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  
•       •       •

9091 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 01:56:36 PM  

jst3p: 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.


You are full of shiat.

God works in mysterious ways. who are you to question.
 
2012-04-18 01:57:42 PM  

soupbone: Cats_Lie: Apparently the law was a huge success, in that it got people to quit their addictions before applying for assistance. No easy feat! And it managed to do it without costly jails or using the criminal justice system. How is this a bad thing?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but the participants knew when the tests were being administered. That gives them time to 'cleanse'.


Anything that gets them to lay off the dope for a week can't be a bad thing. A percentage of them may quit for good, or at least cut back.
 
2012-04-18 01:58:10 PM  

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.


I'm sure you have some sort of citation and facts to establish the nbr of recipients that live on welfare for their whole life. Or even a decade.

You know. . . Because that number is so high as to justify making people prove they've not committed a crime just because they're poor.
 
2012-04-18 01:58:17 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: jst3p: 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.

You are full of shiat.

God works in mysterious ways. who are you to question.


Bob Sanders, from Accounting.
 
2012-04-18 01:58:37 PM  

StoPPeRmobile:

God works in mysterious ways. who are you to question.


God doesn't work. He just wants me to give him a handout.
 
2012-04-18 01:58:54 PM  

Hatchet GIR 420: Fyi there are a lot of assumptions flying around here and some clarifications are needed. First of all from what DHA informed me there is a 5 year cut off for welfare for anyone over 18. I myself am an occational pot smoker though I don't buy it myself since I have stoner friends. I am prior military but ran into a string of bad luck in civ life. Currently on GA due to unpolanned pregnancy. Was homless but got apt with a friend. Going to school and will be getting hospice training in the summer. Life is hard and sometimes people need help and while it suck to be on GA I'm thankful it is there. And I know I'm not the only one. So for those who judge others while having not been there and those who have but had better luck getting outt of the situation and look down on those that haven't had that luck may you be judged in the manner that you judge others.


I assume you're talking about me partially. I don't look down on people genuinely trying to better their situation. You are not the demographic I'm talking about. There are those who just scoot by with minimal to no effort. Also, I think weed should be made legal and taxed to hell.
 
2012-04-18 02:00:13 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.


Ah yes all the state taxes you pay in Florida. Or is it one of those "principle of the thing" deals?

/in other words, this problem exists solely in your imagination
 
2012-04-18 02:01:01 PM  

Bontesla: 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.

I'm sure you have some sort of citation and facts to establish the nbr of recipients that live on welfare for their whole life. Or even a decade.

You know. . . Because that number is so high as to justify making people prove they've not committed a crime just because they're poor.


People like this.

http://www.jimbyrd.com/welfare-aint-what-it-used-to-be
 
2012-04-18 02:01:09 PM  

kiwimoogle84: 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.


So, would you then be okay with previously-employed applicats? You know, since they've also contributed.
 
2012-04-18 02:01:42 PM  

Hale-Bopp: Rapmaster2000: Hale-Bopp: Funny how none of this would even be an issue and we wouldn't even be arguing about it if prohibition were abolished. Until then, let's keep at each other's throats. It's exactly what big brother wants. They win again.

/keep trying to legislate some nut's version of morality
//see where it gets us

It's easy to exploit anger. Race doesn't work like it used too so now we use socioeconomics. It's all about keeping the $50,000 a year at the throats of the $20,000 a year and both of them at the throats of the $200,000 a year. They're all peons, but none of them seem to know it.

Exactly what is happening! It's all part of the circle of life in the good ol' USA. When this stops working, we'll go back to race wars or some other thing. Just have to wait just long enough for just enough people to forget, then you start the cycle all over again.

/we'll be doing this again, same time next year
//and the year after that and so on...


Pretty much. Here we are screaming about something like $50,000. Nothing fires up the the poor like the poorer.
 
2012-04-18 02:02:07 PM  

mccallcl: 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.

Ah yes all the state taxes you pay in Florida. Or is it one of those "principle of the thing" deals?

/in other words, this problem exists solely in your imagination


Most of the public assitance funding comes from federal block grants - ie. "My Money".
 
2012-04-18 02:02:28 PM  

Mrbogey: I don't think Jesus would be okay with beggars getting drunk.


I dunno, he seemed to like to give wine away to people.
 
2012-04-18 02:03:22 PM  

Cats_Lie: soupbone: Cats_Lie: Apparently the law was a huge success, in that it got people to quit their addictions before applying for assistance. No easy feat! And it managed to do it without costly jails or using the criminal justice system. How is this a bad thing?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but the participants knew when the tests were being administered. That gives them time to 'cleanse'.

Anything that gets them to lay off the dope for a week can't be a bad thing. A percentage of them may quit for good, or at least cut back.


But then his drug dealer will just be on welfare. Why do you want to put him out of a job?
 
2012-04-18 02:04:41 PM  

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


No. Because that would include me.
 
2012-04-18 02:06:41 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I assume you're talking about me partially. I don't look down on people genuinely trying to better their situation. You are not the demographic I'm talking about. There are those who just scoot by with minimal to no effort. Also, I think weed should be made legal and taxed to hell.


Not everyone has the same value system as you. They don't desire the same things as you, yet are foreced to participate in this game that says from day one "no, you don't want those simple things, you need all these other things, and if you don't, then you're a failure as a citizen".
 
2012-04-18 02:07:16 PM  

mccallcl: 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.

Ah yes all the state taxes you pay in Florida. Or is it one of those "principle of the thing" deals?

/in other words, this problem exists solely in your imagination


No it doesn't exist solely in my imagination. I actually worked for a state health clinic in college, and saw first hand how some people used the system for it's intended purpose, and some exploited the ever-loving shiat out of it. (Attended 'ribbon cutting' ceremonies where new public housing developments were unvieled, and damn if those joints weren't better than the apartment I was renting at the time. Guh!)


And, given that my parents have retired to Florida, and I will own property there once they pass on, I do have an interest in Florida taxation.
 
2012-04-18 02:07:52 PM  

Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: 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' ...


I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with. You guys make a lot of assumptions about what I think.
 
2012-04-18 02:08:33 PM  

kiwimoogle84: There are those who just scoot by with minimal to no effort.


Listen, I don't care what your emotions are telling you about this law, or what impression your anecdotal experience has left you with. I don't care how many drug tests you've had to get for private employment. This is a simple legal question based on existing 4th amendment jurisprudence. The state cannot pursue this action.

Sorry it leaves your tits all chafed. Now shut up already.
 
2012-04-18 02:09:04 PM  

kiwimoogle84:

Yes but why are the poor poor?


Mental illness, physical disability, an injury while uninsured, the list goes on and on. Contrary to vitriolic rhetoric, most people are not poor because they choose to be.

I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.


Anyone without mental illness, a physical disability, nowhere to live because they are bankrupt from an injury incurred while uninsured, etc.

A lot of homeless people are homeless because they alienated everyone in their lives
are mentally ill, physically disabled, bankrupt due to an injury while uninsured, you get the point by now.

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'd like to see something other than a shouting politician that says this is the huge problem it's purported to be. Got any cites?

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


Good for you. Just know that if it ever comes down to it this country is still somewhat civilized and will help you through a tough time if you need it.
 
2012-04-18 02:10:42 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Has anybody noticed that the manufacturers of synthetic urine and drug testing kits are doing well in this economy?


Yes, because when the economy is in the crapper, everyone can afford drugs, and synthetic urine to pass drug tests for all the jobs that aren't out there that they aren't getting.

Makes perfect sense to a Republican.
 
2012-04-18 02:11:06 PM  

Santa's Knee: baggins2000: Santa's Knee: 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!!!

It's not your money.
It's not your money.

Just thought I would repeat that. Since they spent my money poorly on your education.
Also because anyone who is so petty that they would rather trample on the Constitution over a nickel, is probably thick in the head.

It is my money and I paid for my education,

Anytime you give my taxes to someone, it's my money (too).

I went to a private college and paid for it all by my lonesome, dink.


I was thinking more along the lines of high school. I never would have guessed you went to college.
 
2012-04-18 02:11:28 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: There are those who just scoot by with minimal to no effort.

Listen, I don't care what your emotions are telling you about this law, or what impression your anecdotal experience has left you with. I don't care how many drug tests you've had to get for private employment. This is a simple legal question based on existing 4th amendment jurisprudence. The state cannot pursue this action.

Sorry it leaves your tits all chafed. Now shut up already.


I'm terribly sorry you don't agree with my opinion, but I have just as much right to speak as you do. My tits aren't even part of the equation.
 
2012-04-18 02:11:45 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.


What does pot testing even have to do with that?
 
2012-04-18 02:12:40 PM  

GnomePaladin: kiwimoogle84:

Yes but why are the poor poor?

Mental illness, physical disability, an injury while uninsured, the list goes on and on. Contrary to vitriolic rhetoric, most people are not poor because they choose to be.

I'm not self righteous. I have BEEN THERE. I worked myself out of it and if I can, anyone can.

Anyone without mental illness, a physical disability, nowhere to live because they are bankrupt from an injury incurred while uninsured, etc.

A lot of homeless people are homeless because they alienated everyone in their lives are mentally ill, physically disabled, bankrupt due to an injury while uninsured, you get the point by now.

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'd like to see something other than a shouting politician that says this is the huge problem it's purported to be. Got any cites?

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

Good for you. Just know that if it ever comes down to it this country is still somewhat civilized and will help you through a tough time if you need it.


I am aware, and thank you for being one of very few people not trying to antagonize me right out of the thread.
 
2012-04-18 02:15:34 PM  

Headso: kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.

What does pot testing even have to do with that?


Actually that's the funny part. I think weed should be legal. I don't think that should disqualify you. But generally a lot of potheads I know are lazy and don't want to do much besides sit on the couch. At least that's my experience. There are exceptions I'm certain.

My blanket thought process is you have to at least try to better yourself if you are able. If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs. That's just my OPINION. My opinion is my opinion.
 
2012-04-18 02:16:05 PM  

GnomePaladin: Good for you. Just know that if it ever comes down to it this country is still somewhat civilized and will help you through a tough time if you need it. That is, if you fill out the proper forms. Then you need to make sure that your case worker doesn't take three months to file those forms and not mess them up causing you to wait another three months. Then if you're lucky and get approved that $100 dollars in food stamps will help you make it though!


FTFY
 
2012-04-18 02:18:57 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Salt Lick Steady: kiwimoogle84: There are those who just scoot by with minimal to no effort.

Listen, I don't care what your emotions are telling you about this law, or what impression your anecdotal experience has left you with. I don't care how many drug tests you've had to get for private employment. This is a simple legal question based on existing 4th amendment jurisprudence. The state cannot pursue this action.

Sorry it leaves your tits all chafed. Now shut up already.

I'm terribly sorry you don't agree with my opinion, but I have just as much right to speak as you do. My tits aren't even part of the equation.


When your opinion amounts to wailing and gnashing of the teeth over the existence of the 4th amendment, sure, you have the right. But you sound like a little biatch.
 
2012-04-18 02:19:16 PM  

kiwimoogle84: If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs.


but not too broke to afford cigs, alcohol, fast food and video games... only if you smoked pot in the past month.
 
2012-04-18 02:20:26 PM  
Personally I'd rather have people on Welfare on drugs rather than people who are actually doing something important, like driving a forklift or voting on legislation.
 
2012-04-18 02:23:40 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.


The point of the story is that it costs you more tax money to make them take a drug test than it does to not test them. What do you think poor drug addicts do for money when they can't get drugs? It's easy to say, "Screw those bastards" until it's your house they are robbing, your grandmother they are mugging, your children they're hitting with stray bullets when they rob the convenience store.

You're not a fire breathing commie liberal, you're someone who wants to pay more money to have more crime. That means we need more police with salaries, which means we need insurance for those more police, which costs us even more money. Hey what do police get around in? Oops more money. Do those police cars need insurance? Who pays for that? Oh ya the taxpayer.

Hey you know what would be a good idea? Lets hire even more police and have a 'war' on drugs and spend even more money trying to prevent people from doing things that some of them will always do.

I'm for not spending another farking dime trying to prevent people from doing things which harm themselves. Giving them 3 hot and a cot, clean needles, and help when they decide they want to quit is cheaper, more compassionate, and less harmful to society. (Less crime, less chance of spreading disease, etc.)
 
2012-04-18 02:24:32 PM  

Headso: kiwimoogle84: If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs.

but not too broke to afford cigs, alcohol, fast food and video games... only if you smoked pot in the past month.


I'm against all that too. Believe me. And you missed my statement when I said pot SHOULD be legal. I'm talking about ADDICTS.


When your opinion amounts to wailing and gnashing of the teeth over the existence of the 4th amendment, sure, you have the right. But you sound like a little biatch


You haven't been paying attention. I've made many different statements that you simply disagree with. I'm not arguing about the amendments. I'm just upset at the abundant abuse of public programs in this country. I'm allowed to express my opinion here and will not be made ashamed of it. If you think it's wrong, that's fine, I won't try to change your mind. But there are those who agree with me on certain points.
 
2012-04-18 02:25:33 PM  

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.

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. However, it is obvious that humans will simply seek out all that stuff whether it is good for them or not. There's a reason that the Old Testament mentions these things -- because humans have had the same tendencies for over 5000 years!

So while it is sad that people risk their health, make bad decisions, etc. it is simply impractical to enforce it and it is mean-spirited to punish it.

I know it feels "righteous" to say "you screwed up your life so society shouldn't help you", but actually righteous feelings that harden your heart towards others aren't even Christian! Anyone using the Christian Bible to inflict harsh rules on people is simply not doing it right. The proper Christian response to people screwing up their lives is to reach out to them, shower them with loving compassion, give a good example and trust that some people will turn around based on that. If you're angry or hard-hearted, you're going to Hell, and have no right to specify morals to anyone.

Anyway, anyone who thinks that denying a social assistance to someone who is already proven to be incapable of good life decisions is impractical and un-Christian/inhuman.


THIS BEARS REPEATING.
 
2012-04-18 02:25:54 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.

What does pot testing even have to do with that?

Actually that's the funny part. I think weed should be legal. I don't think that should disqualify you. But generally a lot of potheads I know are lazy and don't want to do much besides sit on the couch. At least that's my experience. There are exceptions I'm certain.

My blanket thought process is you have to at least try to better yourself if you are able. If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs. That's just my OPINION. My opinion is my opinion.


You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you should at least consider its validity from time to time when presented with facts contrary to your current beliefs or a particularly convincing argument. The issue we're discussing here is much more broad than your last paragraph implies.
 
2012-04-18 02:27:31 PM  
why is everyone soo pissy in this thread.
 
2012-04-18 02:27:39 PM  

GnomePaladin: kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.

What does pot testing even have to do with that?

Actually that's the funny part. I think weed should be legal. I don't think that should disqualify you. But generally a lot of potheads I know are lazy and don't want to do much besides sit on the couch. At least that's my experience. There are exceptions I'm certain.

My blanket thought process is you have to at least try to better yourself if you are able. If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs. That's just my OPINION. My opinion is my opinion.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you should at least consider its validity from time to time when presented with facts contrary to your current beliefs or a particularly convincing argument. The issue we're discussing here is much more broad than your last paragraph implies.


I know it is and that's what makes it hard. There's a lot of gray area and individual circumstances. Every case is different. I'm just trying to say "don't abuse shiat, mmmkay?"
 
2012-04-18 02:29:49 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I'm allowed to express my opinion here and will not be made ashamed of it.


Yet you should be.
 
2012-04-18 02:30:21 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs.

but not too broke to afford cigs, alcohol, fast food and video games... only if you smoked pot in the past month.

I'm against all that too. Believe me. And you missed my statement when I said pot SHOULD be legal. I'm talking about ADDICTS.


Then why support a program that does none of those things? This program effectively excludes people seeking temporary assistance that smoke pot because other drugs don't stay in the system more than a couple days.
 
2012-04-18 02:30:53 PM  

ObeliskToucher: Subby: 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

According to the NY Times article that this one was based on, "save money" wasn't the objective, it did affect the number of applications (40 applicants cancelled the test before taking it), and it did ferret out some drug users (108 applicants). Since the stated objective of this law is to prevent giving welfare to drug users, it's a success from that point of view.

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.


Was the cost of testing included in the $46,000?
 
2012-04-18 02:31:34 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Every case is different. I'm just trying to say "don't abuse shiat, mmmkay?"


How enlightened! How insightful!

How about this: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And really, stop embarrassing yourself.
 
2012-04-18 02:31:35 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: 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.

I'm sure you have some sort of citation and facts to establish the nbr of recipients that live on welfare for their whole life. Or even a decade.

You know. . . Because that number is so high as to justify making people prove they've not committed a crime just because they're poor.

People like this.

http://www.jimbyrd.com/welfare-aint-what-it-used-to-be


I am really sorry to ask this but the address didn't link and I'm on my phone. Could you copy and paste?
 
2012-04-18 02:31:55 PM  
Hell, in FL you can have a raging opiate habit and it's perfectly legal.
 
2012-04-18 02:35:01 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Rapmaster2000: kiwimoogle84:

Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

The plural of anecdote is not data. The singular of anecdote is even less.

But I digress, I've read this hard luck story from you two days in a row. I wouldn't say you want pity. I'd say you want praise. Congratulations for being better than people on welfare. You earned it. Fark them.

I only wrote it because it applies. And I think you're being sarcastic so I'm just not going to say anything else. Clearly, having an opinion makes a person stupid. I'm just not going to do this anymore.


I don't approve of YOU using MY money (that you obviously received from the federal government so that you could go to school) so that you can go shack up, unmarried with abusive guys.
 
2012-04-18 02:36:21 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: 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.


How IS babby formed?
 
2012-04-18 02:37:25 PM  
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but most drug users usually know how to fake drug tests. It's not rocket science. This proved to be nothing more than a waste of tax-payer money and an atm for Mrs. Lex Luthor.
Now if they tested Florida politicians and judges, the state would descend into anarchy.
 
2012-04-18 02:38:10 PM  
Yes, there are people who abuse the system.

But should we punish the taxpayer and the legitimate public assistance recipients just to 'get' these people?
 
2012-04-18 02:38:59 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.

What does pot testing even have to do with that?

Actually that's the funny part. I think weed should be legal. I don't think that should disqualify you. But generally a lot of potheads I know are lazy and don't want to do much besides sit on the couch. At least that's my experience. There are exceptions I'm certain.

My blanket thought process is you have to at least try to better yourself if you are able. If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs. That's just my OPINION. My opinion is my opinion.


You've given ample evidence that you don't chose to hang out with the best people. Perhaps your anecdotal evidence on pot users shouldn't be taken too seriously either? I'm sure glad I'm not in a position to be jealous of all those people making all that sweet welfare money.
 
2012-04-18 02:39:30 PM  

kiwimoogle84: GnomePaladin: kiwimoogle84: Headso: kiwimoogle84: I'm ok with anyone applying who needs help. It's the people who live on it without trying I have issue with.

What does pot testing even have to do with that?

Actually that's the funny part. I think weed should be legal. I don't think that should disqualify you. But generally a lot of potheads I know are lazy and don't want to do much besides sit on the couch. At least that's my experience. There are exceptions I'm certain.

My blanket thought process is you have to at least try to better yourself if you are able. If you're too broke to pay your bills, you're too broke to afford drugs. That's just my OPINION. My opinion is my opinion.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you should at least consider its validity from time to time when presented with facts contrary to your current beliefs or a particularly convincing argument. The issue we're discussing here is much more broad than your last paragraph implies.

I know it is and that's what makes it hard. There's a lot of gray area and individual circumstances. Every case is different. I'm just trying to say "don't abuse shiat, mmmkay?"


A laudable sentiment, but as we've seen from TFA the abusers are such a small percentage that trying to weed them out is more wasteful than just accepting it as the nature of the beast. Life is about priorities, and finding and punishing people who abuse assistance programs makes no sense financially (which is what this is all about after all).

I think I can shut all your other detractors up with one question (or further enrage them, depending on your answer): After seeing the outcome of this program, do you still think it's a good idea and should be implemented elsewhere?
 
2012-04-18 02:40:55 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.


That is admirable. Now, you could take the next step in realizing your full human potential and ask yourself, "Why am I disappointed?" or say "To hell with the facts" and go back to the comfort of your stereotypes.
 
2012-04-18 02:41:04 PM  

nunpunter: kiwimoogle84: Rapmaster2000: kiwimoogle84:

Really I only wanted that guy to just acquiesce that I might have some perspective on the matter.

The plural of anecdote is not data. The singular of anecdote is even less.

But I digress, I've read this hard luck story from you two days in a row. I wouldn't say you want pity. I'd say you want praise. Congratulations for being better than people on welfare. You earned it. Fark them.

I only wrote it because it applies. And I think you're being sarcastic so I'm just not going to say anything else. Clearly, having an opinion makes a person stupid. I'm just not going to do this anymore.

I don't approve of YOU using MY money (that you obviously received from the federal government so that you could go to school) so that you can go shack up, unmarried with abusive guys.


...wow. Really? Now I'm not allowed to take out a student loan, and you're judging me being in a relationship that turned sour. Wow.
 
2012-04-18 02:42:10 PM  

Bontesla: kiwimoogle84: Bontesla: 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.

I'm sure you have some sort of citation and facts to establish the nbr of recipients that live on welfare for their whole life. Or even a decade.

You know. . . Because that number is so high as to justify making people prove they've not committed a crime just because they're poor.

Pe ...


Google Welfare ain't what it used to be, Sharon Jasper.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report