If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   Remember that controversial Florida law requiring welfare seekers to submit to drug tests? Turns out it didn't save taxpayers any money, didn't affect the number of applications, and didn't even ferret out very many drug users   (newser.com) divider line 558
    More: Florida, Florida law, florida, drug tests, application software, welfare, invasion of privacy, welfare seekers  
•       •       •

9087 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



558 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-18 12:21:04 PM
Should not every shareholder in every corporation that receives government subsidies be likewise tested?
 
2012-04-18 12:21:57 PM

kiwimoogle84: If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?


Also:

I occasionally give homeless people money. I am pretty fortunate and I do pretty well. I don't donate enough to charity so it makes me feel better. Every once in awhile someone I am with when I give that person a few bucks gets all superior and says something like "I give them food, that way they wont spend it on liquor or drugs." To which I usually respond along the lines of "If they want to buy liquor or drugs fark it. Their life is shiatty, let them do whatever they want to feel better if only for a little while."

Is it helping them get off the street? No, but neither is the McDouble you bought them from the dollar menu, so don't think you are helping them any more than I am you self-righteous twunt.


/Jesus said to give to the poor
//He didn't say anything about attaching conditions or strings
///if you believe in that stuff
 
2012-04-18 12:22:02 PM

Churchy LaFemme: C'mon, now!

The point was never to stop drug abusers. The point was to put those lazy poors in their place and make the rest of us feel good about ourselves.

Mission accomplished!


This.
It's basically, "if you're on any form of assistance what-so-ever, you aren't ever allowed to feel joy or happiness".
Why just drugs? Why not say "if you've spent money on a movie, or an x-box game" also? Is it about doing illegal stuff? Do they lose their benefits if they get a speeding ticket or a DUI? No. It's all about "if you're poor, you farking suck and should suffer".
 
2012-04-18 12:22:07 PM

MindStalker: Hobodeluxe: didn't stop my state from doing the same thing nor our local news from lying about the savings.

Florida passed similar legislation back in 2010 decreasing their welfare applicant pool by 48 percent and saving their state $1.8 million.


lies

Technically they are saying that almost half as many people are now applying for welfare because of the drug test. I can't find any evidence to back this up and I suspect its not true. Any statistics on welfare applications per year?


I've no such statistics, but part of the reason is that welfare applicants have to pay for the drug tests out of pocket. Sure, they'll get fully reimbursed in their first welfare check, but they'll be out $35 bucks in the meantime -- money they would otherwise have used for groceries, rent, electric bill, or bus fare/gas.

And to the people who will inevitably say that that's not a lot of money, keep in mind these are people who are poor enough to need welfare in the first place (and might have received a letter from the state saying their application has been approved pending the results from the drug test)
 
2012-04-18 12:22:17 PM
I'm glad FL took the leap to test that. Good on you FL. Now go back being crazy.
 
2012-04-18 12:22:56 PM
Tax breaks for those who can afford hookers and blow are still in play though amirite?

Maybe we should have to drug test anyone applying for certain tax deductions.
 
2012-04-18 12:23:23 PM

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.


Except those born into wealth, right?


I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.

And I am saying it is stupid to spend a lot of money to weed out a little bit of fraud, which is the case here. But you still seem to be saying the program is a good idea.
 
2012-04-18 12:23:34 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.


Why do you feel this way? I think it was a completely corrupt reason to enact this in Florida; however, I believe we should enact some restrictions on who receives "assistance". Our welfare system is easily abused, shouldn't we have the ability to know how the money is used and who receives it?
 
2012-04-18 12:24:42 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

Also:

I occasionally give homeless people money. I am pretty fortunate and I do pretty well. I don't donate enough to charity so it makes me feel better. Every once in awhile someone I am with when I give that person a few bucks gets all superior and says something like "I give them food, that way they wont spend it on liquor or drugs." To which I usually respond along the lines of "If they want to buy liquor or drugs fark it. Their life is shiatty, let them do whatever they want to feel better if only for a little while."

Is it helping them get off the street? No, but neither is the McDouble you bought them from the dollar menu, so don't think you are helping them any more than I am you self-righteous twunt.


/Jesus said to give to the poor
//He didn't say anything about attaching conditions or strings
///if you believe in that stuff


Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can. A lot of homeless people are homeless because they alienated everyone in their lives. I give money to homeless people as well as food. I do try to help people who need it. It's the people who don't need it and scam it or need it but waste it I have trouble with. I can barely afford to get all my bills paid every month but I don't go looking for handouts.
 
2012-04-18 12:25:14 PM

dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"


Conservatives care about controlling those they consider inferior (the poor*, the gheys, women for example) not about quicker, easier, and cheaper.

*poor here meaning anyone making less than them
 
2012-04-18 12:25:18 PM
I'm a fire-breathing commie liberal, but I have no problem asking people who want to use taxpayer money to support them to take a drug test.

I've had to take a drug test for every job I've had for the past 20 years. Now, I've never had to sweat it, since I made the bold decision after college that a good paying job was better for my long term goals than a good high was. But, I've had to take drug tests, pass extensive background checks, get finger printed, etc., in order to gain the employment I sought out.

Now, it also doesn't bother me in the least for my tax money to assist those who need it during difficult in their lives: It happens, and oftentimes through no fault of someone's own. (Not saying everyone is blameless for their own situations, but hope it makes my point.) However...if you are going to require tax money to fund your 'bump in the road', I expect you to be as invested in your well-being as my tax money is that goes to fund your living space, your grocery bill, etc. If you want to blow money on whatever 'elixer' floats your boat, and it's currently illegal, then why should taxpayer money get funneled to you when you have no current desire to better your own situation?

You wanna blaze up: Go for it. Just don't do it on my dime.

/Surprisingly, pro-legalization here.
 
2012-04-18 12:25:44 PM

Galloping Galoshes: jabelar: The problem with conservative thinking is that they would rather stick to some impractical sense of what they think is right (that they want to force on other people) than be either practical or compassionate.

You mean, like mandating health care?


Why is it that conservatives simply cannot understand the difference between health care and insurance?

/I know, I know, facts are liberal.
 
2012-04-18 12:26:26 PM

MindStalker: Hobodeluxe: didn't stop my state from doing the same thing nor our local news from lying about the savings.

Florida passed similar legislation back in 2010 decreasing their welfare applicant pool by 48 percent and saving their state $1.8 million.


lies

Technically they are saying that almost half as many people are now applying for welfare because of the drug test. I can't find any evidence to back this up and I suspect its not true. Any statistics on welfare applications per year?


The claim made by the author says only that case workers say caseload hasn't changed. It declines to print numbers. They go off the 2.6% number for 108 failures but neglect 40 additional who declined the tests and withdrew their application which would bump it up to 3.5%.

Additionally, any additional drop in caseload would add to that. It'd be nice to get hard numbers so we can actually judge it's effectiveness rather than argument by assertion.
 
2012-04-18 12:26:27 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.

Except those born into wealth, right?


I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.

And I am saying it is stupid to spend a lot of money to weed out a little bit of fraud, which is the case here. But you still seem to be saying the program is a good idea.


I don't have a problem with those born into wealth. I don't know why you seem to insist I think that.
 
2012-04-18 12:26:31 PM

Galloping Galoshes: jabelar: The problem with conservative thinking is that they would rather stick to some impractical sense of what they think is right (that they want to force on other people) than be either practical or compassionate.

You mean, like mandating health care?


Ohhhh... snap
 
2012-04-18 12:26:39 PM

Holodigm: Well, I'll be the brave one and admit it. I was highly in support of this and am quite disappointed It didn't work out. Oh well.


*tips hat to an honorable man*
 
2012-04-18 12:27:01 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.


Yeah because all articles are TRUTH and are never tainted by bias. I say keep up the drug testing welfare recipients. That will teach them for saying "I would rather be on welfare than get drug tested at work". This program will shut up those morans that get all angry at welfare recipients for being drug users. Instead be angry at them for winning over half mil. and still collect.

I agree most recipients are honest people, however taking out the few that are trying to ruin the system is worth it to me. It is just like the scrapping of metal. A few theives make everybody that handles scrap look like theives. Most scrappers are honest and it takes a lot of work to make any money at it.
 
2012-04-18 12:27:27 PM

jabelar: It's the same with any of the issues they like to legislate. No one really believes that drugs are particularly good for people, or that abortions are a great idea, or prostitution, or illegal aliens, etc.


Some drugs may be bad, but the individual's right to make their own decisions is most definitely a good thing. Personally, I think a sports care that can do 200mph is much much much more dangerous and harmful to society than a bag of weed.

And I most definitely think legal prostitution would be a good thing and a benefit to society. You shouldn't speak for others, especially when it's just your assumption or conjecture.
 
2012-04-18 12:27:40 PM

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.

I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.


It's a social safety net, dipstick. It's there to provide people with a basic income to support themselves in tough times. Yes, some people abuse it. Should be screw EVERYBODY? No. If I use this logic, Larry Craig and other homosexual Republicans mean that the ENTIRE party are a bunch of repressed homosexuals who can't just admit it.

The drug testing was a stupid idea that fleeced the taxpayers so the Governor could get a payday. What part of "waste of money" do you not understand?
 
2012-04-18 12:27:50 PM

ghare: Why is it that conservatives simply cannot understand the difference between health care and insurance?


My bad, make that "mandating health care insurance?"
 
2012-04-18 12:27:51 PM

jst3p: I occasionally give homeless people money. I am pretty fortunate and I do pretty well. I don't donate enough to charity so it makes me feel better. Every once in awhile someone I am with when I give that person a few bucks gets all superior and says something like "I give them food, that way they wont spend it on liquor or drugs." To which I usually respond along the lines of "If they want to buy liquor or drugs fark it. Their life is shiatty, let them do whatever they want to feel better if only for a little while."


s3.amazonaws.com

>not giving homeless people food or work
>giving them money that they later spend on hookers and meth instead
>mfw
 
2012-04-18 12:27:57 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Holodigm: Well, I'll be the brave one and admit it. I was highly in support of this and am quite disappointed It didn't work out. Oh well.

To get the full picture, you need to see if the regulation changed people's behavior. Are there a lot of people who dropped drugs for welfare (good)? Are there a lot of druggies that didn't apply for welfare (and are stealing to support themselves)? Are there a lot of welfare recipients using their benefits to buy synthetic urine? Not enough information here to make a judgement.


Or, how about this possibility, that there were very few drug users on welfare in the first place, and this was a typical GOP solution in search of a problem (that just coincidentally stuffed money into the Governor's pocket)?
 
2012-04-18 12:28:41 PM
Welfare is not an entitlement, it's a privilege. If you're using my goddamn money, that I earn working 32 hours a week on top of a full time course load, for drugs, fark you.

Sad that it didn't work out--unfortunately, alcohol has a short half life in urine, along with most amphetamines because they're not highly lipophillic (aka don't hang out in your fat stores like thc does). Standard urine tests miss occasional drug users.
 
2012-04-18 12:28:50 PM

bearcats1983: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Why do you feel this way? I think it was a completely corrupt reason to enact this in Florida; however, I believe we should enact some restrictions on who receives "assistance". Our welfare system is easily abused, shouldn't we have the ability to know how the money is used and who receives it?


Mainly I feel this way because cutting off assistance to those who are poor and need assistance indirectly harms their children when they can't eat. The next logical step is removing the children from the home. Then society is paying 100k a year in order to prevent giving several thousand to someone because they do drugs. Stupid.

In theory I understand "if you want our money then stay off drugs" but life is complicated.
 
2012-04-18 12:29:03 PM

King Something: MindStalker: Hobodeluxe: didn't stop my state from doing the same thing nor our local news from lying about the savings.

Florida passed similar legislation back in 2010 decreasing their welfare applicant pool by 48 percent and saving their state $1.8 million.


lies

Technically they are saying that almost half as many people are now applying for welfare because of the drug test. I can't find any evidence to back this up and I suspect its not true. Any statistics on welfare applications per year?

I've no such statistics, but part of the reason is that welfare applicants have to pay for the drug tests out of pocket. Sure, they'll get fully reimbursed in their first welfare check, but they'll be out $35 bucks in the meantime -- money they would otherwise have used for groceries, rent, electric bill, or bus fare/gas.

And to the people who will inevitably say that that's not a lot of money, keep in mind these are people who are poor enough to need welfare in the first place (and might have received a letter from the state saying their application has been approved pending the results from the drug test)


"Dear Poor People,

You are now too poor to be poor. Get some money and we can help you survive.

Love,

Florida"
 
2012-04-18 12:29:12 PM

O.M.E.: Should not every shareholder in every corporation that receives government subsidies be likewise tested?


Yes, and elected officials as well. And people who want to run for office.

Or else no one should be tested. I mean I guess maybe people who pilot giant vehicles/trains/ships etc. Maybe.
 
2012-04-18 12:29:28 PM

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.

Except those born into wealth, right?


I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.

And I am saying it is stupid to spend a lot of money to weed out a little bit of fraud, which is the case here. But you still seem to be saying the program is a good idea.

I don't have a problem with those born into wealth. I don't know why you seem to insist I think that.


Because it makes your "EVERYONE should work for what they have!" position hypocritical.
 
2012-04-18 12:29:48 PM

trotsky: kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.

I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.

It's a social safety net, dipstick. It's there to provide people with a basic income to support themselves in tough times. Yes, some people abuse it. Should be screw EVERYBODY? No. If I use this logic, Larry Craig and other homosexual Republicans mean that the ENTIRE party are a bunch of repressed homosexuals who can't just admit it.

The drug testing was a stupid idea that fleeced the taxpayers so the Governor could get a payday. What part of "waste of money" do you not understand?


No need to start name-calling. I'm aware it's a safety net- but it's a SAFETY NET not something to live on your whole life.
 
2012-04-18 12:30:52 PM
 
2012-04-18 12:31:49 PM

kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.


I am beginning to believe you are dumb enough to actually believe this.

I have been there too. When I was 20 I was working 3 minimum wage jobs for a total of 34 hours a week just to get by. I pulled myself out of it but I have some natural advantages that many do not.
 
2012-04-18 12:31:49 PM

TV's Vinnie: But it DID funnel a SHI*TLOAD of money to the drug testing company that just so happens to be owned by Governor Lex Luthor's wife (which was turned over to her by her husband shortly before he ran for office).


Coelacanth: I'll bet the drug testing companies have a few politicians in their back pockets.


after going to law school, I came to the hasty, but very likely conclusion that no law is ever passed unless it is backed by a powerful lobby.

it takes a powerful lobby to market, manufacture, or galvanize moral outrage. You need money for all those marketing geniuses to find and galvanize or manufacture these passions.

so, for every law that enjoys some moral justification is most likely created by the person who stands to gain the most, for the purpose of that gain, with the fortunate coincidence that the issue pisses enough people off to pass.

/ the HPV vaccination in TX, this law for drug screeners, I bet pro-life was started by gynecologists (people were opposed to abortion, but it takes a very well-heeled lobby to create the marketing campaign, catch phrases, and branding), the list goes on. I'd find it harder to find a morally presented law that wasn't directly related to the benefit of a well financed group.
// although, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. it's part of the beast.
 
2012-04-18 12:31:55 PM
Does anyone know if this is another ALEC law?

/that would be my guess.
 
2012-04-18 12:32:12 PM
That means the program actually cost the government $45,780.

//Effective cost cutting govt officials at work.
 
2012-04-18 12:32:31 PM

kiwimoogle84: I don't have a problem with those born into wealth.


You just said that everyone should have to work for their wealth, but now you're excluding those that did zero to obtain wealth.

SOUNDS LEGIT
 
2012-04-18 12:32:52 PM
 
2012-04-18 12:32:57 PM
I'm hoppin mad that these leeches take mah tax money and spend it on drugs.
I'm not hoppin mad that these leeches take mah tax money and spend it on drug tests.
 
2012-04-18 12:32:58 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Red_October: dv-ous: When will conservatives realize that sometimes it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to say "fark it?"

If parasites are going to leech off of my labor, they at least can be tested to make sure they aren't spending it on crack.

I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

You were crucified for good reason. Did you read this article? THIS is why it is a stupid idea and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Yes, I RTFA. But your response to me was "so poor people should have to work for it?" um... Read that sentence aloud. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. EVERYONE should have to work for what they have. Everyone.

Except those born into wealth, right?


I'm not saying its necessarily the brightest idea. Just like the two billion dollar program to stop Medicare fraud saved only $25,000. What I am saying is that welfare fraud is a problem. Big or small, it's still a problem.

And I am saying it is stupid to spend a lot of money to weed out a little bit of fraud, which is the case here. But you still seem to be saying the program is a good idea.

I don't have a problem with those born into wealth. I don't know why you seem to insist I think that.

Because it makes your "EVERYONE should work for what they have!" position hypocritical.


If they squander their estate money, that's not my business. I'm against that too. But at least they aren't costing us taxpayers money. Someone initially did work for that wealth, did they not? And ideally they would take the wealth they're born into and use it for good- start businesses, invest, give to charities, etc. INCLUDING HELPING THE LESS FORTUNATE.

So I'm not high and mighty and saying screw the poor. Help those who need it. But for those people who just want to live on the dole, that's what I have a problem with, and I don't see why you don't have a problem with it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
2012-04-18 12:33:30 PM
>> Turns out it ( drug testing ) didn't save taxpayers any money, didn't affect the number of applications, and didn't even ferret out very many drug users

You think proof makes any difference to conservatives ?

They are still out there pushing the failed economic policy that sent the country into the ditch during the Bush admin.
 
2012-04-18 12:33:34 PM

kiwimoogle84: No need to start name-calling. I'm aware it's a safety net- but it's a SAFETY NET not something to live on your whole life.


People are calling you stupid because your fingers are repeatedly hitting the keyboard in sequences that produce words that when strung together in the order you type them create stupid thoughts.

Then you hit "Add Comment".
 
2012-04-18 12:33:36 PM

King Something: Churchy LaFemme: The point was never to stop drug abusers. The point was to put those lazy poors in their place and make the rest of us feel good about ourselves.

Guidette Frankentits: Just like voter ID laws.

These.




1: Your post simply serves to make you feel good about yourself, middle class.jpg.

2: Voter ID laws enfranchise the poor. I used to assist folks to get IDs STRICTLY for that reason. One can open a bank account, travel, and have greater general physical access with an ID.

My point: This law is ridiculous and an illegal search.
 
2012-04-18 12:33:53 PM

BeatrixK: I'm a fire-breathing commie liberal, but I have no problem asking people who want to use taxpayer money to support them to take a drug test.

I've had to take a drug test for every job I've had for the past 20 years. Now, I've never had to sweat it, since I made the bold decision after college that a good paying job was better for my long term goals than a good high was. But, I've had to take drug tests, pass extensive background checks, get finger printed, etc., in order to gain the employment I sought out.

Now, it also doesn't bother me in the least for my tax money to assist those who need it during difficult in their lives: It happens, and oftentimes through no fault of someone's own. (Not saying everyone is blameless for their own situations, but hope it makes my point.) However...if you are going to require tax money to fund your 'bump in the road', I expect you to be as invested in your well-being as my tax money is that goes to fund your living space, your grocery bill, etc. If you want to blow money on whatever 'elixer' floats your boat, and it's currently illegal, then why should taxpayer money get funneled to you when you have no current desire to better your own situation?

You wanna blaze up: Go for it. Just don't do it on my dime.

/Surprisingly, pro-legalization here.


While that's great in principle, as a taxpayer I can't support a program that was promised to save me money, but does the opposite.

Ideals are great, but I'm a pragmatist.
 
2012-04-18 12:34:51 PM

kiwimoogle84: I AM a poor person. I'm not superior to anyone. I'm just not above working crappy low paying jobs to make ends meet rather than take more than I contribute.


You're missing the point.

Why should the government be spending more money to enforce this program when it doesn't actually work? Couldn't that money be better spent finding ways to get people off of welfare?
 
2012-04-18 12:35:15 PM

kiwimoogle84: The Homer Tax: kiwimoogle84: I said this in a thread just yesterday and got crucified for it. I wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

Not if it's more expensive than not caring.

Should we really spend *more* taxpayer dollars just so you can feel even more superior to poor people?

I AM a poor person. I'm not superior to anyone. I'm just not above working crappy low paying jobs to make ends meet rather than take more than I contribute.


Ah, so you feel you are superior to people who don't work crappy low-paying jobs? Just wait until you need assistance from someone. I'm sure you've been helped in the past, and I'm not talking welfare. If you only have a crappy low-paying job you already take more than you contribute.
 
2012-04-18 12:35:36 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: If you ask me to borrow money, don't I have the right to ask you how you plan to spend it?

Also:

I occasionally give homeless people money. I am pretty fortunate and I do pretty well. I don't donate enough to charity so it makes me feel better. Every once in awhile someone I am with when I give that person a few bucks gets all superior and says something like "I give them food, that way they wont spend it on liquor or drugs." To which I usually respond along the lines of "If they want to buy liquor or drugs fark it. Their life is shiatty, let them do whatever they want to feel better if only for a little while."

Is it helping them get off the street? No, but neither is the McDouble you bought them from the dollar menu, so don't think you are helping them any more than I am you self-righteous twunt.


/Jesus said to give to the poor
//He didn't say anything about attaching conditions or strings
///if you believe in that stuff


You're both right and wrong. If the beggar uses the money for liquor and drugs then that's a failing on their part and doesn't affect the good nature of your charity. But giving someone suffering something that reinforces the suffering isn't a blessing. Now you're not reinforcing it. You're still doing a kindness by giving. People who give food though are doing a kindness as well and possibly even a better one by directly helping them alleviate their suffering via food. Self-satisfaction and smugness aside.

I don't think Jesus would be okay with beggars getting drunk.
 
2012-04-18 12:36:01 PM
I'm a super-duper, hard-left liberal and I really don't have a problem with something like this, so long as it is fairly and transparently managed (free from conflicts of interest, for example).

The other side to this coin, though, is that drug rehabilitation has to also be free, and you get welfare for, say, six months even if you don't pass the drug test, provided that you attend rehab. Addiction causes a huge amount of problems in attaining and keeping employment; the goal should be to help addicts stop being addicts.

I'm also okay with placing a code on driver's licenses and other state-issued IDs indicating that you're on food assistance. That way you can't use your assistance to buy food that you then return for cash and then use the cash to buy booze (assuming you're asked to show ID to purchase booze). I realize it wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might put a dent into the problem and cause a few people to think about what it is they're doing.

If you're not on social assistance and you want to spend whatever money you have on booze or drugs, and you're not supposed to be a provider for someone else, then I say knock yourself out.
 
2012-04-18 12:36:07 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.

I am beginning to believe you are dumb enough to actually believe this.


maybe he's blind and a quadriplegic who suffers from constant grand mal seizures. If someone like that can do it anyone can...
 
2012-04-18 12:36:41 PM

jst3p: kiwimoogle84: Yes but why are the poor poor? I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.

I am beginning to believe you are dumb enough to actually believe this.

I have been there too. When I was 20 I was working 3 minimum wage jobs for a total of 34 hours a week just to get by. I pulled myself out of it but I have some natural advantages that many do not.


Would you kindly stop insulting my character? I've not insulted you once and I think it's pretty apparent that I can string together thought out opinions with experience to back it up. Yes. I have advantages many do not. What I am saying, and what you fail to understand, is that I am not talking about people who are incapable of helping themselves. I am talking about people who have every opportunity to do right by themselves and make stupid decisions and are too lazy to work themselves out of their bad situation.
 
2012-04-18 12:37:00 PM

Bendal: To get the full picture, you need to see if the regulation changed people's behavior. Are there a lot of people who dropped drugs for welfare (good)? Are there a lot of druggies that didn't apply for welfare (and are stealing to support themselves)? Are there a lot of welfare recipients using their benefits to buy synthetic urine? Not enough information here to make a judgement.

Or, how about this possibility, that there were very few drug users on welfare in the first place, and this was a typical GOP solution in search of a problem (that just coincidentally stuffed money into the Governor's pocket)?


That's also a possibility, but there's not enough information to say. So everyone argue for their personal point of view rather than finding out what ACTUALLY happened (wouldn't be FARK if we didn't).
 
2012-04-18 12:37:11 PM

kiwimoogle84: So I'm not high and mighty and saying screw the poor. Help those who need it. But for those people who just want to live on the dole, that's what I have a problem with, and I don't see why you don't have a problem with it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.


I have a problem with it because it is an insignificant portion of our tax dollars and only a small portion of that portion are abusing the system. If in order to maintain the lifestyle I do it is necessary that my tax dollars support people who are less fortunate, and along with that some lazy ones benefit too, I am cool with that. There are much bigger problems than "That asshole is living in poverty on my dime!"
 
2012-04-18 12:37:35 PM

Lord Dimwit: I'm a super-duper, hard-left liberal and I really don't have a problem with something like this, so long as it is fairly and transparently managed (free from conflicts of interest, for example).


This is government we're talking about here.
 
Displayed 50 of 558 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report