D.T.W.A.

[notyou2]

It's my opinion, and I think a have a lot of supporting evidence to back it up, that giving people free money that have a substance abuse issue is enabling that use, and this is a million times worse than being cut off from a check. For this instance, we are talking about people who spend all or most of their money on drugs. Obviously none of that money is being spent on baby formula or bus fare between interviews.....so taking away the money doesn't hurt, it helps.

Drugs not only take down the abuser but hurt many other people related to the abuser and cost them time and money as well.

If their Drug use is so bad that they spend all of their money on drugs, it is quite likely they wouldn't be able to get welfare anyways. You are aware welfare recipients are required to find work and then work for a minimum amount of hours in order to continue receiving that assistance? If their drug use is so bad there is no way they could maintain their welfare benefits. Welfare recipients also have visits from social workers to check on them and see how they're doing. Drug abuse is terrible, connecting it to welfare doesen't make sense since the vast majority of welfare recipients do not have such drug abuse problems.

This idea continues to seem like a counter productive initiative, which would do more harm than good.

Baron, it is not about doing the right thing. It is about sales for the testing company and perception of the voters. In 5 to 10 years the problems will be much greater, but why do something today that you put off for tomorrow and let somebody else take the blame. Most likely those pesky irritating democrat liberal pinko fags. Did I get it right your most excellent Scotty of the Phatness?

[Baron Von PWN]

It's my opinion, and I think a have a lot of supporting evidence to back it up, that giving people free money that have a substance abuse issue is enabling that use, and this is a million times worse than being cut off from a check. For this instance, we are talking about people who spend all or most of their money on drugs. Obviously none of that money is being spent on baby formula or bus fare between interviews.....so taking away the money doesn't hurt, it helps.

Drugs not only take down the abuser but hurt many other people related to the abuser and cost them time and money as well.

If their Drug use is so bad that they spend all of their money on drugs, it is quite likely they wouldn't be able to get welfare anyways. You are aware welfare recipients are required to find work and then work for a minimum amount of hours in order to continue receiving that assistance? If their drug use is so bad there is no way they could maintain their welfare benefits. Welfare recipients also have visits from social workers to check on them and see how they're doing. Drug abuse is terrible, connecting it to welfare doesen't make sense since the vast majority of welfare recipients do not have such drug abuse problems.

This idea continues to seem like a counter productive initiative, which would do more harm than good.

Baron, it is not about doing the right thing. It is about sales for the testing company and perception of the voters. In 5 to 10 years the problems will be much greater, but why do something today that you put off for tomorrow and let somebody else take the blame. Most likely those pesky irritating democrat liberal pinko fags. Did I get it right your most excellent Scotty of the Phatness?

While it is quite clear this is an effort to simply line the pockets of the politician proposing it. That simply discredits the politicians motives not necessarily the idea itself. It is a good idea to also throughly dissect the idea, and show all of its flaws, separate from the source.

[BigBallinStalin]

Where is BBS when we need him

Phatscotty is digging himself into this hole, which is getting....









































































Deeper and deeper... Way WAY down.

[BigBallinStalin]

Drug testing for welfare recipients discriminates against a people of a certain socioeconomic background because other recipients of "welfare" won't be drug tested.

The cost incurred by welfare recipients are partly subsidized by revenue raised through taxes, which in turn makes welfare recipients receivers of a government subsidy. In order to ensure that no particular socioeconomic category is discriminated against, then almost everyone* whose costs are subsidized by the government should also be drug tested. In effect, anyone who has received a "tax break" or "tax credit," which was NOT due to overpayment of taxes, must be drug tested because tax breaks and tax credits are essentially a form of a government subsidy.

This would supposedly ensure that recipients of government subsidies act responsibly (lolwut?).


*What special exceptions preclude recipients of government subsidies from this drug test?

[radiojake]

BBS wins

/thread

[spurgistan]

Well, that was a random Office Space reference.

[natty dread]

Phatscotty, why do you hate freedom so much?

[PLAYER57832]

There are 2.5 million people getting food stamps in FL as of February, and the years growth in recipients jumped over 20% from last year.

7% of that is over 200,000 people who are abusing the system (according to players statistics). That is 4 football stadiums full of people. It's a much bigger problem than a lot of people are willing to admit.

The figures were closer to 6%, and that included people who are functioning as well as anyone else might given their circumstances (drugs or no drugs, someone with injuries, without a good education, etc is going to have trouble finding a decent job). But again, no one is saying drugs are not a problem.

The issue is if this bill will truly help. Nothing you have presented illustrates it will. Things many other people have presented show it won't.


AND.. here is the other issue, which you constantly avoid. Just because people go out and work does NOT mean they are suddenly off assistance. Employers are allowed to pay less than it takes to live and still get tax credits, etc for hiring unemployed people. I can absolutely go along with allowing lower pay in some cases, for a time. However, if the end result is not a job that allows the people to be self-sufficient, then it is still a drain on the economy (barring those few, the highly disabled and so forth). HOWEVER, laying the blame for that drain on the people working the jobs is like blaming a slave for getting sick from bad food.

[PLAYER57832]

Why does it matter if the percentage of substance abuse is the same/higher/lower than that of the general population?

The point (for me) is not if there is or is not a link.

The point is simply that if you are on welfare and take MY money, I do not want to pay for your drugs. I don't mind paying for you food, housing, heat, and kids (well I do, but not so much)... I can't stand paying for your booze, smokes, or other nonessentials. If you can afford that shit, then in my mind... You don't really need MY money.

I agree, but the point is this program will cost YOU more money, not less.

Frankly I don't care if a rich ass does coke... because he/she is paying for it.. Not ME.

I do, bvecause he is likely to cause ME or other families a lot of trouble.

HOWEVER, and this is a key point.. I don't necessarily care if they use Marihuana or use moderate amounts of alchohol.

And that gets into one of the big problems with welfare, but a very difficult one to solve. I don't think people on welfare should buy cigarettes, potato chips (that might already be excluded, at least in some states), etc, etc. However, having worked with some of these people (through my church, etc.) you find its complex. For example, the local food boxes include dried beans. In our area, a lot of people just don't eat dried beans. They tried giving folks recipes, etc. Some went to the workshops, but those are the ones who likely would have gone out and found how to use them anyway (library cookbooks, etc).

This gets back to the only REAL answer... educate the kids, put more effort into ensuring that we have fewer and fewer kids who reach adulthood without the skills they need. Yet, guess what all you wonderful conservatives are quick to say we can just go ahead and cut? EDUCATION!

[spurgistan]

Why does it matter if the percentage of substance abuse is the same/higher/lower than that of the general population?

The point (for me) is not if there is or is not a link.

The point is simply that if you are on welfare and take MY money, I do not want to pay for your drugs. I don't mind paying for you food, housing, heat, and kids (well I do, but not so much)... I can't stand paying for your booze, smokes, or other nonessentials. If you can afford that shit, then in my mind... You don't really need MY money.

Frankly I don't care if a rich ass does coke... because he/she is paying for it.. Not ME.

What if the kid doing coke is a bankers kid? Would have been broke if it wasn't for taxpayer money? Or an auto worker? They're doing fine now, but the American car industry would have been murdered were it not for federal cash. And, you know, the military, and such. I assume you guys are aware of all the thing the government supports and pays for; why single out welfare recipients?

[PLAYER57832]

3 posts in a row ... eeek!

Anyway, I am going to throw something out there. The real truth is that welfare does less to help the people involved than to help society. As I noted, as others have noted, there is nothing in they system that really helps build people up. In fact, getting off welfare is difficult even if you have the skills to go out and get a good job (and face it, a lot of those on welfare are there because they lack the skills -- maybe social skills, maybe technical skills, etc.). (This is actually one ironic reason why you see real success in people who actually do manage to get themselves out... they actually have decent skills from the start and only needed the boost up to use them).

Anyway, the purpose of welfare is not really to boost people up. Originally, it was a payment to support women with kids who "obviously" (by the terms of society then) could not go out and get any kind of decent job (even being a waitress, etc was "not a respectable option"). Society has changed, and how welfare is seen has changed, but it still is not a help UP. It is simply "maintenance". The real purpose of welfare is to keep people from becoming more of a problem for society. It is, essentially a pay off to try and keep these people out of crime, from becoming disease factories, etc, etc, etc. We do it because, in the long run, it is cheaper to hand out those welfare checks (even including all the abuse) than to deal with the crime and disease that would be even more prevalent without welfare.

[jimboston]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?

If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

I agree with this... because I don't think there should be subsidies or gov't assistance.

Tax Breaks is tricky... because that's just "NOT" taking money, which is way different than giving money. One assumes (I do anyway) that in order to get a Tax Break you must be paying tax in the first place.

[jimboston]

America....the land of the free no longer.


Welcome to the Western Hemispheres newest police state.

Why?

I don't advocate taking away a person's right to smoke cigarettes, drink, or do drugs. I have no problem with any of that.

I just don't want to give MY MONEY to someone who then has enough money to buy smokes, booze, or crack.

[jimboston]

If their Drug use is so bad that they spend all of their money on drugs, it is quite likely they wouldn't be able to get welfare anyways.

That right there is the problem. It ain't THEIR money... it's MINE.

I don't care how much of their money they spend on drugs. I don't want them to spend my money.

If a person can afford to spend any money on drugs (or booze or smokes) then they obviously don't need MY money. So give it back please.

[Woodruff]

Why is it that none of you who are in support of this legislation are responding to this point I've made a few times. How do you guys not see this as a problem?:

I guess as long as it's lining the pockets of Tea Partiers, then it's ok. Is it a problem that the guy pushing the legislation is a significant owner of the freaking drug-testing laboratories? Yes, you read that right.

Oh wait, he transferred his part in the ownership of the franchise to...his wife. Yes, that's right...no conflict of interest since now he's moved it to his wife. Is there NO shame? Well...no, not really, since Governor Scott has a history of legal problems as his previous business was found guilty of 14 felonies.

And the Tea Party loves him.

I'm not sure how I feel about the philosophy behind this legislation, but I do know that whether it's good or bad has nothing to do with whether Rick Scott is good or bad.

So you find nothing at all wrong with a legislator pushing legislation designed to specifically line his own pockets? I'm surprised by that.

[Woodruff]

America....the land of the free no longer.

Welcome to the Western Hemispheres newest police state.

Why?

I don't advocate taking away a person's right to smoke cigarettes, drink, or do drugs. I have no problem with any of that.

I just don't want to give MY MONEY to someone who then has enough money to buy smokes, booze, or crack.

But it's going to cost significantly MORE of "your money" to stop them from doing so. If your primary concern is "your money", why doesn't that impact your thought process?

[PLAYER57832]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?

If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

I agree with this... because I don't think there should be subsidies or gov't assistance.

BINGO ... still not effective (will cost you MORE), but nothing to do with reducing drugs.

Tax Breaks is tricky... because that's just "NOT" taking money, which is way different than giving money.

LOL.. not in the real world. This idea is pure illusion. Taxes not paid mean those costs are passed onto others, who then must make up for it. That does constitute a loss. Unfortunately, so many people believe this garbage, and keep pretending that they can discount costs simply passed onto the next year.. or next generation.

One assumes (I do anyway) that in order to get a Tax Break you must be paying tax in the first place.

Not true.

[Woodruff]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?
If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of that happening by the supporters within this thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

3 posts in a row ... eeek!

Anyway, I am going to throw something out there. The real truth is that welfare does less to help the people involved than to help society. As I noted, as others have noted, there is nothing in they system that really helps build people up. In fact, getting off welfare is difficult even if you have the skills to go out and get a good job (and face it, a lot of those on welfare are there because they lack the skills -- maybe social skills, maybe technical skills, etc.). (This is actually one ironic reason why you see real success in people who actually do manage to get themselves out... they actually have decent skills from the start and only needed the boost up to use them).

Anyway, the purpose of welfare is not really to boost people up. Originally, it was a payment to support women with kids who "obviously" (by the terms of society then) could not go out and get any kind of decent job (even being a waitress, etc was "not a respectable option"). Society has changed, and how welfare is seen has changed, but it still is not a help UP. It is simply "maintenance". The real purpose of welfare is to keep people from becoming more of a problem for society. It is, essentially a pay off to try and keep these people out of crime, from becoming disease factories, etc, etc, etc. We do it because, in the long run, it is cheaper to hand out those welfare checks (even including all the abuse) than to deal with the crime and disease that would be even more prevalent without welfare.

Exactly. Welfare programs subsidize one's poverty. Welfare tends to provide many people with the incentive to not move from that particular financial bracket because then they lose the additional income + other benefits.

Of course, there's the long-term benefits of expanding one's income, but most people's mentalities seem to be wired for the short-term.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, is everyone of the opinion/belief that drug testing only welfare recipients is discriminatory?


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=105#p3158968

[spurgistan]

So, is everyone of the opinion/belief that drug testing only welfare recipients is discriminatory?


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=105#p3158968

I feel like I made a similar point a few posts after, only maybe angrier (no sleep)

Additionally, we're talking about a specific type of welfare here. I don't hear phatscotty or jimbo talking about the need to drug-test corporate welfare beneficiaries.

[Timminz]

I am going to assume that the people in favour of this law are also in favour of drug testing every employee, and every stakeholder at every company or organization that receives subsidies, tax breaks, or any other form of government assistance?

If they weren't, they would have argued my earlier post.

I agree with this... because I don't think there should be subsidies or gov't assistance.

Tax Breaks is tricky... because that's just "NOT" taking money, which is way different than giving money. One assumes (I do anyway) that in order to get a Tax Break you must be paying tax in the first place.

Tax breaks are absolutely a form of government assistance. It's the government saying, "Okay, according to the way things are set up, you owe $X in taxes, but we're going to give you a special discount because you're hiring unemployed people/you donated enough to my last election campaign/whatever other reason they offer tax breaks." The break puts extra money in the bank accounts of that company.

You're free to like or not like tax breaks, but to say they aren't government assistance is just ignorant.

[notyou2]

So, is everyone of the opinion/belief that drug testing only welfare recipients is discriminatory?


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=105#p3158968

It is absolutely discriminatory, and probably a case could be made that it is so on multiple levels. Socio-economic discrimination, possible racial discrimination, ethnic background discrimination, etc.

[keiths31]

Exactly. Welfare programs subsidize one's poverty. Welfare tends to provide many people with the incentive to not move from that particular financial bracket because then they lose the additional income + other benefits.

Listening to CBC Radio the other day, they were talking to an aboriginal leader from out west. They were talking about poverty and breaking the cycle of said poverty in regards to aboriginals and their reserve way of life. He said that "the quickest way to kill a man is to pay them to do nothing". I don't think it was an original quote, but it is one that weighs in heavily in the welfare debate. There is no incentive for some on welfare to get off when the government keeps giving them more money. Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a crutch. There needs to be programs in place to entice people on welfare to get off and contribute to society.

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

The argument that it is "my money going to their drugs" is valid, but then you will have to ensure that all civil servants are tested as that is public money as well. Politicians, firemen, police and in Canada, doctors and nurses.

[Woodruff]

In regards to this discussion, I don't think testing is the right way to go about it. If different governments are that worried about drug use amongst welfare recipients, then they can go with a voucher system for food, rent, childcare, etc. If they have less actual money then maybe hey won't spend as much on drugs.

Well stated. I think the only problem to arise from that idea is "getting back change" from purchases at grocery stores and such, though possibly that could be overcome by the use of a debit card or something along those lines.