D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

The proposal in OP would only increase the amount of bureaucratic leg work required to get welfare payment. So realy its all about increasing the overhead costs vs benefit payout.

It's really a question of whether you think it is worthwhile to spend time ,effort and money, ensuring welfare recipients don't get high. Personally I think the US has much more pressing issues.

This is it!
No one here is saying people on welfare, or anyone else, should be on drugs that inhibit their lives. However, just like the whole idea of welfare itself.. no one likes deadbeats, but its cheaper to pay a minimum to keep them from becoming even worse problems.

[john9blue]

I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.


Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

this is so ridiculously shallow i don't even know what to say.

so what jobs "contribute to society" in your opinion? and what is their effect on the environment?

[Woodruff]

Entitlements are causing this country to go bankrupt.

Incorrect. Idiotic policies, a very few of which have anything to do with entitlements, are what are causing this country to go bankrupt. Entitlements really are NOT the problem. However, that is thoroughly irrelevant to the hypocricy.

Wow. I am speechless that you could even say that.

Your neat little pictures do not in any way refute my statements. Entitlements are NOT the problem. How they are enacted are a part of the problem (I referenced that above, but you seem to have glossed over that).

But don't worry, we don't have any problem with entitlements.

I didn't say we don't have a problem with them. I said they are not the problem. A distinction very much worth noting.

[Woodruff]

I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.

Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

Mining contributes nothing to society?

[Timminz]

I support this proposal exactly as much as I support the idea of drug testing every employee, and stakeholder at every company, or organization that receives government subsidies, or tax-breaks, or any other form of support from the government.

That is to say, not at all.

[Phatscotty]

Welfare is an entitlement, so if we can save money by stopping the money flow to drug addicts, then we're improving our system.

And costing ourselves more money by doing so. And increasing the nanny state that you Tea Partiers keep railing about. And yet, this isn't hypocricy in your mind? How is that even possible?

Night strike, it appears you forgot to respond to this part of woodruff's post. I'll just help you here by posting it again so you won't forget about it again.

It's okay if liberals do not understand conservative principles and it doesn't make sense to them.

Drug testing people who get free money from the gov't is a good thing, the worst thing you guys can say about it is that it costs 14 million. The overall program costs are in the billions.

I am all for making any gov't system more efficient, and I would never expect the cost of the efficiency to be free as you all do, but rather we get the money back and more once the abusers are kicked from the ranks.

[Woodruff]

Welfare is an entitlement, so if we can save money by stopping the money flow to drug addicts, then we're improving our system.

And costing ourselves more money by doing so. And increasing the nanny state that you Tea Partiers keep railing about. And yet, this isn't hypocricy in your mind? How is that even possible?

Night strike, it appears you forgot to respond to this part of woodruff's post. I'll just help you here by posting it again so you won't forget about it again.

It's okay if liberals do not understand conservative principles and it doesn't make sense to them.

Drug testing people who get free money from the gov't is a good thing, the worst thing you guys can say about it is that it costs 14 million. The overall program costs are in the billions.

I am all for making any gov't system more efficient, and I would never expect the cost of the efficiency to be free as you all do, but rather we get the money back and more once the abusers are kicked from the ranks.

No, we absolutely would not "get the money back and more" because there frankly is not that high of a percentage of drug abusers amongst welfare recipients. You're spending a lot of money to save a little money. That's stupid math.

[Phatscotty]

I'm sure when the results are released, they will just be biased though. I will wait and see. I bet you we will both be surprised.

Here in Minnesota we send welfare checks to people who live in Chicago. Things are way out of hand here and probably a lot of other places too.

[Woodruff]

Here in Minnesota we send welfare checks to people who live in Chicago.

See, now THAT sort of thing I would agree needs to be corrected, if it is indeed welfare and not something along the lines of unemployment compensation. That's a different issue than the drug testing issue, however.

[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.

[notyou2]

If I lived in a police state or a dictatorship then yes I would support this thread, but I am happy to state that I don't live in the place that Phat Scotty is hoping to live in.

Phatscotty, I bet Libya, China, and Iran support this idea. Maybe they are accepting immigrants.

[notyou2]

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.

What the f*ck is the matter with you???? Do you speed? I bet you do. Do you cheat on your taxes? I bet you do.


You seem to have an awful hate on for the poor man, the disenfranchised, the disabled, anyone that is different than you.

[Phatscotty]

or, maybe it's just about drug users abusing the welfare system?

[notyou2]

Look there are going to be people abusing the system no matter what. Drug users included. The issue in Florida is about business for a company that is held by people who are closely connected to the state government. You want to talk about abuse. That conflict of interest is huge, but the fucking people are too fucking stoopit, or misinformed (read lied to) to see it. It's all rhetoric on the part of the government and you are jumping on the band wagon.

You wanna fight Scotty, then fight for justice. You are currently fighting for something that is going to hurt a lot of people, especially those that can least afford it, children. Do some legwork, detective work, and see if what Woodruff says about the ownership is true and then fight it from that angle.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

[radiojake]

In response to the replies to my earlier post, I was being (as I would assume you would have guessed) slightly polemic - My distaste of mining probably stems from Australia's rich sources of Coal (which is dirty) and Uranium (that we sell to India and China) - But I do not think anyone can argue against that mining is terrible for the local environs. The uranium mine in Northern Terrirtory has recently overflowed and toxic flows have now been discovered in Kadadu national park (a beautiful part of the country).



But my point I still stand by, in that working 40 hours a week to produce or sell shit products that have inbuilt obsoletism is disgusting - Plasma TVs that last 3 years - Laptops and PC's that last less. iPods that are designed to break - Mobile Phone (or cell phones, I think that is what US folk call them) that become so outdated quickly that everyone feels the need to buy more.

Our economy is based on perpetual growth; this in itself is impossible, but we are all deluded. So to continue on we build shit to break in order to have to produce and sell more shit. I do not think this is productive at all (not in the positive sense of the word)

That was my point.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sure when the results are released, they will just be biased though. I will wait and see. I bet you we will both be surprised.

Here, got the stats for you..

See, this is not precisely the first time the subject has arisen in this country.
Link to full article:
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/New ... elfare.htm

Drs. Grant and Dawson found the 1992 prevalence of alcohol abuse and/or dependence among welfare recipients (which ranged from 4.3 to 8.2 percent across the five welfare programs) and drug abuse and/or dependence (which ranged from 1.3 to 3.6 across the programs) comparable to general population rates for alcohol abuse and/or dependence (7.4 percent) and other drug abuse and/or dependence (1.5 percent). Similarly, the proportion of welfare recipients who are heavy drinkers (6.4 to 13.8 percent across programs) was comparable to 14.5 percent in the general population, and the proportion of welfare recipients who use other drugs (3.8 to 9.8 across programs) was comparable to 5.0 in the general population. The welfare rates also were similar to non-welfare rates of alcohol abuse and/or dependence (7.5 percent), drug abuse and/or dependence (1.5 percent), heavy drinking (14.8 percent), and any drug use (5.1 percent).

The general and welfare populations demonstrated somewhat different gender, ethnic, and age patterns in the proportions of individuals who use, abuse, or are dependent on alcohol or other drugs. For example, in the general population, rates for all alcohol and drug problem indicators are substantially higher among men than women; in the welfare population, no gender differences were found for drug problem indicators, nor were alcohol problem indicators higher among men than women in the AFDC program. Similarly, while the general population prevalence of all alcohol and drug problem indicators is higher for non-Blacks than blacks, rates of heavy drinking, drug use, and alcohol and/or drug abuse and dependence were not significantly different between Black and non-Black recipients of each welfare program.

Among the welfare recipients with alcohol and other drug problems, the authors report differences according to welfare program type. For example, heavy drinking, any drug use, and alcohol and other drug abuse and/or dependence were significantly greater among 25- through 34-year-old recipients of AFDC and Food Stamps, than among recipients 35 years and older, and among 30- through 54-year-old SSI and Medicaid recipients than among those 55 years and older. WIC recipients did not demonstrate a similar age differential.

Summary: the incidence of drug and alchohol use is roughly the same as in the general population -- roughly 6 %. This means, Phattscotty, that getting welfare is not caused by, is not linked to getting welfare.

Ironically, you need to note the alchohol rates. The link between heavy alchoholic use and "poor behavior" is actually higher tham for drug use, for a lot of "social" reasons. (though the perception is otherwise among many groups). Yet, I don't see any huge move to have folks tested for alchohol use... or even heavy alchoholism.

So, the taxpayers will have to pay $35 a pop for each test, plus the administration costs.

Then you get into that "designate another adult" bit. Remember that Florida is the state that just lost several foster kids? ... "lost" as in they died and no one knew. They are incredibly overrun. Who is going to check that things are used responsibly. I mean, sorry, but whomever thinks that the parents are going to just starve is idiotic.

Here in Minnesota we send welfare checks to people who live in Chicago. Things are way out of hand here and probably a lot of other places too.

And this has to do with drug use in welfare recipients -- how, exactly?????

[PLAYER57832]

I like the part where some people seem to think any job (regardless of the negative consequences on environment, or even if the said job only contributes to landfill) means that people have earned the money they receieve.

Just because someone has spent 40 hours a week producing or selling shit that will invariably be thrown away and added to landfill, they shouldn't feel anymore righteous than someone on welfare.


Example: Anyone who works in advertising, or at McDonalds, or mining, to name a few, contributes NOTHING to society and infact I think they need a bullet.

this is so ridiculously shallow i don't even know what to say.

so what jobs "contribute to society" in your opinion? and what is their effect on the environment?

Interestingly enough, the Bible has some pretty good guidance there.

[jimboston]

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.

[notyou2]

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 that rich ass got that money by tax evasion?

[Phatscotty]

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 that rich ass got that money by tax evasion?

different law. different thread. Not even a public program...

[notyou2]

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 that rich ass got that money by tax evasion?

different law. different thread. Not even a public program...

The whole premise here is that tax payers don't like welfare recipients buying initially drugs, but for some of you it has spread to alcohol and cigarettes as well.

I'd like to say that I don't think they should be spending their welfare money on these items either, especially if there are children as well. However, the point was made that a rich guy spending money on coke is fine as long as it's his money. What if that money was ill gained by tax evasion? What if that rich guy is the drug dealer? This is a valid question and deserves a proper response, not to be swept under the rug like scotty tried.

[radiojake]

It must be so easy being a righteous conservative.

[jimboston]

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 that rich ass got that money by tax evasion?

Then he should be prosecuted.

[Phatscotty]

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.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/ ... teractive/