kiwimoogle84: 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.

Sorry. I get fired up. Safety nets are a catch all for a large number of problems. Drug testing is a stupid way to deal with it. The bootstrap argument is not valid in many cases.

Look, testing welfare recipients for drugs on the front may sound good, but the ratio of effectiveness to taxpayer expenditure to how much money the Governor made off it is pathetic. Florida and every other state that's doing this is just spending more of your money but in the stupidest way possible. And that smiling, bald idiot who wanted it all done? He's the only one making money on the deal.

So what this really says is 4% of the people that applied for welfare did so from a losing position. How many non-applicants were there or was there a drop in the number of applicants as a result.

Bad data give faulty conclusion.

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.

Substitue "government benefit" for "taxpayer money" and "unreasonable search and seizure" for "drug test", think about it for a minute, consider whether its reasonable for all US citizens to subject themselves to an search and seizure for any government benefit (i.e. police protection, the right to vote, drive on public roads, etc) and slowly realize why this law was offensive to anyone who respects and appreciates the US Constitution.

/Not suprisingly, pro-legalization here.
// Suprisingly, not on welfare or drugs.

Bob16: You think proof makes any difference to conservatives ?

no because they base their fiscal policy with regards to social services entirely on spite.

Guidette Frankentits: Just like voter ID laws.

You know, sometimes making cheating harder to do actually deters cheating.

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 feel the same way.

Anyone receiving government fund needs to be drug tested for the preservation of this magnificent nation.

When does the drug testing start for GM and bailed-out banking institutions?

The banks failed because they are using drugs because of Satan.

Mrbogey: 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.

Nope, but that would be between Jesus and the begger. His command to me (assuming I were a follower) was just to give.

Welfare isn't for the people on welfare. It's for the rest of us. It's the original homeland security. People who are hungry and cold with no recourse will become angry and violent. If they do not have the minimum necessary for survival, such as food, shelter, and clothing, they will go get it one way or another.

kiwimoogle84:
I can barely afford to get all my bills paid every month but I don't go looking for handouts.

And why should you? Your bills are paid. Imagine if they weren't, month after month.......and since you already posted your income in a thread yesterday, all I can say is, Oh please--you aren't poor. You're just not at the income level you desire.

kiwimoogle84: But at least they aren't costing us taxpayers money.

That's right, they aren't.

But you know what is? This program.

Again, the point.

trotsky: Look, testing welfare recipients for drugs on the front may sound good, but the ratio of effectiveness to taxpayer expenditure to how much money the Governor made off it is pathetic. Florida and every other state that's doing this is just spending more of your money but in the stupidest way possible. And that smiling, bald idiot who wanted it all done? He's the only one making money on the deal.

I'm certainly open to persuasion. What problem are we trying to solve, and why isn't this a good solution? What's a better one?

Ah yes, Republicans and their philosophy of small government that doesn't intrude into people's personal lives....

Unless they're poor and receiving assistance. Then drug-test the bastards. We'll teach them.

1. Floriduh is the most effed up state in our Union, so their testing methods and stat gathering may be well and truly skewed

2. Floriduh, depending on your political bending has tried repeatedly to fark over several Presidential elections, so their testing methods and stat gathering may be well and truly skewed (shhhh - for political reasons, but only say that with your inside voice)

3. Unless they first did a beta-test on their state house and Legislators, how can we trust the results? Their testing methods and stat gathering may be well and truly skewed (drug test the Legislature, publish honest results, and I'll believe the next drug-test data)

4. Jobs, highly paid can't be fried from Gummint Jobs depend on plenty of welfare recipients, so I think it's easy to conclude that skewing the test results and farking over their stat gathering models = continued gummint jobs. And you KNOW how important Gummint Yobs are to the economy.

Bruce Campbell: So what this really says is 4% of the people that applied for welfare did so from a losing position. How many non-applicants were there or was there a drop in the number of applicants as a result.

Bad data give faulty conclusion.

Strike that. What was the trend in application numbers. Were they going up or down before this was enacted?

Lord Dimwit: I'm a super-duper, hard-left liberal and I really don't have a problem with something like this,

Oh yeah youre a real liberal. Sure.

Liberals always want the innocent to have the contents of their bodies searched so that they have to prove they are innocent.

If you are jealous of the fabulous life of a welfare recipient you can just quit your job sell all your belongings, move into a shiat part of town in an apartment and then after you blow through your savings you can apply for social services and live a dream life that you always wanted.

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.


Why just drugs though? If the guy spends $40 on a bag of weed, that's not good, but you're ok if he spends the $40 on an xbox game?

The Homer Tax: 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?

Why do you hate capitalism?

LOL @ the retards who thought that it would.

kiwimoogle84: I also bartended at night. I don't feel I'm superior to anyone.

To be fair, you support an ineffective program that costs the tax payers money with nothing to show for it other than punishing the poor while funding state funds into the governor's pocket. So, while you might not think you think you're superior to welfare recipients, your actions lend credence to the notion.

kiwimoogle84: 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?

As soon as you show some worthy of merit. If you think that because you were able to pull yourself out of poverty then anyone, the person with mental disorders so severe holding down a job would be impossible, the single mom who was left by her husband and daycare would be more expensive than the minimum wage she could bring in, someone so severely disabled that the pain meds make employment a dream, if you think anyone should be able to do because you could, you are an idiot.

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.

Maybe because you said "I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.", that doesn't leave room for the exceptions you are making now. Nice back peddle.

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.

That the people who've hired you made you take a drug test is not surprising at all. That sort of thing is standard procedure.

Now out of the employers who've required you to pass a drug test as a condition of employment, how many of them also required you to pay for it out of your own pocket? And I don't mean that the cost was deducted from your first pay check, I mean "paying for it with what ever money you had before you got the job, and if you couldn't afford to pay the testers' fee, tough luck, no job for you," as is the case for welfare recipients in Florida right now.

/also pro-legalization

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.

Just like the prison system, welfare seems to have gone from trying to be a way to improve society and fix some of its problems into a warehousing system. Or maybe it's more like life support. Do you keep the comatose patient on life support? Will he make a recovery?

We are also out of cash or at least we aren't managing it well. I don't think it's a hate-filled idea to look for the best return on investment. Florida botched this one but there may be a good investment that requires more from welfare recepients.

trotsky: kiwimoogle84: 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.

Sorry. I get fired up. Safety nets are a catch all for a large number of problems. Drug testing is a stupid way to deal with it. The bootstrap argument is not valid in many cases.

Look, testing welfare recipients for drugs on the front may sound good, but the ratio of effectiveness to taxpayer expenditure to ...

I don't look at it as how much money was saved or how much wasn't. I look at it as a way of helping addicts find treatment - if they have to be drug tested, they can then be entered into a treatment program. I would support testing so long as you also get the welfare while attending rehabilitation in good faith.

Headso: Bob16: You think proof makes any difference to conservatives ?

no because they base their fiscal policy with regards to social services entirely on spite.

Yes thats a part of it but the other part is that drug tests are great for impressing upon the general population that they must submit to authority even when authority is wrong.

The point is to make you believe you are owned lock stock and ....

ObeliskToucher: Also, they spent $46,000 over a period of 4 months to prevent payments to those 108 applicants. Since they each would probably have received more than $425 in benefits over that time period, the law probably did end up saving the state money.

unless a portion of the applicants that were denied are now in jail costing the taxpayer 7 or 8 times that amount per month.

dogboy360: Does anyone know if this is another ALEC law?

/that would be my guess.

Since many, many drug making corporations are members of ALEC, I'd say that would be a good assumption to make. Got to boost those shareholder profits, you know, and what better way to do that than to (indirectly) get more money from the Federal government by forcing welfare recipients to pay for their own drug tests?

kiwimoogle84: jst3p: 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".

Just because you don't agree with my opinion, that doesn't make my opinion stupid. Maybe I'm lucky that I'm not as narrow minded as you, because not once have I said anything disparaging about your character. Just because you have an opinion that does not mirror mine, I will defend your right to express your opinion.

But it is also true that some opinions are clearly stupid. Defending this program after it has been demonstrated that the only thing it does is waste tax payer money is stupid. I am sorry it is stupid and that you can't accept that, but it is.


Freedom of speech.

There you go typing stupid things again. Freedom of speech has absolutely zero context here. None. Not even close.

GORDON & jabelar just won an Internet each.

HALP!! pic too big to poast!

Galloping Galoshes: trotsky: Look, testing welfare recipients for drugs on the front may sound good, but the ratio of effectiveness to taxpayer expenditure to how much money the Governor made off it is pathetic. Florida and every other state that's doing this is just spending more of your money but in the stupidest way possible. And that smiling, bald idiot who wanted it all done? He's the only one making money on the deal.

I'm certainly open to persuasion. What problem are we trying to solve, and why isn't this a good solution? What's a better one?

I think the problem is "State welfare expense". This plan was "we will drug test to reduce state welfare expenses". It failed.

You don't have to propose an alternative plan to know that a plan is flawed, but a more effective goal would be to find welfare recipients jobs.

TheSilverKey: 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.

Just like the prison system, welfare seems to have gone from trying to be a way to improve society and fix some of its problems into a warehousing system. Or maybe it's more like life support. Do you keep the comatose patient on life support? Will he make a recovery?

We are also out of cash or at least we aren't managing it well. I don't think it's a hate-filled idea to look for the best return on investment. Florida botched this one but there may be a good investment that requires more from welfare recepients.

That is a valid point, but given the points made up thread about who benefited most from this program it is pretty hard to defend.

Lord Dimwit: 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.

Just alchohol? What about cigarettes? Cheetos? Fast food? What about other items? Brand name instead of store brand? What about entertainment items? Toys for the kiddies? Video games? DVDs? Makeup? Where do you draw the line?

Or is it booze because while employed people may have the ability to drink in moderation, welfare recipients are universally Night Train swilling gutter alchies?

Mrbogey: 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.

let's not assume that everyone who didn't test did so because they would have failed. some may not have had the money to pay for it. (since you have to pay up front and if you pass they reimburse you)_

jst3p: 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.

I understand what you're saying. The toughest thing for me to accept is that x amount of people are using "assistance" to get high while most people bust their arse every day just to pay their mortgage and buy groceries.

I had to drive 50 miles to a facility in order to take a drug test (swab only) before my job would hire me. I'd assume most companies have a similar drug testing policy. Why do people on "assistance" get a pass?

MythDragon: Have we just tried, you know, not not giving these people all this money in order to encourage them to go out and get jobs?

Have you ever tried actually using your brain ?

5 People Unemployed for Every Job Opening

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/5-unemployed-for-every-j o b-opening/

MythDragon: Have we just tried, you know, not not giving these people all this money in order to encourage them to go out and get jobs?

you know that idea might have some merit if there were a lot of jobs for those people open and just waiting on someone to fill them.

Bob16: Lord Dimwit: I'm a super-duper, hard-left liberal and I really don't have a problem with something like this,

Oh yeah youre a real liberal. Sure.

Liberals always want the innocent to have the contents of their bodies searched so that they have to prove they are innocent.

I also think that welfare recipients, if they are physically and mentally capable of working, should show good-faith effort in attempting to find a job. The voluntary application for welfare can come with reasonable preconditions.

And it's not a "punish the poor" stance, either. It's a "this is another way we can help addicts find treatment" way. I don't want those tested to be jailed or punished - I want them to receive the welfare benefits so long as they are seeking treatment for addiction. I also don't think, say, pot should count, only stuff that is known to be dangerously addictive.

I also believe that the rehabilitation treatment (along with all other health care) should be single-payer and supported as a public good by the government, that income tax should be progressive, that we should seek to eliminate extremes of wealth and poverty for the good of the whole, that the government shouldn't say who you can and can't marry, that the government should be completely free of religion, and that corporate and religious influence over the government is the largest threat this nation has faced in a long time.

One can be liberal and pragmatic at the same time. :)

namegoeshere: Lord Dimwit: 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.

Just alchohol? What about cigarettes? Cheetos? Fast food? What about other items? Brand name instead of store brand? What about entertainment items? Toys for the kiddies? Video games? DVDs? Makeup? Where do you draw the line?

Or is it booze because while employed people may have the ability to drink in moderation, welfare recipients are universally Night Train swilling gutter alchies?

YOU DON'T GET TO USE MY MONEY TO BUY BOOZE!!!

Galloping Galoshes: Guidette Frankentits: Just like voter ID laws.

You know, sometimes making cheating harder to do actually deters cheating.

You know Ann Coulter committed vote fraud.

Guidette Frankentits: Just like voter ID laws.

No, those actually ARE effective at suppressing voter turnout

bearcats1983: jst3p: 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.

I understand what you're saying. The toughest thing for me to accept is that x amount of people are using "assistance" to get high while most people bust their arse every day just to pay their mortgage and buy groceries.

I had to drive 50 miles to a facility in order to take a drug test (swab only) before my job would hire me. I'd assume most companies have a similar drug testing policy. Why do people on "assistance" get a pass?

My thoughts? Because there are enough people on assistance that legitimately need it and it is not cost effective to try and eliminate those on drugs. The government wastes a shiat ton of my money on things that piss me off more than Joe Crackhead "scoring" $300 a week of my tax dollars.

The safety net is needed, my life is good. I would rather focus on improving mine than making sure someone who's life is miserable doesn't get a few dollars.