't do what it claimed that it would--we're nearly 80 years into having a mandated minimum wage, and there is just as bad a poverty problem in the U.S. as there was back when it was enacted.

Minimum wage laws first started being passed in the US in 1912 on the state level. While Roosevelt passed a federal wage in 1938, his federal wage was less than what the majority of states had already enacted. The federal rate wasn't higher until 1955 when it was increased to $1 per hour. Furthermore, the minimum wage right now has less purchasing power than the minimum wage has had at any point in the nations history and we're in economic meltdown. When our economy was at it's peak in the 60's the minimum wage was at it's highest purchasing power.

Did you know that in 1967, working 40 hours a week at minimum wage one could own a home, attend college part time, afford food, and a car all at the same time? People can't even do that today at the median wage of $50k/year.

So, tell me again how it has been such a "solution" to anything for this country. Hell, the states that seem to have the highest level of social programs tend to have some of the highest poverty rates. But the reality is that the poverty rate has remained relatively static since the mid-1960s. I fail to see the always-increasing social welfare safety nets as helping the problem--hell, I'd argue that they make it harder to get ahead because of how much of our income is taxed to pay for all of this.

Spoken like someone who hasn't ever been at the bottom. Get back to me about how much social programs help after you decide to be homeless so that you can devote more income to college tuition in order to get ahead. I was doing that a few years ago, then I got some help so I wouldn't have to.

The safety nets are not increasing either, they are decreasing. 3 years ago I was getting $200/month in food stamps. With no change in income, and an increase in rent I now get $75 while food prices are at an all time high.

The point is, though, that the federal government should not be telling businesses what they must pay their employees.

Why not? I'm genuinely curious. For the vast majority of human history governments have used price fixing and rationing to distribute goods and currency. It worked for literally thousands of years. It has only been in the last 100 or so that we've moved away from that model to one where the person who can afford to pay the most gets their goods first. Price fixing was seen as a way to ensure the laborer was always paid, actually historically it was used to keep the price of labor down. Unrestricting the price of labor but setting a minimum has increased the cost of business, though it has worked out very favorably for the employee.

I'm sorry, but a Walmart greeter should not be getting paid as much as someone having to get up at the butt crack of dawn to work fast food during rush hour in the morning and lunch--and I'm not implying that fast food employees should make more than they do now, I'm just saying that if your job could be handled by a 10-year-old and be just as efficiently done, you are not earning your minimum wage.

Any job that involves a repetitive task can be automated, how much do you think those jobs are worth? If we think of it that way, a Walmart greeter has the value of being another person at the door which people respond more favorably to. The fast food worker is literally a drone. They put a meal together and serve it, doing a repetitive task over and over, there is no human connection, which makes it ideal for automation.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think your pretty spot on. We are from different sides but I loathe people blaming the poor all the time.

I am actually financially pretty stable, have worked my butt off physically and mentally to get where I am. (Though my body is feeling all the manual work now) however, I don't feel like I need to have more than anyone else because I ended up where I am. The wind could have blown different and i could be on a different path.

Also the logic. If a person doesn't get a liveable wage obviously they will need welfare. What are we talking about here in this thread throwing somebody that pops a drug test on the street? With their kids?

I may be conservative but I find that type of thinking embarrassing. Nobody should ha E to fall down that low. Even if they are lazy. What a horrible society we would have.

And dangerous.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: KTemplar
That information can be verified thru the IRS, so why the bull#!

Well, I guess that you are disregarding the reality that IRS information can only be accessed by the individual whose name is on the information. But, sure, the employer can just go ask the IRS for that information...why didn't they just think of that?

(the IRS cannot release taxpayer information to ANYONE other than the taxpayer. period.)

I wasn't referring to the employer, I was referring to the welfare Dept and housing depts

a reply to: KTemplar


Years ago I felt that people on welfare were all addicts, or lazy. I have since changed my opinion of that. Nobody really knows until you fall on hard times.

Are there people who abuse the system and get away with it - YES. Are they better off in the long run? NO. What will they retire on, peanuts monthly, trapped in housing-government jail more accurately.

I have been fortunate as I had a very good job when I became pregnant with my son, which was a planned pregnancy. I had a spouse at the time. I left my full-time job after a couple of years because daycare was costing me more than a mortgage, and I worked 12 hour days. I wanted my son to know his mom. So I severance packaged out, and worked many overnight shifts while I could.

I watched all the welfare moms kids for them during school vacations for free, and summers. How could I not? I remember feeling deep stress for them watching what they had to go thru. I have heard stories where some kids are left alone at ages of 3-11 because their moms were forced to work a certain amount of hours every week; but these moms had no relatives to help, and didn't earn enough for daycare.

These kids grow up severely messed up.

There has to be a better system, a hand up if you will, not a hand-out!

Welfare no longer pays for daycare after the recipient receives 1 year of daycare; not sure if that changed, but was the case a few years ago. I was told this by a friend of mine who works for the state.

I like the training idea. People can pass drug tests with advanced notice.

a reply to: Aazadan

"Fair wages" is a subjective idea, and doesn't mean the same thing across every town and city in the United States. For the federal government to pretend that making an even $10/hr. in Eastern Kentucky is the same as $10/hr in Washington, D.C., is irresponsible. But, that's what a federally mandate wage does--it pretends that it's solving a problem when it's not.

And let's be real, here--when discussing minimum wage, all one can do is take a side and argue it. Hell, that's called "debating a topic." But, yes, a mandated "fair wage" is absolutely wealth distribution, albeit at a smaller degree than, say, Medicaid or the welfare system. But it's still taking control of someone's money and telling them how they need to spread it around to a smaller group of people.



You, sir, know very little about me or if I've ever been "at the bottom." Talk about making absurd proclamations without backing them up. What do you know about the history of my financial wealth in my life? Answer that, and maybe I'll start taking you a little more seriously when you use my personal history in an attempt to disregard my stance.

At least now I have a small bit of insight into your current financial situation, so should I sling a similar accusation at you?: Your stance is spoken like someone who has yet to become successful (and I have no doubt that you will).

I'm telling you, you're not exactly unique in your experience, so don't assume that you are. I'm 37 now, and in my lifetime, I've had to live with my parents as an adult, lived in military barracks overseas while making $13k/year (you'll never find a tougher job for lower pay than an non-NCO enlisted Service Member...they are on the job 24/7, ya know), struggled through college while married and having our first baby on a single income, and then very slowly working my way up the wage ladder by being good at my job and working hard and chasing jobs. I now make a very comfortable living (for my standards...still well less that $100K/year), but that doesn't mean I don't live paycheck to paycheck because we still are paying off debt accrued when we were younger, with a goal of being debt-free (other than our current mortgage) in the next three years.

So, don't pretend that I haven't struggled at times in my life, because I have, even more than I'm letting on in this comment. But what I didn't do is whine and moan about it--I discuss it with pride because every struggle I have been through has motivated me to better my situation. There's nothing wrong with being at the bottom, as long as you pick yourself up and eventually climb out.



The federal government should not be dictating anything to private businesses because it's not a duty enumerated in the Constitution. If it were only happening at the state level, I'd still dislike it, but at least I wouldn't see it as overstepping their boundaries. THAT is the major reasoning behind my claim that the federal government should not be in the minimum-wage business concerning private businesses.



Job automation--every time we (as a nation) increase the cost of doing business at the level of hiring employees, job automation will become more and more prevalent. Then everyone who loved their minimum wage (and its increases and the cry for a "living wage") will be wondering why the total amount of available jobs dramatically dwindled, and why more people are unemployed and needing welfare.

I don't see how that is a good thing, but I do see how it's a product of government involvement in private industry.

a reply to: KTemplar

They still cannot access taxpayer information at the IRS. That's just an FYI.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The federal government can't regulate child labour that should be a state matter?

You should let Kentucky decide if it wants 9 year olds working full time?

Before labour laws corperations wouldn't hire men because it was cheaper to hire women and children.

Are you saying that yoh would rather pay welfare to people who don't work or are underemployed, you want to kick these families to the street, or what?

a reply to: luthier

I want to focus on ridding the system of abuse--that would be a huge step in the solution to the cost of the programs.

Then I would like to make a more graduated scale of welfare payment instead of there being such a harsh cutoff--this would allow people to transition more easily out of "the system" and allow them to provide for themselves. I think that the biggest problem that keeps some people on a perpetual welfare cycle is that they've been beaten down mentally into thinking that it's impossible to get out of the system. Hell, I even know a couple of people who purposefully stay in the system because that is "easier" than fight their way out of it.

And like I said earlier in this thread, I'm all for there being some types of "free" training programs for employment, and that the amount of welfare received might be based on attending and completing a program.

I'm not certain why you are so confrontational in this response to me, but so be it, I guess. There is no "kicking and screaming" going on--just because we may disagree a bit doesn't mean that either of us is throwing a temper tantrum.

But that said, I think that a basic income--assuming you're talking about something like what Switzerland just recently rejected--is a terrible idea at face value. I'll admit that I have not looked in-depth at the overall cost comparison between that versus the current welfare system, but there's just something inherent in the human psyche that creates pride when you earn everything that have. If I don't have to receive an allowance from daddy government, I'd prefer not to, even if it was just in addition to the wages that I would still be making. Call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first).

a reply to: luthier

Child labor laws have zero to do with a minimum wage--totally different topics.

But, sheesh, thanks for trying to demonize me like some heartless assbag.

But since you went there, basic labor laws make sense, but I don't see why it couldn't be handled at the state level instead of the federal. Just because a minimum wage was included in Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't mean it's a necessary part of the legislation, or that if someone opposes that particular part of the legislation, that we think it's okay to force 7-year-olds to work 12-hour-days in a steel factory.

Hyperbole and assumptions make terrible bedfellows in a discussion.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: KTemplar

They still cannot access taxpayer information at the IRS. That's just an FYI.

News to me, but couldn't a requirement be to produce such documents on their own to continue receiving benefits?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well you did say the government has no place in telling bussiness what to do.

If you saw what happened when it was left up to the states you would know it didn't work (regarding labour laws which were first tried through the states alone)

I am just saying maybe as conservatives we should try and mitigate the wreck less spending and try and simplify beauracracy.

I personally feel nearly any full time job should have basic cost of living wages as a moral obligation. It's a justice thing. What if I just am not very intelligent? Disabled? Fell on bad times? Am a victim of a psychological crime? Any other reason you may need a menial job.

I also am completely against your employer having the right to interfere in your personal life like a dictator. I think if you get drug tested it's through a doctor and he interprets what the test results mean and if your qualified to perform the job. I don't think your employer should ever know your medical information that way.

People just want the poor to suffer that's all let them use whatever they feel like.

a reply to: KTemplar

It could, sure, but now we're getting into multiple levels of what-ifs.

originally posted by: luthier
Well you did say the government has no place in telling bussiness what to do.

Well, like everything I say that is opinion (well, I'd argue that is fact based on the 10th Amendment, but I digress), that is to a certain point--some regulation is always necessary, but it should be minimal, and I don't think telling a business owner what to pay their employees is necessary.

Just an opinion.

I am just saying maybe as conservatives we should try and mitigate the wreck less spending and try and simplify beauracracy.

Sir, while I may lean ever-so-slightly to the right, I'm a libertarian through and through. That's probably where our disconnect exists.

I personally feel nearly any full time job should have basic cost of living wages as a moral obligation. It's a justice thing. What if I just am not very intelligent? Disabled? Fell on bad times? Am a victim of a psychological crime? Any other reason you may need a menial job.

Then most those are reasons that a minimal welfare program should exist, although I'd prefer that it be tried at a state level instead of a federal one.

Please understand that I do realize that there is some need for social welfare programs--genuine needs. But what we have created with our current system is not supplementation for needs as much as expectations of handouts. Our current system is killing much of the drive to better one's life--let's call it a psychological crime being committed by the government

I also am completely against your employer having the right to interfere in your personal life like a dictator. I think if you get drug tested it's through a doctor and he interprets what the test results mean and if your qualified to perform the job. I don't think your employer should ever know your medical information that way.

It should be dependent upon the type of work. Me? I sit in front of a computer all day and (when not on ATS) create digital and print graphics--I'm a graphic designer. If I want to smoke a joint while doing it, it's not going to have any problems. A school bus driver, on the other hand, should have to prove their sobriety to perform their job, as they are taking people's lives in their hands every school day.

As long as the conditions of employment are made known before accepting a job, I have no issue with it, though, because you are a consenting adult, and if you don't like the terms and think that partaking in a doobie is more important than accepting a job, you have that right to decline the job.

Conversely, if someone creates a business, they should have the right to control the safety of their workplace, even if that safety is more perceived than actual.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have voted libertarian nearly every election

Libertarians don't bash the poor.

In fact Gary Johnson, Rand Paul, and his father are some of the only people who even talk about the struggles of the poor.

Not sure if you saw when Rand went to Ferguson?

I can also tell you the libertarian party is against drug testing as an invasion of privacy.

Hayek who is one of the major libertarian economists from the Austrian school recommended a Basic Income.

www.libertarianism.org...


A slave is unfree because his every decision is subject to interference at the will of his master. To be free, in contrast, is to be able to act according to one’s own decisions and plans, without having to seek the approval of any higher authority 

And yeah I am fiscally conservative and socially it's none of your darn bussiness just as Gary Johnson has stated.

I think your confusing what libertarian and the party stand for and how much social injustice to the poor the platform talks about.

You know situations like this.
news.google.com...


Again your attitude towards how much an player can control an employee is completely different from libertarians who sued for years when reagan started the whole testing craze with the war on drugs.

Sad really 57 percent of jobs drug test.

It's none of the employers business what their employee did at home if he isn't high at work.

Thats the libertarian position. Yours is a neoconservative view. In fact your completely opposite of libertarians.

www.lpgeorgia.com...