D.T.W.A.

[Phatscotty]

Applying for welfare benefits in Florida? Soon you’ll need to get drug tested.

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

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

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDpFdc3


http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDFEdLS

I can't believe it took this long.

[Symmetry]

Applying for welfare benefits in Florida? Soon you’ll need to get drug tested.

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

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

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDpFdc3


http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDFEdLS

I can't believe it took this long.

This is actually something I think we might agree on partially. I don't think anyone wants to see welfare payments spent on drugs, and people whose only problem is drug addiction receiving welfare.

However, there are a lot of people who have significant problems apart from drug use that should still receive welfare payments. Let's go for the extreme example here of a person with serious multiple sclerosis illegally using marijuana to manage the pain. If a failed drug test took them off welfare, and they had no real ability to hold down a permanent job, then I would say this is a bad policy.

[MeDeFe]

I predict somewhat increased rates of poverty, those hit the hardest will be the children who are already in a shitty situation. Lawsuits are also highly likely due to the possibility of false positives.

It seems fairly typical. Judging from the short article you linked to it's a law designed to appeal to a large number of voters and make the governor and those who proposed the law seem as though they do something to improve public health, curb abuse of the welfare system, and act to reduce drug abuse. Ultimately I believe the law will probably be ineffective in achieving any positive results for society as a whole, it may well succeed in getting someone re-elected, though.

[natty dread]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

[Phatscotty]

Applying for welfare benefits in Florida? Soon you’ll need to get drug tested.

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

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

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDpFdc3


http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDFEdLS

I can't believe it took this long.

This is actually something I think we might agree on partially. I don't think anyone wants to see welfare payments spent on drugs, and people whose only problem is drug addiction receiving welfare.

However, there are a lot of people who have significant problems apart from drug use that should still receive welfare payments. Let's go for the extreme example here of a person with serious multiple sclerosis illegally using marijuana to manage the pain. If a failed drug test took them off welfare, and they had no real ability to hold down a permanent job, then I would say this is a bad policy.

Yeah I think this is one of those things that everyone agrees on, but politicians just can't seem to gather the muster to make a reality. The reason I support this is because I realized that, in effect, the money that is given to people who are having hard times and need help, actually winds up in a drug dealers hands, which probably pays for all kinds of guns and booze and other drugs, well, the life of a drug dealer ya know. And we aren't talking about a pot dealers here, this is like coke, heroin, and the kind of people who get their "aid" for the month but have spent every penny of it on the first weekend. Not to mention the chaos and domestic violence and abuse that come with it.

It's just a measure of common sense accountability. I don't want to make this political, and anyone feel free to share other states that already have same/similar legislation. But I am curious if this is going to be a trend among red sates, or all states.

About your example....read the story I think it mentions that. anyone who has other drugs they need must notify the doctor/gov't of those drugs and...i dont remember but it covers that. These guys are actually doing something for the good of society and it is rare.

[Phatscotty]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

in that case, why should we give taxpayer dollars to people who are going to rob someone at gunpoint? Shouldn't those people be in jail?

[Jolly Roger]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

in that case, why should we give taxpayer dollars to people who are going to rob someone at gunpoint? Shouldn't those people be in jail?

Which costs more I wonder - housing an inmate or paying somebody welfare? I was going to look it up myself but got bored somewhere in the middle of this thread at bobybuilder.com: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=115268891

On a side note, why don't we get to have BodyBlog Entries, Body Points and Rep Power here at the Club?

[Phatscotty]

I am sad that we are actually trying to figure out what costs us more, someone who chooses to rob someone of their money and maybe their life and the cost of jailing them, or subsidizing people who can not survive on their own. I think they are both extremely expensive.

The cheapest thing is to encourage people to follow the law, certainly when they are getting a cash hand out from the same people who make the law. It is also the right thing to do.

[BigBallinStalin]

I predict somewhat increased rates of poverty, those hit the hardest will be the children who are already in a shitty situation. Lawsuits are also highly likely due to the possibility of false positives.

It seems fairly typical. Judging from the short article you linked to it's a law designed to appeal to a large number of voters and make the governor and those who proposed the law seem as though they do something to improve public health, curb abuse of the welfare system, and act to reduce drug abuse. Ultimately I believe the law will probably be ineffective in achieving any positive results for society as a whole, it may well succeed in getting someone re-elected, though.

Agreed.

I recall similar acts of legislating, and nothing really taking off from there. It's a great marketing strategy, and that's that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

in that case, why should we give taxpayer dollars to people who are going to rob someone at gunpoint? Shouldn't those people be in jail?

Which costs more I wonder - housing an inmate or paying somebody welfare? I was going to look it up myself but got bored somewhere in the middle of this thread at bobybuilder.com: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=115268891

On a side note, why don't we get to have BodyBlog Entries, Body Points and Rep Power here at the Club?

Bring on the Gun Show:

[Phatscotty]

I predict somewhat increased rates of poverty, those hit the hardest will be the children who are already in a shitty situation. Lawsuits are also highly likely due to the possibility of false positives.

It seems fairly typical. Judging from the short article you linked to it's a law designed to appeal to a large number of voters and make the governor and those who proposed the law seem as though they do something to improve public health, curb abuse of the welfare system, and act to reduce drug abuse. Ultimately I believe the law will probably be ineffective in achieving any positive results for society as a whole, it may well succeed in getting someone re-elected, though.

You should probably read it again. The bill accounts for children. If a parent is using drugs, is not the child at risk already?

[Symmetry]

Applying for welfare benefits in Florida? Soon you’ll need to get drug tested.

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

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

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDpFdc3


http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDFEdLS

I can't believe it took this long.

This is actually something I think we might agree on partially. I don't think anyone wants to see welfare payments spent on drugs, and people whose only problem is drug addiction receiving welfare.

However, there are a lot of people who have significant problems apart from drug use that should still receive welfare payments. Let's go for the extreme example here of a person with serious multiple sclerosis illegally using marijuana to manage the pain. If a failed drug test took them off welfare, and they had no real ability to hold down a permanent job, then I would say this is a bad policy.

Yeah I think this is one of those things that everyone agrees on, but politicians just can't seem to gather the muster to make a reality. The reason I support this is because I realized that, in effect, the money that is given to people who are having hard times and need help, actually winds up in a drug dealers hands, which probably pays for all kinds of guns and booze and other drugs, well, the life of a drug dealer ya know. And we aren't talking about a pot dealers here, this is like coke, heroin, and the kind of people who get their "aid" for the month but have spent every penny of it on the first weekend. Not to mention the chaos and domestic violence and abuse that come with it.

It's just a measure of common sense accountability. I don't want to make this political, and anyone feel free to share other states that already have same/similar legislation. But I am curious if this is going to be a trend among red sates, or all states.

About your example....read the story I think it mentions that. anyone who has other drugs they need must notify the doctor/gov't of those drugs and...i dont remember but it covers that. These guys are actually doing something for the good of society and it is rare.

Sort of- pot dealers are also drug dealers, but that's nitpicking.

Basically, I don't want to see people who only have a problem with drugs supported by welfare. I do think they should be supported by the state in other ways- mainly via rehab programmes, prescription alternatives, needle exchanges and decriminalisation for possession.

For those on welfare for a good reason- say serious disability or mental illness, I don't think that failing a drug test should be the line that stops welfare.

I would also say that drug testing should be restricted to those under serious doubt of being on welfare only for drug issues. You're right that it's a common-sense issue. It's also one that I suspect neither side of having much common sense on.

In the end, any policy involving drugs should go hand-in-hand with a more sensible policy on drugs in general.

[HapSmo19]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

You worry about Finland...we got this.

[Phatscotty]

Applying for welfare benefits in Florida? Soon you’ll need to get drug tested.

A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

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

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDpFdc3


http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDFEdLS

I can't believe it took this long.

This is actually something I think we might agree on partially. I don't think anyone wants to see welfare payments spent on drugs, and people whose only problem is drug addiction receiving welfare.

However, there are a lot of people who have significant problems apart from drug use that should still receive welfare payments. Let's go for the extreme example here of a person with serious multiple sclerosis illegally using marijuana to manage the pain. If a failed drug test took them off welfare, and they had no real ability to hold down a permanent job, then I would say this is a bad policy.

Yeah I think this is one of those things that everyone agrees on, but politicians just can't seem to gather the muster to make a reality. The reason I support this is because I realized that, in effect, the money that is given to people who are having hard times and need help, actually winds up in a drug dealers hands, which probably pays for all kinds of guns and booze and other drugs, well, the life of a drug dealer ya know. And we aren't talking about a pot dealers here, this is like coke, heroin, and the kind of people who get their "aid" for the month but have spent every penny of it on the first weekend. Not to mention the chaos and domestic violence and abuse that come with it.

It's just a measure of common sense accountability. I don't want to make this political, and anyone feel free to share other states that already have same/similar legislation. But I am curious if this is going to be a trend among red sates, or all states.

About your example....read the story I think it mentions that. anyone who has other drugs they need must notify the doctor/gov't of those drugs and...i dont remember but it covers that. These guys are actually doing something for the good of society and it is rare.

Sort of- pot dealers are also drug dealers, but that's nitpicking.

Basically, I don't want to see people who only have a problem with drugs supported by welfare. I do think they should be supported by the state in other ways- mainly via rehab programmes, prescription alternatives, needle exchanges and decriminalisation for possession.

For those on welfare for a good reason- say serious disability or mental illness, I don't think that failing a drug test should be the line that stops welfare.

I would also say that drug testing should be restricted to those under serious doubt of being on welfare only for drug issues. You're right that it's a common-sense issue. It's also one that I suspect neither side of having much common sense on.

In the end, any policy involving drugs should go hand-in-hand with a more sensible policy on drugs in general.

Well, there you have it. I too support people with disability and mental illness, as that was those programs original intention.

I will tell you one thing. My friend from school has a serious drug problem. it started with alcohol and graduated to drugs, harder and harder. One day he broke his ankle, and then got put into oxy-contin. Now he gets drug tested regularly and if they find anything in his blood that is not supposed to be there, he will only get a half-fill. Guess what? He stops using all drugs about 2 weeks before he needs to get a refill. People respond when you threaten to take something away from them that they need. It's time to get tough and buck up because people who are getting help, it's only supposed to be temporary right? They should be saving as much as they can and living frugally and building a plan to make a better future, not getting high. Drugs have no place in any of that.

It is also true that money that is given to someone is spent much more freely than money that person has to earn by themselves. It's very easy to waste cash-handouts when you dont have to respect the value and time and effort and sacrifice of the person that had to earn that money and pay it as a tax. The system was good in it's intentions, but now it's a voting mechanism where all you have to do is promise people more shit and they will vote for you.

Once people learn they can vote the treasury, it's a road to bankruptcy. People will always have more to vote for even when all of their problems are solved, I guarantee you there will be a whole new list of problems.

This is common sense. We are trying to help people after all, aren't we?

[Woodruff]

Applying for welfare benefits in Florida? Soon you’ll need to get drug tested.
A measure requiring the tests passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to Gov. Rick Scott, who called it one of his legislative priorities.

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

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDpFdc3
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/06/2 ... z1LiDFEdLS
I can't believe it took this long.

And not only does he want welfare recipients to be drug tested, he wants all state employees to be drug tested. Not when they are hired. Not once per year. He wants it to happen QUARTERLY. I should point out, of course, that this WON'T save money. In fact, it is expected to cost more than 14 million dollars. What was it again about Tea Partiers wanting to cut taxpayer costs?

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.

[Phatscotty]

its about accountability.

Not everyone is tested as it's random and the testing is already in place for state employees in FL. It's being expanded.

Helping people costs money. This is a very responsible way to help people and promote for the general welfare.

[Woodruff]

its about accountability.

So what you're telling me is that the Tea Party is NOT about trimming the budget. The Tea Party is only about trimming the budget on things THEY WANT TO GET RID OF ANYWAY. Glad we've made that clear. Seriously...14 billion.

Not everyone is tested as it's random and the testing is already in place for state employees in FL. It's being expanded.

The Governor's proposal is that everyone will be tested AT LEAST QUARTERLY. Yes, the system for WHEN EXACTLY they will be tested will be random, but they WILL BE TESTED AT LEAST QUARTERLY.

Helping people costs money. This is a very responsible way to help people and promote for the general welfare.

Wait, wait, wait...helping people costs money? Since when does the Tea Party give a crap about helping people? Raping Medicare isn't going to help anyone. But trimming that is just grand! Why the hypocricy? Because the Tea Republican Party wants to drug test, but they don't want Medicare.

[Symmetry]

I will tell you one thing. My friend from school has a serious drug problem. it started with alcohol and graduated to drugs, harder and harder. One day he broke his ankle, and then got put into oxy-contin. Now he gets drug tested regularly and if they find anything in his blood that is not supposed to be there, he will only get a half-fill. Guess what? He stops using all drugs about 2 weeks before he needs to get a refill. People respond when you threaten to take something away from them that they need. It's time to get tough and buck up because people who are getting help, it's only supposed to be temporary right? They should be saving as much as they can and living frugally and building a plan to make a better future, not getting high. Drugs have no place in any of that.

It is also true that money that is given to someone is spent much more freely than money that person has to earn by themselves. It's very easy to waste cash-handouts when you dont have to respect the value and time and effort and sacrifice of the person that had to earn that money and pay it as a tax. The system was good in it's intentions, but now it's a voting mechanism where all you have to do is promise people more shit and they will vote for you.

Once people learn they can vote the treasury, it's a road to bankruptcy. People will always have more to vote for even when all of their problems are solved, I guarantee you there will be a whole new list of problems.

This is common sense. We are trying to help people after all, aren't we?

I thought you weren't going to make this political. But anyway, I'm not sure the drug-addicted welfare recipients are able to really sway US economic policy in the way that you think.

Well- maybe the bankers hooked on coke.

Anyway, while I think a big part of the welfare system is dedicated to temporary measures, a big part is also dedicated to helping people throughout their lives. Lumping those groups in together seems a bit callous.

This is beginning to look like an attack on any form of welfare. Are you really willing to pay for drug tests for anyone who claims the right to welfare? Sounds expensive.

[Woodruff]

Are you really willing to pay for drug tests for anyone who claims the right to welfare? Sounds expensive.

Well that's ok, because it's a Tea Republican Party plank. That's different.

[Phatscotty]

I will tell you one thing. My friend from school has a serious drug problem. it started with alcohol and graduated to drugs, harder and harder. One day he broke his ankle, and then got put into oxy-contin. Now he gets drug tested regularly and if they find anything in his blood that is not supposed to be there, he will only get a half-fill. Guess what? He stops using all drugs about 2 weeks before he needs to get a refill. People respond when you threaten to take something away from them that they need. It's time to get tough and buck up because people who are getting help, it's only supposed to be temporary right? They should be saving as much as they can and living frugally and building a plan to make a better future, not getting high. Drugs have no place in any of that.

It is also true that money that is given to someone is spent much more freely than money that person has to earn by themselves. It's very easy to waste cash-handouts when you dont have to respect the value and time and effort and sacrifice of the person that had to earn that money and pay it as a tax. The system was good in it's intentions, but now it's a voting mechanism where all you have to do is promise people more shit and they will vote for you.

Once people learn they can vote the treasury, it's a road to bankruptcy. People will always have more to vote for even when all of their problems are solved, I guarantee you there will be a whole new list of problems.

This is common sense. We are trying to help people after all, aren't we?

I thought you weren't going to make this political. But anyway, I'm not sure the drug-addicted welfare recipients are able to really sway US economic policy in the way that you think.

Well- maybe the bankers hooked on coke.

Anyway, while I think a big part of the welfare system is dedicated to temporary measures, a big part is also dedicated to helping people throughout their lives. Lumping those groups in together seems a bit callous.

This is beginning to look like an attack on any form of welfare. Are you really willing to pay for drug tests for anyone who claims the right to welfare? Sounds expensive.

I dont see how any of that is political. the example of a school friend of mine is not political. The statement about how money is spent when its given rather than earned isn't either. Voting the treasury? Not really political a general democratic statement as both parties do it so...

I can not lump temporary recipients with lifetime recipients because I do not agree welfare is a lifetime program nor do I think it should be. We abolished slavery. We do not support one person living off the earning of workers for their whole lives.

I said right from the git go I know people need help and I'm not opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the program being run without accountability. That is not meant to be political, it's meant to be responsible. I do not have a hard time helping people who need it. I do have a hard time paying for people to get high. Personally, I would rather burn that money myself rather then let someone else get high off my money that I bust my ass for.

[BigBallinStalin]

If all government employees were drug-tested, then the Center for Disease Control would face some serious turnover rates...


Aside from my above comment, Phatscotty, don't you see that this politician is just pandering to his voters? He's employing the basic principles of political marketing, so get real.

[Phatscotty]

If all government employees were drug-tested, then the Center for Disease Control would face some serious turnover rates...


Aside from my above comment, Phatscotty, don't you see that this politician is just pandering to his voters? He's employing the basic principles of political marketing, so get real.

You can focus on that. I'm not saying that isn't true or part of it, it's the principle, no matter how it looks to whomever.

[PLAYER57832]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

Exactly.

As much as I dislike supporting my derelict neighbors, it is the cheaper way to go. If you want to REALLY save money, you have to put more into their kids. Sadly, that is exactly what the current congress, many states are NOT doing. Here in Pennsylvania, we are seing a 50% budget cut to Penn State, and huge cuts to all other levels of education... of course, they are happy to fund the private vouchers.

AND... despite the stereotypes, most people on welfare are not on drugs. They often do have other issues.

[Symmetry]

I will tell you one thing. My friend from school has a serious drug problem. it started with alcohol and graduated to drugs, harder and harder. One day he broke his ankle, and then got put into oxy-contin. Now he gets drug tested regularly and if they find anything in his blood that is not supposed to be there, he will only get a half-fill. Guess what? He stops using all drugs about 2 weeks before he needs to get a refill. People respond when you threaten to take something away from them that they need. It's time to get tough and buck up because people who are getting help, it's only supposed to be temporary right? They should be saving as much as they can and living frugally and building a plan to make a better future, not getting high. Drugs have no place in any of that.

It is also true that money that is given to someone is spent much more freely than money that person has to earn by themselves. It's very easy to waste cash-handouts when you dont have to respect the value and time and effort and sacrifice of the person that had to earn that money and pay it as a tax. The system was good in it's intentions, but now it's a voting mechanism where all you have to do is promise people more shit and they will vote for you.

Once people learn they can vote the treasury, it's a road to bankruptcy. People will always have more to vote for even when all of their problems are solved, I guarantee you there will be a whole new list of problems.

This is common sense. We are trying to help people after all, aren't we?

I thought you weren't going to make this political. But anyway, I'm not sure the drug-addicted welfare recipients are able to really sway US economic policy in the way that you think.

Well- maybe the bankers hooked on coke.

Anyway, while I think a big part of the welfare system is dedicated to temporary measures, a big part is also dedicated to helping people throughout their lives. Lumping those groups in together seems a bit callous.

This is beginning to look like an attack on any form of welfare. Are you really willing to pay for drug tests for anyone who claims the right to welfare? Sounds expensive.

I dont see how any of that is political. the example of a school friend of mine is not political. The statement about how money is spent when its given rather than earned isn't either. Voting the treasury? Not really political a general democratic statement as both parties do it so...

I can not lump temporary recipients with lifetime recipients because I do not agree welfare is a lifetime program nor do I think it should be. We abolished slavery. We do not support one person living off the earning of workers for their whole lives.

I said right from the git go I know people need help and I'm not opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the program being run without accountability. That is not meant to be political, it's meant to be responsible. I do not have a hard time helping people who need it. I do have a hard time paying for people to get high. Personally, I would rather burn that money myself rather then let someone else get high off my money that I bust my ass for.

Who should pay for the drug tests for every recipient of government welfare that you're asking for?

[BigBallinStalin]

Utterly fucking silly law. Typical right wing populists cashing on the fearmongering.

So, they won't give welfare money if you test positive on a "drug". Then the drug addicts will just have to steal even more, there will be more crime, more deaths, starvation, disease, etc. Not to mention people who maybe just tried some weed for the stress may have their lives utterly fucked up.

While an alcoholic can spend his whole welfare on alcohol, beat his wife and kids while drunk, and no one will complain.

I don't see how any sensible human being could possibly see this as a good thing.

Exactly.

As much as I dislike supporting my derelict neighbors, it is the cheaper way to go. If you want to REALLY save money, you have to put more into their kids. Sadly, that is exactly what the current congress, many states are NOT doing. Here in Pennsylvania, we are seing a 50% budget cut to Penn State, and huge cuts to all other levels of education... of course, they are happy to fund the private vouchers.

AND... despite the stereotypes, most people on welfare are not on drugs. They often do have other issues.

Why do you think that the private vouching system will fall short of the budget gap for Pennsylvania?