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.

(Kansas.com)   If you're in a bad mood or show up late for an appointment in Kansas, that obviously means you're on drugs and therefore ineligible to for welfare. "The tests will not look for alcohol use"   (kansas.com) divider line 200
    More: Stupid, Kansas, recess appointment, Sam Brownback, Kansas Senate, drug tests, drug testing, welfare, welfare recipients  
•       •       •

8225 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2013 at 10:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-17 07:11:02 PM
i'd like welfare, but i don't know what i'd do with my time if i'm not allowed to use drugs..  kratom??
 
2013-04-17 07:15:08 PM
What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?
 
2013-04-17 07:17:08 PM

Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?


because by simply putting down "drugs" you automatically get Catholic supporters in droves.  cause they're against anything that's not wine
 
2013-04-17 07:31:11 PM
FTA "That could be triggered by a person's demeanor, missed appointments or police records."

AKA you're black now piss in this cup you farking druggie
 
2013-04-17 07:41:44 PM
Or you're a "millenial" and think you're showing up for a job interview.
 
2013-04-17 08:00:44 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: i'd like welfare, but i don't know what i'd do with my time if i'm not allowed to use drugs..  kratom??


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-04-17 08:15:41 PM
But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.
 
2013-04-17 08:28:05 PM

IgG4: Jon iz teh kewl: i'd like welfare, but i don't know what i'd do with my time if i'm not allowed to use drugs..  kratom??

[s3.amazonaws.com image 245x320]


aah vodak
love me some of that now
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-17 08:35:14 PM
Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.
 
2013-04-17 08:37:46 PM
Drug testing? WHY?

What we should be doing for welfare recipients is POOR TESTING.

Has teh poors? No welfare for you!
 
2013-04-17 08:41:34 PM

Elegy: Drug testing? WHY?

What we should be doing for welfare recipients is POOR TESTING.

Has teh poors? No welfare for you!


This quote is very accurate, I find.

"Mormons Republicans get burned up when they read about someone buying a bottle of mouthwash with food stamps, but they love big water defense projects. They only object to nickel-and-dime welfare. They love it in great big gobs."
 
2013-04-17 08:48:08 PM

Nadie_AZ: Elegy: Drug testing? WHY?

What we should be doing for welfare recipients is POOR TESTING.

Has teh poors? No welfare for you!

This quote is very accurate, I find.

"Mormons Republicans get burned up when they read about someone buying a bottle of mouthwash with food stamps, but they love big water defense projects. They only object to nickel-and-dime welfare. They love it in great big gobs."


I have figured it out

Those on the right (not just the GOP) like big shiny toys.

Does helping the poor give us a badass explosion? Does paying for little Timmy's surgery allow bigass robots to fight with each other? Does giving a dinner to a homeless man give us a space shuttle?

If you could find some badassery it might be easier to introduce your welfare programs.

/This post was satire
 
2013-04-17 08:58:26 PM
Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."
 
2013-04-17 09:08:42 PM
This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.
 
2013-04-17 09:10:12 PM
Welfare recipients who fail the test will lose their benefits until they complete a drug treatment and job skills program.


No benefits?  No food.  No transportation.  No learnin` supplies.

Good plan...?
 
2013-04-17 09:11:52 PM

ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.


You've hit the nail on the head here. This, coupled with unwritten policing rules, will start moving the demographics of Kansas.
 
2013-04-17 09:40:10 PM

cman: Nadie_AZ: Elegy: Drug testing? WHY?

What we should be doing for welfare recipients is POOR TESTING.

Has teh poors? No welfare for you!

This quote is very accurate, I find.

"Mormons Republicans get burned up when they read about someone buying a bottle of mouthwash with food stamps, but they love big water defense projects. They only object to nickel-and-dime welfare. They love it in great big gobs."

I have figured it out

Those on the right (not just the GOP) like big shiny toys.

Does helping the poor give us a badass explosion? Does paying for little Timmy's surgery allow bigass robots to fight with each other? Does giving a dinner to a homeless man give us a space shuttle?

If you could find some badassery it might be easier to introduce your welfare programs.

/This post was satire


What's all this about big ass-robots?

/Rule 9523: If anything is posted on an internet forum, there exists an XKCD reference relevant to that thing. No exceptions.
//if you're not sure why I chose that number, look at the keypad on a phone
 
2013-04-17 09:43:27 PM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.


At least in Florida, the governor personally got a financial gain out of the deal (in addition to the obvious punishment of minorities and poor people for daring to even consider voting for Democrats).

How does this pad Brownback's wallet?
 
2013-04-17 09:48:32 PM
At some point all the people these knuckleheads seek to exclude, will run out of people to exclude from whatever it is they deem as exclusive.
 
2013-04-17 10:08:22 PM

homelessdude: At some point all the people these knuckleheads seek to exclude, will run out of people to exclude from whatever it is they deem as exclusive.


Excluding themselves, of course
 
2013-04-17 10:13:05 PM
Damn, they can't even show up for free money!? No wonder they broke!
 
2013-04-17 10:17:30 PM
FTFA: "The drug testing program and treatment is estimated to cost about $1 million the first year, after any savings from people losing benefits."

Good fiscal conservatism there, Kansas.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/04/16/2764370/brownback-signs-bill-that-re q uires.html#storylink=cpy
 
2013-04-17 10:23:00 PM
ugh. can we just fence off the state and let the fascist jesus freaks sour in their own biblical juices?

daily.greencine.com
 
2013-04-17 10:23:37 PM
As a Kansan with a ponytail but entirely drug-free, I'd be really tempted to act 'odd' for their interviews, just to fark with them.

That is, if I didn't suspect that their drug tests were going to the lowest bidder, someone's making big money on treatment counseling, and that between all that the chances of a false positive were way too high to risk it.
 
2013-04-17 10:27:44 PM

Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.


My sister proves otherwise.
 
2013-04-17 10:28:25 PM

Lawnchair: As a Kansan


Get out before it's too late.
 
2013-04-17 10:29:46 PM

Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.


Really, you are wrong.
/Why do I respond to these idiots?
 
2013-04-17 10:30:54 PM
Thought this program was a bust in FLA. So much for live and learn.
 
2013-04-17 10:32:58 PM
I'm white and use my welfare checks to pay for my subscriptions to als.com and extensive drug habit. also on coca-cola and vietnamese happy ending massages.

so ha ha on you, Mr. King. Keep going to work, sucker!
 
2013-04-17 10:34:31 PM

buzzcut73: FTFA: "The drug testing program and treatment is estimated to cost about $1 million the first year, after any savings from people losing benefits."

Good fiscal conservatism there, Kansas.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/04/16/2764370/brownback-signs-bill-that-re q uires.html#storylink=cpy


$1million is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of annual spending for a state and that is only for the first year. There is always going to be an initial opportunity cost. If that's all it will cost to weed out the deadbeat druggies that want to sit around all day getting high off of the backs of Kansas' hard working citizens I say go for it. If you have enough money to buy drugs then you don't deserve financial help. I am all for welfare as a system to help people get back on their feet but there are too many trailer parks and tenements full of people that have created a culture of welfare abuse and they need to be stopped. It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.
 
2013-04-17 10:36:14 PM
Don't show up late when people are giving you money.
 
2013-04-17 10:37:01 PM
So people in Kansas want to pay more for people on welfare. Good plan.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-17 10:37:53 PM
Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

The lords do have to play by the same rules. Quoting the article: The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members suspected of illegal drug use.
 
2013-04-17 10:38:02 PM

ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.


Then since they can't get a job being a felon and can't get welfare they turn back to crime and become fodder for the private for profit prison system. This is how they plan on fixing the black and brown people issue.
 
2013-04-17 10:39:07 PM
They are going about this ass backwards. The folks with drug problems need direct hands on help, not banishment.
 
2013-04-17 10:39:08 PM
I wonder how this works.

At first glance it seems like the skills course part is an afterthought.  I'd like to see the actual verbiage of the bill.
But really this is a purge by Kansas of their unwanteds.  These people will undoubtedly either end up in neighboring states or on the streets and then in jail.
I'd like to follow the money on this one... I bet there is some financial backing from some privatized correctional facility.
 
2013-04-17 10:41:25 PM

A snake wearing a sweater: ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

Then since they can't get a job being a felon and can't get welfare they turn back to crime and become fodder for the private for profit prison system. This is how they plan on fixing the black and brown people issue.


Or maybe, just maybe, they stop doing drugs, clean up, get a job, and better themselves.
/I can play hypothetical hyperbole to!
 
2013-04-17 10:43:04 PM
FTFA: "Welfare recipients who fail the test will lose their benefits until they complete a drug treatment and job skills program. That's paid for by federal welfare funds."

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/04/16/2764370/brownback-signs-bill-that-re q uires.html#storylink=cpy

Now this having been passed by the Kansas Legislature and being something that Brownback has been asking for I'm sure it's being done in a horribly unfair and generally dickish manner but the basic idea of providing people with an incentive and means to seek help with drug abuse seems sound.
 
2013-04-17 10:43:23 PM

A snake wearing a sweater: 
Then since they can't get a job being a felon and can't get welfare they turn back to crime and become fodder for the private for profit prison system. This is how they plan on fixing the black and brown people issue.

I was a minute too late.  Curses!
Agreed.  Look at the privatized prison system for who is backing this.

titwrench: It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.


And you will see exactly no change to your paycheck when these people are herded off to a private prison.
 
2013-04-17 10:45:07 PM

Yogimus: They are going about this ass backwards. The folks with drug problems need direct hands on help, not banishment.


That's not what Jesus would want.
 
2013-04-17 10:45:29 PM

ZAZ: The lords do have to play by the same rules. Quoting the article: The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members suspected of illegal drug use.


The key word is the 'suspected'.  No real idea what that means (and how it will be challenged in court). The way the state is cribbing from some ugly playbooks of history, the next step will probably be an anonymous webpage to rat a state employee or UI recipient.

TofuTheAlmighty: Lawnchair: As a Kansan

Get out before it's too late.


Trust me, no other state wants me either.
 
2013-04-17 10:47:25 PM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.


But the lab that does the drug testing makes shiat tons of money!
 
2013-04-17 10:48:10 PM

A snake wearing a sweater: ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

Then since they can't get a job being a felon and can't get welfare they turn back to crime and become fodder for the private for profit prison system. This is how they plan on fixing the black and brown people issue.


Why is it their job to give handouts? If it is a black and brown problem, in your opinion, why don't the black and brown people fix it?
 
2013-04-17 10:48:23 PM

Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.


I'm a white guy who used to live in govt subsidized housing, so I'll believe my history over your your ignorant post.
 
2013-04-17 10:48:47 PM

tuna fingers: titwrench: It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.

And you will see exactly no change to your paycheck when these people are herded off to a private prison.


Prison cells (public or private) are gonna be way more expensive than a lifetime of ~$12k/year trailer park transfer.  For that matter, adding a few thousand kids to the foster system after breaking up families for reefer is a whole lot more expensive than 18 years of WIC.  But, hey, we've got money to burn around here.
 
2013-04-17 10:50:29 PM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.


Agreed; I've dragged out that Tampa Bay Online article about it a half dozen times to shut up people who advocate it. One of them even lives IN Florida and should know better (showed her twice). She pretty much just dismisses me every time though.
 
2013-04-17 10:50:41 PM
I've never taken a drug test in my life. Let's see if I can make it the rest of the way like that.
 
2013-04-17 10:51:52 PM
Lazy people being denied welfare?

api.ning.com
 
2013-04-17 10:52:38 PM
test welfare recipients all you want - it's your money. It's not gonna save you any money in the long run but you're Kansas and stupid so whatever. However, unemployment is insurance, pay up - no tests, biatches.
 
2013-04-17 10:52:41 PM
Rufus Lee King: 

What's the trouble? Why can't I get some temporary help?

How can we help you?
 
2013-04-17 10:54:44 PM

cman: But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.


... like Obamacare.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-17 10:55:22 PM
If I recall correctly Florida's law required all welfare recipients to be tested. Kansas' law tests based on suspicion of drug use. Proving Florida's law inefficient would not prove Kansas' law inefficient.
 
2013-04-17 10:57:02 PM

Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."


I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?
 
2013-04-17 10:57:46 PM

reitage: cman: But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.

... like Obamacare.


58 is not a supermajority.  Thank you for playing.
 
2013-04-17 11:02:07 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?

because by simply putting down "drugs" you automatically get Catholic supporters in droves.  cause they're against anything that's not wine


That is so not true. They are totally cool with beer. And my Catholic grandpa liked his whisky, albeit not straight. (He was an on the rocks kind of guy.) Alcohol is fine, and tasty, in moderation.

It's the fundamentalists you have to watch out for...
 
2013-04-17 11:02:39 PM
once again, let the kansas yahoos have their fun. their educated youth will leave and they will have no creative class whatsoever (most artsy fartsy folks tend to smoke on occasion or, for that matter, every damn day). more enlightened midwestern states, like iowa, will reap the benefits at their expense.

Let Kansas become a barren wasteland populated by a shrinking number of old, bitter, paranoid people clinging to their guns and backwards sheep-herder mythology. and then just give it all back to the kaw and pawnee

everyone wins. see?
 
2013-04-17 11:03:49 PM
meh, get disability instead and get off the states rolls and onto the federal money wagon.

hmmmm...why are we so broke??
 
2013-04-17 11:04:25 PM

RobertBruce: Or you're a "millenial" and think you're showing up for a job interview.


You sound are old and stupid.

/Talk about the legality regarding income tax again some time you dumb, worthless motherfarker.  Better yet.  Just eat a goddamned bullet.  I'll help if you can't afford one, asshole.
 
2013-04-17 11:06:08 PM

BSABSVR: RobertBruce: Or you're a "millenial" and think you're showing up for a job interview.

You sound are old and stupid.

/Talk about the legality regarding income tax again some time you dumb, worthless motherfarker.  Better yet.  Just eat a goddamned bullet.  I'll help if you can't afford one, asshole.


classy

NHLLH, etc etc etc
 
2013-04-17 11:06:16 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?

because by simply putting down "drugs" you automatically get Catholic supporters in droves.  cause they're against anything that's not wine


or beer, or those little 10 year old sausages... I mean 10 pack of sausages
 
2013-04-17 11:06:35 PM
Yes, denying people their benefits and sending the to the streets will totally solve their drug problem. People on the streets never do drugs, and they NEVER commit crimes to support their drug habits.
 
2013-04-17 11:07:04 PM

titwrench: It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.


Since 12% of the budget goes to safety net programs and only a portion of the safety net programs go to unemployed people, they must be taking well more than 200% of your paycheck.

I'd expect it would cost quite a bit let them live on the streets and die. The costs of clean up alone, then again body disposal would be pretty steep.
 
2013-04-17 11:07:14 PM
I've never been on welfare or even unemployment in my life but people who dismiss everyone who has been as "lazy" need a swift kick in the dick.
 
2013-04-17 11:07:24 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: IgG4: Jon iz teh kewl: i'd like welfare, but i don't know what i'd do with my time if i'm not allowed to use drugs..  kratom??

[s3.amazonaws.com image 245x320]

aah vodak
love me some of that now


I drink it when I am on a health kick. And the rest of the time, too. Potato juice. Yum.
 
2013-04-17 11:07:37 PM

ZAZ: If I recall correctly Florida's law required all welfare recipients to be tested. Kansas' law tests based on suspicion of drug use. Proving Florida's law inefficient would not prove Kansas' law inefficient.


Except for the part in the article where the state flat out said it was going to cost $1 million in the first year after any savings on unpaid benefits are taken into account. Not a very good model of efficiency when you spend a million over what you save.

/If you believe that is a good deal, send me $10,000 and I'll tell you how to save $10.00.
 
2013-04-17 11:08:41 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?

because by simply putting down "drugs" you automatically get Catholic supporters in droves.  cause they're against anything that's not wine

alcohol

we ain't all guinea wop dago bastards
 
2013-04-17 11:10:49 PM
Kansas, the state so shiatty even the city named after it decided it would rather be in Missouri.
 
2013-04-17 11:11:23 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

"I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No!"
 
2013-04-17 11:11:59 PM

Bloody William: Kansas, the state so shiatty even the city named after it decided it would rather be in Missouri.


Boring Shiathole, MO doesn't quite roll off the tongue
 
2013-04-17 11:12:36 PM

StopLurkListen: [25.media.tumblr.com image 400x320]

"I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No!"


oh boy that Coach sure is dumb. Good one.
 
2013-04-17 11:12:38 PM

RobertBruce: Or you're a "millenial" and think you're showing up for a job interview.


I remember when people said that shiat about Gen-X.
 
2013-04-17 11:13:39 PM
As far as the alcohol testing goes... does anyone actually do EtG testing anymore?  I seem to recall that being under heavy fire for throwing a false positive for everything under the sun.
 
2013-04-17 11:14:08 PM
As a Kansan who is neither on drugs nor public assistance, and itching to buy a bigger house, I am sorely tempted to move out of state due to the idiots who run things here.

The rest of America should thank us, though. A lot of the nation's kooks are moving to Wichita, making life a little better for everybody not in the same state as Wichita.
 
2013-04-17 11:14:35 PM

DeaH: Yes, denying people their benefits and sending the to the streets will totally solve their drug problem. People on the streets never do drugs, and they NEVER commit crimes to support their drug habits.


So instead we should support their drug habit with tax dollars.
 
2013-04-17 11:14:42 PM

skullkrusher: oh boy that Coach sure is dumb. Good one.


He did finally figure out that they moved the headstones but not the bodies.
 
2013-04-17 11:15:26 PM

jdcgonzalez: vodak.I drink it when I am on a health kick.


lulz
 
2013-04-17 11:15:33 PM

Omahawg: once again, let the kansas yahoos have their fun. their educated youth will leave and they will have no creative class whatsoever (most artsy fartsy folks tend to smoke on occasion or, for that matter, every damn day). more enlightened midwestern states, like iowa, will reap the benefits at their expense.

Let Kansas become a barren wasteland populated by a shrinking number of old, bitter, paranoid people clinging to their guns and backwards sheep-herder mythology. and then just give it all back to the kaw and pawnee

everyone wins. see?


So what you're saying is the "artsy fartsy" folks that utilize welfare will leave, taking their lack of job skills having "creative class" with them, freeing up money for people in actual need but removing nothing of merit from the work force?
Yeah, that sure is a wasteland waiting to happen I tells ya.

/creative class... i lol'd
 
2013-04-17 11:17:11 PM

Rufus Lee King: tuna fingers: Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.

Really, you are wrong.
/Why do I respond to these idiots?

I'm not an idiot, my boy. I had a heart attack six months ago, and have been filling out disability forms over and over again the whole interim period.

What's the trouble? Why can't I get some temporary help?

My only conclusion is that's it's due to the color of my skin.

I don't dare raise Hell about it , though. That would be racist, and God knows we can't have THAT!


White Sharpton
 
2013-04-17 11:17:18 PM
Great, when do they start testing the Koch Brothers and all those Farmers receiving subsidies?
 
2013-04-17 11:17:23 PM
Doktor_Zhivago:

FTA "That could be triggered by a person's demeanor, missed appointments or police records."

AKA you're black now piss in this cup you farking druggie


Actually I've never been on any "welfare" program in Kansas but I can tell you that from my decades of experience with such city/county office bureaucracies in San Francisco CA, Baltimore MD and Lexington KY, as well as employees of the Social Security Administration in those cities as well as in Louisville, KY and Berkeley, CA, a lot of the workers in those offices are Black. And female to boot.

And there doesn't seem to be a racial pattern when workers "got tough" with me: Blacks were no more likely to do so than fellow Caucasians, and other whites sometimes seemed to be harder on me because I'm "a debit to (our) race."

What it usually boils down to, in my case and in the others I've seen while I'm there, is demeanor and dress: if you're clearly an asshole, if you're in an argumentative mood, if you're barely conscious or very jittery, or if you look/smell especially sloppy you'll get singled out.

On the other hand if you're clean, presentable, polite and cooperative then workers (of whatever race!) might even cut you a little bit of slack with a piece of paperwork or being late or whatever.

Consider that their job, which is always at least boring and tiresome, is to make things easier for you by giving you benefits, so the easier you make it for them to deal with you and process your case the more you're likely to get out of them. You don't have to bake cookies, just treat them with a little human respect.
 
2013-04-17 11:17:34 PM
Something something, not on drugs, just want a Pepsi.
 
2013-04-17 11:19:21 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Great, when do they start testing the Koch Brothers and all those Farmers receiving subsidies?


Well you can be on drugs and still not grow corn. Republicans don't have a problem with that.
 
2013-04-17 11:19:30 PM

randomjsa: DeaH: Yes, denying people their benefits and sending the to the streets will totally solve their drug problem. People on the streets never do drugs, and they NEVER commit crimes to support their drug habits.

So instead we should support their drug habit with tax dollars.


You're supporting their habit either way, but one way results in lower costs and less crime. The other is what Kansas is doing. They don't get off drugs, they don't get effective treatment if they're on the street, and they cost you more in police and jail time, and they are far more likely to injure you in a violent crime. So, really, your choice is to spend one tax dollar versus a thousand plus, maybe, your life.
 
2013-04-17 11:20:08 PM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.


If it cost Florida money, someone received it. I wonder where follow the money goes?
 
2013-04-17 11:20:59 PM
Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.
 
2013-04-17 11:21:50 PM
Rufus Lee King:

White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.


Bullshiat. I've been white all my life and I've had to rely on such programs in one way or another for several years now.
 
2013-04-17 11:23:43 PM

The One True TheDavid: Rufus Lee King:

White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.

Bullshiat. I've been white all my life and I've had to rely on such programs in one way or another for several years now.


Don't bother, he's trolling.

/I hope
//I refuse to believe anybody could actually be that stupid
 
2013-04-17 11:24:17 PM

RedPhoenix122: reitage: cman: But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.

... like Obamacare.

58 is not a supermajority.  Thank you for playing.


Actually, anything over the minimum necessary for a simple majority (50.1%) is a supermajority.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/supermajority?s ho wCookiePolicy=true

: a specified number or percentage of votes, exceeding the minimum needed to produce a majority, required to pass certain legislative bills, ballot issues, etc.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supermajority

: a majority greater than a simple majority

http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/super+majority+rule

Term super majority rule Definition: A voting rule in which decisions are made based on a specified fraction of votes greater than 50 percent and less than 100 percent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supermajority?s=t

: a majority that must represent some percentage more than a simple majority.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/superma jo rity?q=supermajority

: a number that is much more than half of a total, especially in a vote.

And just for shiats and grins... Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

A supermajority or a qualified majority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified greater level of support than a 50% simple majority.
 
2013-04-17 11:24:34 PM
I never get the outrage on this

I find it reasonable that my employer drug tested me before I was hired (so long as they pay for the test)

I have no problem with a percentage of my income going to those less fortunate, but I also find it reasonable that a prerequisite to receiving that money is that you aren't on illegal drugs (again as long as the cost of the test isn't charged to the welfare recipient)

Does this really make me a bad person?
 
2013-04-17 11:24:40 PM

spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.


I think that's partially the point of this backasswards policy. They want to ensure that welfare is not used on drugs and instead is used on food and shelter
 
2013-04-17 11:25:41 PM
Let me translate:

"We dont mind if you kill yourself, but we have stiff penalties for doing it a non-profitable ways"

God bless their little hearts.
 
2013-04-17 11:25:48 PM

Rufus Lee King: tuna fingers: Rufus Lee King:

What's the trouble? Why can't I get some temporary help?

How can we help you?

By shutting your ignorant yap, for starters.


Really?
I was going to call on the power of fark to help you out.  Not now.
 
2013-04-17 11:26:52 PM

GrizzlyPouch: I never get the outrage on this

I find it reasonable that my employer drug tested me before I was hired (so long as they pay for the test)

I have no problem with a percentage of my income going to those less fortunate, but I also find it reasonable that a prerequisite to receiving that money is that you aren't on illegal drugs (again as long as the cost of the test isn't charged to the welfare recipient)

Does this really make me a bad person?


in theory it isn't a bad idea.  If it were possible to ensure that public support is only used on beneficial things, that would be good. It's just impractical.  In practice in practice it winds up costing more than it saves.
 
2013-04-17 11:27:58 PM

ChaosStar: Omahawg: once again, let the kansas yahoos have their fun. their educated youth will leave and they will have no creative class whatsoever (most artsy fartsy folks tend to smoke on occasion or, for that matter, every damn day). more enlightened midwestern states, like iowa, will reap the benefits at their expense.

Let Kansas become a barren wasteland populated by a shrinking number of old, bitter, paranoid people clinging to their guns and backwards sheep-herder mythology. and then just give it all back to the kaw and pawnee

everyone wins. see?

So what you're saying is the "artsy fartsy" folks that utilize welfare will leave, taking their lack of job skills having "creative class" with them, freeing up money for people in actual need but removing nothing of merit from the work force?
Yeah, that sure is a wasteland waiting to happen I tells ya.

/creative class... i lol'd


i said nothing about people on welfare. I said educated youth and the tax-base of lawrence.
 
2013-04-17 11:28:35 PM

RedPhoenix122: Yogimus: They are going about this ass backwards. The folks with drug problems need direct hands on help, not banishment.

That's not what Jesus would want.


A friend mine and myself are starting to gather up rental property that we will only be renting to people with felonies and drug arrests on there records. No one without a felony will be admitted. All they have to do is pay their rent and not destroy the property and they have a cheap place to live. All construction and repairs done by local recovering addicts will to get back on there feet after an arrest or an incarceration. Work can even be counted towards community service if they wish. We have lots of pull with court system here in our town because of 15 years of service work we have done for those most at risk of repeating the same behavior and going back to jail.
 
2013-04-17 11:29:10 PM

reitage: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?


You caved to an employer playing big brother? Aren't your skills and boot straps large enough to make you attractive to a different employer?

It's traitors like you that are going to make back ground checks for guns inevitable.
 
2013-04-17 11:29:46 PM

ZAZ: Somacandra:

Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

The lords do have to play by the same rules. Quoting the article: The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members suspected of illegal drug use.


Uh-huh. How often do they have to piss in a cup? Are drug tests for these "lords" regularly scheduled, does their number come up randomly, or does someone have to suggest that Senator Farkwit do it right away? And who does this job, the State Police?

I say make them piss in cups before every day's work starts and after every lunch break. And zero tolerance for any booze during the work day for them: they're supposed to set a good example, right?
 
2013-04-17 11:30:14 PM

Philbb: titwrench: It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.

Since 12% of the budget goes to safety net programs and only a portion of the safety net programs go to unemployed people, they must be taking well more than 200% of your paycheck.

I'd expect it would cost quite a bit let them live on the streets and die. The costs of clean up alone, then again body disposal would be pretty steep.


That ain't the half of it.

http://zev.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Project-50-Cost-Effective ne ss-report-FINAL-6-6-12.pdf
 
2013-04-17 11:31:01 PM
tuna fingers:

But really this is a purge by Kansas of their unwanteds.  These people will undoubtedly either end up in neighboring states or on the streets and then in jail.
I'd like to follow the money on this one... I bet there is some financial backing from some privatized correctional facility.


That's how it looks to me too.
 
2013-04-17 11:33:22 PM

Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.



I'm in voc rehab right now, with SNAP until I'm back to work.
 
2013-04-17 11:34:12 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?

because by simply putting down "drugs" you automatically get Catholic supporters in droves.  cause they're against anything that's not wine


No beer is okay as long as you don't enjoy it.
 
2013-04-17 11:34:34 PM
let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb
 
2013-04-17 11:36:14 PM
Rufus Lee King:

What's the trouble? Why can't I get some temporary help?

My only conclusion is that's it's due to the color of my skin.


Maybe you should move someplace where the richest politicians are white, where most of the high-ranking bureaucrats are white, etc.

Or maybe you piss them off with your crappy attitude.
 
2013-04-17 11:37:27 PM

The One True TheDavid: Doktor_Zhivago:

FTA "That could be triggered by a person's demeanor, missed appointments or police records."

AKA you're black now piss in this cup you farking druggie

Actually I've never been on any "welfare" program in Kansas but I can tell you that from my decades of experience with such city/county office bureaucracies in San Francisco CA, Baltimore MD and Lexington KY, as well as employees of the Social Security Administration in those cities as well as in Louisville, KY and Berkeley, CA, a lot of the workers in those offices are Black. And female to boot.

And there doesn't seem to be a racial pattern when workers "got tough" with me: Blacks were no more likely to do so than fellow Caucasians, and other whites sometimes seemed to be harder on me because I'm "a debit to (our) race."

What it usually boils down to, in my case and in the others I've seen while I'm there, is demeanor and dress: if you're clearly an asshole, if you're in an argumentative mood, if you're barely conscious or very jittery, or if you look/smell especially sloppy you'll get singled out.

On the other hand if you're clean, presentable, polite and cooperative then workers (of whatever race!) might even cut you a little bit of slack with a piece of paperwork or being late or whatever.

Consider that their job, which is always at least boring and tiresome, is to make things easier for you by giving you benefits, so the easier you make it for them to deal with you and process your case the more you're likely to get out of them. You don't have to bake cookies, just treat them with a little human respect.



So much THIS.

If anything, they're happy to find some obscure rule that works to your benefit.
 
2013-04-17 11:37:49 PM

Popular Opinion: let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb


my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.
 
2013-04-17 11:38:10 PM

reitage: Actually, anything over the minimum necessary for a simple majority (50.1%) is a supermajority.


All that pedantry, and still so much fail.
 
2013-04-17 11:41:11 PM
Kansas welfare recipients:  no illicit drugs for you.  Instead, you'll have to limit yourself to tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, Robitussin, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Valium, Scientology, religious fundamentalism, and popping out babies like a human Pez dispenser.  Tough noogie...
 
2013-04-17 11:43:29 PM

skullkrusher: Popular Opinion: let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb

my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.


they might smoke now, but not just before they got hired.
they probably aren't stupid like people who think it's fine to smoke up when they are on assistance and need a job.
 
2013-04-17 11:44:18 PM
well this thread went to derp in a handbasket.
 
2013-04-17 11:46:08 PM

Psycat: Kansas welfare recipients:  no illicit drugs for you.  Instead, you'll have to limit yourself to tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, Robitussin, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Valium, Scientology, religious fundamentalism, and popping out babies like a human Pez dispenser.  Tough noogie...


yeah, i think they should test for prescription drugs.
hell, if you're going to insist on them giving up certain liberties to get help, i suppose you could demand all their health records too so you know what drugs they are supposed to be taking (if any).
 
2013-04-17 11:46:34 PM

ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.


Here's how this will play out:

"I just got out of the slammer for dealing drugs and have certainly learned my lesson about government approved substances. Now it's time to get back on my feet above the board and on the straight and narrow. Given that I'm a convicted felon, it isn't likely that I'll get more than a minimum wage job, if any job at all. The bills are piling up. . . I wonder if there's a way I can remedy my situation? Oh! I've got it! Wanna buy some blow?"

Given that the war on drugs is already systematically racist (racial 'minorities' have around the same statistical likelihood for illegal drug use than any other group, yet the percentages locked in jail for drug related crimes is far above other groups), this will probably result in a new 'Jim Crow' in anything but name. "Welfare for whites only!"  <-- I know it's an extreme example, but it's an extreme law. You know you've entered the Twilight Zone where the law enforcement actually becomes more of a menace to society than the problem it's supposed to fix.
 
2013-04-17 11:48:03 PM

Popular Opinion: skullkrusher: Popular Opinion: let's be honest, if you're rocking the ganja you can't be serious about looking for work (unless you have skills in a field that never drug tests for employment (like maybe rock musicians, or actors?)
just stop until you get a job. what's so hard about that.

personally, i'd rather give up booze.

i know somebody that worked on industrial machinery.
he was well paid when working.
but after he got fired (boss found him and his work truck at the bar more than once)...he still wouldn't stop smoking.
got three job offers real quick, but failed the drug screening....
six months later...still smoking...still not getting any jobs because he can't pass a test (so he basically won't test).
three months later...he tries the masking drinks and fails more tests....
after 99wks or whenever unemployment runs out, he shacked up with some old lady...
all the while boozing it up at the bar every day on the government dime.
but he did work 30 years before he started effing up....

/csb

my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.

they might smoke now, but not just before they got hired.
they probably aren't stupid like people who think it's fine to smoke up when they are on assistance and need a job.


well, yeah, I'd imagine they'd have the sense to stop smoking dope if they were looking for a new job
 
2013-04-17 11:49:46 PM
skullkrusher: 
my BIL is an investment banker and he smokes dope. Lawyers smoke it too. Ask Peter Tosh.

That would take some magical ganj to speak to him.
 
2013-04-17 11:50:29 PM
Oops left the important bit out.

HERE is how this will play out:

"I just got out of the slammer for dealing drugs and have certainly learned my lesson about government approved substances. Now it's time to get back on my feet above the board and on the straight and narrow. Because of the new drug law, I am ineligible to get any public assistance to aid me in legally getting back on my feet and starting over. Time to find a job: Given that I'm a convicted felon, it isn't likely that I'll get more than a minimum wage job, if any job at all, leaving any legal potential revenue stream other than winning the lottery out of reach. The bills are piling up. . . I wonder if there's a way I can remedy my situation? Oh! I've got it! Wanna buy some blow?"
 
2013-04-17 11:51:47 PM

BradleyUffner: Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.

My sister proves otherwise.


a friend refutes your sister. katrina relief went right past her. no FEMA, no SBA, red cross said they'd like to but -- don't remember what their half assed excuse was. she rents, had cancer, lost her job, lost her insurance. it sucked and all the while the TV was covered up with stories about folks getting big screen TVs.

hurricane Issac she finally got $200 for lost food. first disaster around here since 2005 she got anything at all. i'm glad your sister has done better.
 
2013-04-17 11:51:47 PM

Popular Opinion: Psycat: Kansas welfare recipients:  no illicit drugs for you.  Instead, you'll have to limit yourself to tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, Robitussin, Oxycontin, Vicodin, Valium, Scientology, religious fundamentalism, and popping out babies like a human Pez dispenser.  Tough noogie...

yeah, i think they should test for prescription drugs.
hell, if you're going to insist on them giving up certain liberties to get help, i suppose you could demand all their health records too so you know what drugs they are supposed to be taking (if any).


What I think is that all welfare recipients have to submit to an IQ test.  Below a certain number, and you have to get sterilized as a condition of receiving payments.

/actually, an IQ test to vote or run for Congress should also be mandatory
//you know how they have those cartoon characters at amusement parks that point to certain height (e.g. 48") and have a cartoon balloon that says "You must be this high to ride the Vomit Comet"; how 'bout a cardboard picture of Albert Einstein outside of every polling station pointing to the number 100 and saying "You must be this smart to vote"--sure would improve American society in a hurry
 
2013-04-17 11:54:27 PM
If they want to drug test welfare recipients make sure they test the corporate welfare people too.
 
2013-04-17 11:54:33 PM
imageshack.us

                                          GOOD

/and hand over your guns too, Potheads
 
2013-04-17 11:56:11 PM

gobstopping: Oops left the important bit out.

HERE is how this will play out:

"I just got out of the slammer for dealing drugs and have certainly learned my lesson about government approved substances. Now it's time to get back on my feet above the board and on the straight and narrow. Because of the new drug law, I am ineligible to get any public assistance to aid me in legally getting back on my feet and starting over. Time to find a job: Given that I'm a convicted felon, it isn't likely that I'll get more than a minimum wage job, if any job at all, leaving any legal potential revenue stream other than winning the lottery out of reach. The bills are piling up. . . I wonder if there's a way I can remedy my situation? Oh! I've got it! Wanna buy some blow?"


keeping in mind that i think the war on drugs is stupid...and failing....and that pot should be legal...

if you go for big money and profit off the misery of others...karma can be a biatch.
 
2013-04-17 11:57:56 PM

cman: But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.


How is it stupid? Did you read the article? No, of course you didn't.
 
2013-04-17 11:58:11 PM
This might actually work for Kansas in the long-term. Why would welfare-dependent, drug-using people not start moving out of the state to New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, or any other state without testing requirements? Although some may be home-owners, most probably rent and are mobile. It is like the Club theory. Putting a club on you car doesn't make it impossible to steal, just more difficult than a car without one. Kansas may just be planning to make these people some other state's problem.
 
2013-04-17 11:58:20 PM

reitage: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?


Supposing you're a competent professional trusted significant responsibilities, whether or not you use drugs reasonably relates to your ability to handle those responsibilities. The logic goes thus: if you use drugs, you're disobeying the law. If you're disobeying the law, you're not a responsible person. Therefore, you shouldn't be trusted with significant professional responsibilities.

No like purpose is served by conditioning receipt of public assistance on drug tests. Public assistance beneficiaries have no significant job responsibilities to be undermined by behaviors associated with drug use. If a public assistance beneficiary spends his day high on marijuana, no client's case is prejudiced, no patient's health is endangered, no major contracts are put at risk, etc.

But conditioning public assistance on the results of drug tests sure does undermine some of the policy purposes of public assistance. Two such purposes are reduction in interpersonal crime and homelessness. Many drug addicts denied public assistance benefits will turn to other social safety nets, like family--so in effect, you're penalizing those family members put to the excruciating choice of helping a loved one, or watching him go homeless. Many other drug addicts denied public assistance will end up homeless, turn to crimes against persons and property, or both.

Neither does it even make fiscal sense. Empirically, where this kind of thing has been enacted elsewhere, the costs of the drug testing have actually exceeded the costs saved by kicking the view beneficiaries who test positive off of public assistance. You're actually willing to spend more money to deny people benefits than it costs just to give them benefits in the first place.

On the other hand, conditioning public assistance benefits on the results of drug tests does serve the policy purpose of deterring illegal drug use. If the war on drugs is your priority, then the public policy course you've suggested makes a lot of sense. If maintaining social stability, protecting property values, and diminishing interpersonal crimes are your priority, it does not make sense.

But your post makes one thing clear: yours and many others' support for this kind of policy isn't really grounded in any public purpose other than hostility to the concept of public assistance itself. You don't like public assistance at all, but you can't convince people it should be abolished. So you and persons sympathetic to your view have turned instead to a strategy of denying public assistance to as many otherwise qualified persons as possible through tricks of bureaucratic harassment, and assorted exclusionary criteria.

I disagree with your policy preference, but what bothers me isn't the disagreement. It is that you pretend your goal with this law is anything other than undermining public assistance itself. It's just dishonest, and stands in the way of real debate.
 
2013-04-17 11:59:33 PM

oldcub: This might actually work for Kansas in the long-term. Why would welfare-dependent, drug-using people not start moving out of the state to New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, or any other state without testing requirements? Although some may be home-owners, most probably rent and are mobile. It is like the Club theory. Putting a club on you car doesn't make it impossible to steal, just more difficult than a car without one. Kansas may just be planning to make these people some other state's problem.


Yep.
 
2013-04-18 12:00:52 AM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because

of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money. I'm on welfare and do drugs and I'll look for any excuse to call this a bad law to preserve my degenerate way of life.

At least be honest.
 
2013-04-18 12:04:49 AM

skullkrusher: spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.

I think that's partially the point of this backasswards policy. They want to ensure that welfare is not used on drugs and instead is used on food and shelter


If that was the point, they'd do something to ensure that people could get food and shelter but not get money which can be used instead for drugs. And since most welfare benefits nowadays are not cash benefits--something people on Fark, along with the legislators of Kansas and indeed most of the rest of the country, seem wildly unaware of--this bullshiat is just bullshiat, and evil, poor-hating bullshiat at that.

Most "welfare" is not cash money, nor is it a check which can be converted into cash money for the use of the individual. TANF/SNAP payments are (in most states I know of) done on EBT cards, like an ATM card, and no cash ever changes hands, so the old canard of "buying an apple with food stamps and using the change to buy vodka" is very old and very ripe bullshiat indeed. Section 8 housing or other subsidized housing checks go to the landlord, not to the recipient; so nobody is taking their housing benefits and cashing the check to buy drugs or booze (unless they have some kind of very deranged landlord). Now, General Relief payments can be cash-out payments, but GR is temporary and usually reduced by whatever the recipient is getting in other benefits (SNAP, housing, etc.)

In my experience, when I was running around with strange & sketchy people, anyone on benefits who was also using drugs was generally using their benefits for food and shelter....and doing crime to pay for the drugs. So if you take away their benefits, you're not going to stop them from using drugs, you're just going to increase the amount they need to earn doing crimes, to pay for the food and shelter. Still, I could be wrong, there could be lots of people somehow spending their nonexistent cash benefits on drugs and whores, and doing crimes to pay for their food and rent, but I suspect my experience is more common than the reverse.
 
2013-04-18 12:05:37 AM

bugontherug: I disagree with your policy preference, but what bothers me isn't the disagreement. It is that you pretend your goal with this law is anything other than undermining public assistance itself. It's just dishonest, and stands in the way of real debate.


You are so correct, and you stated that elegantly.
 
2013-04-18 12:07:43 AM

Gyrfalcon: Still, I could be wrong, there could be lots of people somehow spending their nonexistent cash benefits on drugs and whores, and doing crimes to pay for their food and rent, but I suspect my experience is more common than the reverse.


Silly lib, you've let your bleeding heart get in the way of perceiving reality. DRUGS ARE BAD, POORS ARE BAD, THEY MUST SUFFER BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE POOR IF JESUS LOVED THEM.
 
2013-04-18 12:08:59 AM

bugontherug: reitage: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?

Supposing you're a competent professional trusted significant responsibilities, whether or not you use drugs reasonably relates to your ability to handle those responsibilities. The logic goes thus: if you use drugs, you're disobeying the law. If you're disobeying the law, you're not a responsible person. Therefore, you shouldn't be trusted with significant professional responsibilities.

No like purpose is served ...
other social safety nets, like family--so in effect, you're penalizing those family members put to the excruciating choice of helping a loved one, or ...
the costs saved by kicking the view beneficiaries who test positive off of public assistance. You're actually willing to spend more money to deny people ben ...



while your argument is compelling, the statistics regarding the "results" of similar requirements is not that easy to quantify.

if only 10% of applicants; failed, it just means that 10% of applicants are sooo retarded, they don't know better than to take a test when they are dirty. this doesn't tell us how many were smart enough to stop smoking before they applied for assistance, or just stopped smoking and got a job.

also, you can take the test a 2nd time, and if clean, be reimbursed for the cost, so if you accidentally get caught positive, stop smoking and take the test again.
 
2013-04-18 12:12:57 AM

Nadie_AZ: What about anger management issues? Or tobacco use? Or prescription medicine abuse? Or eating foods that are clearly unhealthy for you? Why does the Government care about some things we put in our bodies, but not others?


I'm not going to read through the comments, but if someone else hasn't said it, I'd like to try and  answer the question:

What is Jebus?

Thanks Alex. American history for $800...
 
2013-04-18 12:16:56 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.

I think that's partially the point of this backasswards policy. They want to ensure that welfare is not used on drugs and instead is used on food and shelter

If that was the point, they'd do something to ensure that people could get food and shelter but not get money which can be used instead for drugs. And since most welfare benefits nowadays are not cash benefits--something people on Fark, along with the legislators of Kansas and indeed most of the rest of the country, seem wildly unaware of--this bullshiat is just bullshiat, and evil, poor-hating bullshiat at that.

Most "welfare" is not cash money, nor is it a check which can be converted into cash money for the use of the individual. TANF/SNAP payments are (in most states I know of) done on EBT cards, like an ATM card, and no cash ever changes hands, so the old canard of "buying an apple with food stamps and using the change to buy vodka" is very old and very ripe bullshiat indeed. Section 8 housing or other subsidized housing checks go to the landlord, not to the recipient; so nobody is taking their housing benefits and cashing the check to buy drugs or booze (unless they have some kind of very deranged landlord). Now, General Relief payments can be cash-out payments, but GR is temporary and usually reduced by whatever the recipient is getting in other benefits (SNAP, housing, etc.)

In my experience, when I was running around with strange & sketchy people, anyone on benefits who was also using drugs was generally using their benefits for food and shelter....and doing crime to pay for the drugs. So if you take away their benefits, you're not going to stop them from using drugs, you're just going to increase the amount they need to earn doing crimes, to pay for the food and shelter. Still, I could ...


I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.
 
2013-04-18 12:21:31 AM
If I have to pee in a cup to get a government job, you have to pee in a cup to get your free government money. Deal with it.
 
2013-04-18 12:22:29 AM

tuna fingers: bugontherug: I disagree with your policy preference, but what bothers me isn't the disagreement. It is that you pretend your goal with this law is anything other than undermining public assistance itself. It's just dishonest, and stands in the way of real debate.

You are so correct, and you stated that elegantly.


no, that is not correct,
I want people on assistance to not be willingly sabotaging their ability to get off assistance.
this is not "undermining public assistance" in any way.
it is promoting self sufficiency.
people who are so stupid that they test positive only lose benefits until they complete a short training program.
if you can't be bothered to complete the program (cause you're too stoned, or too busy feeling sorry for yourself), then too farking bad.
 
2013-04-18 12:22:56 AM
skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.
 
2013-04-18 12:24:00 AM

skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.


Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.
 
2013-04-18 12:25:44 AM

djkutch: jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.

If it cost Florida money, someone received it. I wonder where follow the money goes?


Straight to the governor's mansion in Tallahassee.  The main laboratory contracted to do the testing is "owned" by Mrs. ScottThis is the business that the Governor started after he weaseled his way out from under the largest Medicare fraud in history as CEO of HCA.
 
2013-04-18 12:27:37 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.


not sure why you're snarking up a farking storm to me based on my ignorance of how EBT works.
 
2013-04-18 12:28:12 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.


I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.
 
2013-04-18 12:31:38 AM

randomjsa: DeaH: Yes, denying people their benefits and sending the to the streets will totally solve their drug problem. People on the streets never do drugs, and they NEVER commit crimes to support their drug habits.

So instead we should support their drug habit with tax dollars.




Why not end the war of Drugs?
 
2013-04-18 12:36:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.


we already have section 8 housing assistance (up to $2200/month)
 
2013-04-18 12:39:12 AM

jjorsett: If I have to pee in a cup to get a government job, you have to pee in a cup to get your free government money. Deal with it.


Ah jealousy.
 
2013-04-18 12:40:38 AM
RANDOMJSA: YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE TESTING FIRMS WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS, NOT DRUG ADDICTS. THE ACTUAL IMPACTS ARE LAUGHABLY LOW, EXCEPT IN YOUR TV WORLD. ITS LIKE A MAINLINE FROM WELFARE TO GLAXOKLINE, YOU ARSE.

if you guys wouldn't quote him, i wouldnt' have to break out the stupid-ray.
 
2013-04-18 12:41:01 AM

skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.



I don't know whether they're universal or individually flagged in each store's system. If they can enter the prices, they can set EBT yes/no flags easily enough.
 
2013-04-18 12:42:31 AM

StoPPeRmobile: jjorsett: If I have to pee in a cup to get a government job, you have to pee in a cup to get your free government money. Deal with it.

Ah jealousy.


nope.

envy,

put down the pipe and figure out the difference.
 
2013-04-18 12:45:50 AM
Um i think this is a good thing. Wish Canada would do it
 
2013-04-18 12:50:29 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.


I don't know whether they're universal or individually flagged in each store's system. If they can enter the prices, they can set EBT yes/no flags easily enough.


For SNAP, the feds makes the rules but it's totally enforced by the retailers, and the retailers are generally the big winners in ineligible item fraud schemes.  The USDA has an entire unit in every Food and Nutrition Service field office dedicated to data mining for those schemes, and the major cheaters get tossed over to their Office of the Inspector General, which employs armed federal agents to look into this stuff.
 
2013-04-18 12:51:32 AM

skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.


Programmer that worked on something similar. Super easy, just a few lines of code and a db lookup.  You can lock out certain locations or items.  I didn't work on EBT cards, but with FSAs and you would not believe the things people would try to pull.  No that 60 inch TV is not a medical device because you need glasses.

However there is a catch, some do yes by default and others do no by default.  If no by default you can't go to a store or buy something that's not in the db.  Usually that irritates people so most do yes by default.  With that setup it will approve until someone updates the db and some unauthorized purchases do make it through.

Even then it's not in your interest as the program flags it and locks your account when the db is updated.  You either lose the funds still in your account, have to pay back the amount spent, or the info is sent to the IRS which witholds or adjust as needed.
 
2013-04-18 12:52:37 AM

friend49: Um i think this is a good thing. Wish Canada would do it


Why, because you're a vindictive ass? It's money straight from welfare to big business (testing corps).. oh that's real nice. And the companies with literal billions in welfare? Not a single test. What are you buying with this except humiliating normal people with testing and time and travel expense cause someone don't like the browns, huh?

Here's your "grand accomplishment", from TFA:

"Kansas is one of dozens of states that have been considering such drug tests. Florida required all new applicants to take such tests, as opposed to Kansas' plan that hinges on "reasonable suspicion." Data showed that program provided no direct savings to the state and only 2.6 percent of those tested failed tests, usually for marijuana use"


Yeah, way to bust gramps for being old. Way to intimidate minorities. And way to do NOTHING about making ANYTHING CHEAPER or ANYTHING SAFER. YOU SUCK.
 
2013-04-18 12:55:20 AM
trailerparkboys.org
 
2013-04-18 12:55:21 AM

hutchkc: skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive


It's automatic. You swipe the EBT card through the reader. Eligible items are deducted from the card balance, leaving ineligible items (such as toilet paper, but who needs that?) to be paid for in cash or whatever.

I didn't know there were universal scan codes for products which prevented EBT from being used on them.

Programmer that worked on something similar. Super easy, just a few lines of code and a db lookup.  You can lock out certain locations or items.  I didn't work on EBT cards, but with FSAs and you would not believe the things people would try to pull.  No that 60 inch TV is not a medical device because you need glasses.

However there is a catch, some do yes by default and others do no by default.  If no by default you can't go to a store or buy something that's not in the db.  Usually that irritates people so most do yes by default.  With that setup it will approve until someone updates the db and some unauthorized purchases do make it through.

Even then it's not in your interest as the program flags it and locks your account when the db is updated.  You either lose the funds still in your account, have to pay back the amount spent, or the info is sent to the IRS which witholds or adjust as needed.


yeah I just figured that the DB didn't exist because of a lack of standardization across product lines but I've read a bit about it and apparently prepared food is disallowed so it really is a case of just maintaining UPCs for a shiatton of manufactured stuff I guess
 
2013-04-18 12:56:23 AM

LookForTheArrow: friend49: Um i think this is a good thing. Wish Canada would do it

Why, because you're a vindictive ass? It's money straight from welfare to big business (testing corps).. oh that's real nice. And the companies with literal billions in welfare? Not a single test. What are you buying with this except humiliating normal people with testing and time and travel expense cause someone don't like the browns, huh?

Here's your "grand accomplishment", from TFA:

"Kansas is one of dozens of states that have been considering such drug tests. Florida required all new applicants to take such tests, as opposed to Kansas' plan that hinges on "reasonable suspicion." Data showed that program provided no direct savings to the state and only 2.6 percent of those tested failed tests, usually for marijuana use"


Yeah, way to bust gramps for being old. Way to intimidate minorities. And way to do NOTHING about making ANYTHING CHEAPER or ANYTHING SAFER. YOU SUCK.


Holy shiat shut the fark up.
 
2013-04-18 01:03:30 AM

skullkrusher: hutchkc: skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive

yeah I just figured that the DB didn't exist because of a lack of standardization across product lines but I've read a bit about it and apparently prepared food is disallowed so it really is a case of just maintaining UPCs for a shiatton of manufactured stuff I guess


Yepper, although there are a lot of hints.  UPC codes are not just random numbers.  It actually contains category, group, and manufacturer codes.  So if 81234 is the code and lets say 8 is booze and your using food stamps then you can automatically deny anything that starts with an 8.
 
2013-04-18 01:05:03 AM

hutchkc: skullkrusher: hutchkc: skullkrusher: common sense is an oxymoron: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive

yeah I just figured that the DB didn't exist because of a lack of standardization across product lines but I've read a bit about it and apparently prepared food is disallowed so it really is a case of just maintaining UPCs for a shiatton of manufactured stuff I guess

Yepper, although there are a lot of hints.  UPC codes are not just random numbers.  It actually contains category, group, and manufacturer codes.  So if 81234 is the code and lets say 8 is booze and your using food stamps then you can automatically deny anything that starts with an 8.


optimizing code that doesn't really need optimizing. I likes it :)
 
2013-04-18 01:09:55 AM

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.

not sure why you're snarking up a farking storm to me based on my ignorance of how EBT works.


I wasn't. I thought you were being sarcastic, since that is, in fact, how EBT and food stamps work. (You know me better than that!) No, it's why I made the comment. Really, there's no reason to be "tying welfare to drug test results" if the goal is to prevent it from being used to buy drugs--because the system is already pretty much set up that way. The idea that junkies and whores are out there using their "welfare money" to buy drugs and booze is really old, and hasn't been possible except with a lot of effort for many decades.

You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payments--the bulk of the money goes straight to the landlord or housing authority, NOT to the recipient. Since housing and food are covered, "welfare recipients" actually receive very little hard cash anymore. But people still believe it enough to vote for crap like this bill.
 
2013-04-18 01:13:46 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.

not sure why you're snarking up a farking storm to me based on my ignorance of how EBT works.

I wasn't. I thought you were being sarcastic, since that is, in fact, how EBT and food stamps work. (You know me better than that!) No, it's why I made the comment. Really, there's no reason to be "tying welfare to drug test results" if the goal is to prevent it from being used to buy drugs--because the system is already pretty much set up that way. The idea that junkies and whores are out there using their "welfare money" to buy drugs and booze is really old, and hasn't been possible except with a lot of effort for many decades.

You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payments--the bulk ...


ahhhhh, I got what you're saying now
thanks for the clarifizzle
 
2013-04-18 01:20:15 AM

Gyrfalcon: ...

You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payments--the bulk of the money goes straight to the landlord or housing authority, NOT to the recipient. Since housing and food are covered, "welfare recipients" actually receive very little hard cash anymore. But people still believe it enough to vote for crap like this bill.

people that are getting high get the money from someplace.
if they have money for pot or coke, why do they need EBT or whatever?
if you think people cannot trade things they buy with EBT for drugs or money, often at about 20% of real value, you are indeed too sheltered to discuss this.
i live in the lbc.

besides, like i already said, if you don't stop doing drugs, you aren't trying to get off assistance, because you are sabotaging your ability to get a job.
 
2013-04-18 01:28:47 AM

Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.


i335.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-18 01:30:37 AM

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.

not sure why you're snarking up a farking storm to me based on my ignorance of how EBT works.

I wasn't. I thought you were being sarcastic, since that is, in fact, how EBT and food stamps work. (You know me better than that!) No, it's why I made the comment. Really, there's no reason to be "tying welfare to drug test results" if the goal is to prevent it from being used to buy drugs--because the system is already pretty much set up that way. The idea that junkies and whores are out there using their "welfare money" to buy drugs and booze is really old, and hasn't been possible except with a lot of effort for many decades.

You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payments--the bulk ...


There are no states with paper coupons anymore.  They stopped being redeemable in 2009, so since the feds won't pay you for accepting them, they're basically just worthless conversation pieces now, The cutoff to switch to EBT issuances was years before that.

Unrestricted TANF cash grants definitely still exist, though.  TANF, being a block grant, permits states to restrict the use of the funds however they want, but I know of multiple states where a straight cash issuance to the EBT card is the default form of the grant.  In NY, for instance, the client has to request the grant be restricted or the agency has to demonstrate cash mismanagement (the recipient is evicted for non-payment of rent, utilities turned off for non-payment) to restrict it against the client's will.  I haven't seen this year's summary, but I think it might even be a majority of states that still permit it.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, though: it's much more restrictive than the general public seems to realize.
 
2013-04-18 01:43:13 AM

Curious: BradleyUffner: Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.

My sister proves otherwise.

a friend refutes your sister. katrina relief went right past her. no FEMA, no SBA, red cross said they'd like to but -- don't remember what their half assed excuse was. she rents, had cancer, lost her job, lost her insurance. it sucked and all the while the TV was covered up with stories about folks getting big screen TVs.

hurricane Issac she finally got $200 for lost food. first disaster around here since 2005 she got anything at all. i'm glad your sister has done better.


I'll be happy to call you out. If she rents, had cancer with no insurance, and lost her job she would qualify unless she had other assets. It kind of sounds like what happened with my stepdaughter. She and her husband lost their jobs within a few months of each other. They were renters who also had several thousand dollars worth of assets including their vehicles that were valued at 9k total. They weren't willing to liquidate their assets and they did everything that they could to keep up the payments on those two vehicles which meant that they had too much in assets to qualify for assistance.

I received assistance off and on. When I managed to squirrel away a few bucks to try to get us up from where we were my assistance was cut. When my assistance was cut I had to pay for my full child care costs. When my child care costs became more than 1/2 of my gross income I was able to get back on child care benefits. Then. when I was able to start squirreling away a few bucks to try to get us up from where we were my assistance was cut.

I was working anywhere from one to three jobs and this was the back and forth I had to cope with for several years.
 
2013-04-18 02:04:54 AM

bugontherug: reitage: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

I had to take a drug test to get my job, why shouldn't someone have to take one to take my money from me?

Supposing you're a competent professional trusted significant responsibilities, whether or not you use drugs reasonably relates to your ability to handle those responsibilities. The logic goes thus: if you use drugs, you're disobeying the law. If you're disobeying the law, you're not a responsible person. Therefore, you shouldn't be trusted with significant professional responsibilities.

No like purpose is served by conditioning receipt of public assistance on drug tests. Public assistance beneficiaries have no significant job responsibilities to be undermined by behaviors associated with drug use. If a public assistance beneficiary spends his day high on marijuana, no client's case is prejudiced, no patient's health is endangered, no major contracts are put at risk, etc.

But conditioning public assistance on the results of drug tests sure does undermine some of the policy purposes of public assistance. Two such purposes are reduction in interpersonal crime and homelessness. Many drug addicts denied public assistance benefits will turn to other social safety nets, like family--so in effect, you're penalizing those family members put to the excruciating choice of helping a loved one, or watching him go homeless. Many other drug addicts denied public assistance will end up homeless, turn to crimes against persons and property, or both.

Neither does it even make fiscal sense. Empirically, where this kind of thing has been enacted elsewhere, the costs of the drug testing have actually exceeded the costs saved by kicking the view beneficiaries who test positive off of public assistance. You're actually willing to spend more money to deny people ben ...


I would submit this post as an entirely new link if I could
 
2013-04-18 02:16:42 AM

IgG4: Jon iz teh kewl: i'd like welfare, but i don't know what i'd do with my time if i'm not allowed to use drugs..  kratom??

[s3.amazonaws.com image 245x320]


a.abcnews.com
 
2013-04-18 02:33:32 AM
The only problem with these kinds of laws is they really only affect pot smokers.  Crack, coke, heroin, pills, shrooms, lsd, pcp, peyote, opium, meth, bath salts, alcohol....are out of your system within 12 hours to 4 days.  4 days with a really slow metabolism.  Most people I known who've done the list quit, piss in a cup, get *insert whatever here*, and get back on the shiat.  Most of them do bad at work, get high at work, and guess what, they're the "druggies" who have the jobs.  Weed's in your system for 2 weeks to a month -- I'm in the clear around 18-22 days.  Point is, these laws do next to nothing in regards to stopping any kind of real drug addiction.  A crackhead will stop smoking for 3 days to smoke for 30.

On the other hand, if they are that far off, get their benefits pulled, and find themselves with no money, there's a good chance they'll turn to crime and I hope one of you dumb farkers gets shanked and your wallet ganked by a gaggle of crackheads.  What a lot of people don't realize is if you make it harder to get the drugs, they'll only go to more extremes to get what they want, which usually means crime.  I'd rather have government sanctioned tweakers than  have my car stolen or  10yo Suzy from down the street getting raped for her iPad and lunch money.

/Don't give children iPads and lunch money.  You're saying no to both drugs and child rape.  That's a win-win for everyone except a clucker named Chester.
 
2013-04-18 02:54:08 AM

jylcat: This infuriates me just because of the evidence that this does not translate into any cost savings and in Florida it ended up costing them money.


THIS

It didn't save a single penny. It cost 20x more than it saved.
No problem though.
The person pushing for it's implementation owned the drug testing company.
 
2013-04-18 04:24:34 AM

Popular Opinion: Gyrfalcon: ...You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payments--the bulk of the money goes straight to the landlord or housing authority, NOT to the recipient. Since housing and food are covered, "welfare recipients" actually receive very little hard cash anymore. But people still believe it enough to vote for crap like this bill.

people that are getting high get the money from someplace.
if they have money for pot or coke, why do they need EBT or whatever?
if you think people cannot trade things they buy with EBT for drugs or money, often at about 20% of real value, you are indeed too sheltered to discuss this.
i live in the lbc.

besides, like i already said, if you don't stop doing drugs, you aren't trying to get off assistance, because you are sabotaging your ability to get a job.


You may live in the LBC, wherever the hell that is; but its certainly not in the real world. In the real world, people often use their benefits for food, and turn tricks for their drugs. Or do petty crimes, shoplift, sell used/stolen goods on the street corner. Or sell drugs and take their percent before they cut the product down for resale; any of these are way more profitable than your weird method of buying food (the only thing you can get with an EBT card) and selling it at below retail.

I'm not as sheltered as you think I am--you may not be as "worldly" as you think you are.
 
2013-04-18 04:34:29 AM
Eliminate welfare.

Problem solved.
 
2013-04-18 05:03:56 AM

spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.


All of those things are considered human rights here.  The issue is how it's all going to be paid for.

Some believe that individuals should pay their own way first; rely on family and friends second; and impersonal private charities third. Others believe that it's government's role to pay for everyone's basic rights and that means taxing everyone.
 
2013-04-18 05:09:42 AM

The One True TheDavid: tuna fingers:

But really this is a purge by Kansas of their unwanteds.  These people will undoubtedly either end up in neighboring states or on the streets and then in jail.
I'd like to follow the money on this one... I bet there is some financial backing from some privatized correctional facility.

That's how it looks to me too.


This.  Anyone notice that these "get tough on the poor laws" really got rolling about the same time "self-deportation" became a buzzword?
 
2013-04-18 05:32:37 AM

Gyrfalcon: Really, there's no reason to be "tying welfare to drug test results" if the goal is to prevent it from being used to buy drugs--because the system is already pretty much set up that way. The idea that junkies and whores are out there using their "welfare money" to buy drugs and booze is really old, and hasn't been possible except with a lot of effort for many decades.

You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payments--the bulk of the money goes straight to the landlord or housing authority, NOT to the recipient. Since housing and food are covered, "welfare recipients" actually receive very little hard cash anymore. But people still believe it enough to vote for crap like this bill.


Bus passes (lol, tokens?) and use of food stamp EBT can be sold at a discount for cash or intoxicants very easily.

Perhaps one solution is to pay benefits directly to Walmart and tell recipients to shop there.  Same with co-payment cash; just let the clinic hold the money for each patient assigned to it.  If you're going to treat people like untrustworthy, irresponsible kids, go all the way.
 
2013-04-18 05:59:01 AM

Mugato: I've never been on welfare or even unemployment in my life but people who dismiss everyone who has been as "lazy" need a swift kick in the dick.


But that statement get a lot of votes for those rat-bastard greedy-ass politicians from OLD PEOPLE.

The ironic thing is that the right-wingers do not look after the old at all, but nostalgia for the supposed "good old times" keeps 'em voting that way.
 
2013-04-18 06:44:04 AM

ChaosStar: A snake wearing a sweater: ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

Then since they can't get a job being a felon and can't get welfare they turn back to crime and become fodder for the private for profit prison system. This is how they plan on fixing the black and brown people issue.

Or maybe, just maybe, they stop doing drugs, clean up, get a job, and better themselves.
/I can play hypothetical hyperbole to!


well they woulnd't have money for drugs or even for food being an unemployable felon. They would most likely end up back in the system for stealing food/trying not to starve to death. Jesus must be so proud.
 
2013-04-18 06:50:33 AM

titwrench: A snake wearing a sweater: ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

Then since they can't get a job being a felon and can't get welfare they turn back to crime and become fodder for the private for profit prison system. This is how they plan on fixing the black and brown people issue.

Why is it their job to give handouts? If it is a black and brown problem, in your opinion, why don't the black and brown people fix it?


it's really not a problem if you put in laws like this. you put your poor non whites in jail, then you live in your conservative utopia where everyone is super bootstrappy and galty.
 
2013-04-18 07:04:47 AM
Considering the massive number of welfare recipients addicted to something and using their welfare money to pay for it, I'm all for this. Heck, you shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or unhealthy foods on welfare either. Welfare is for keeping you alive and that should be its sole purpose. If you want to kill yourself, do it on your own dime.
 
2013-04-18 07:05:46 AM

Omahawg: ugh. can we just fence off the state and let the fascist jesus freaks sour in their own biblical juices?

[daily.greencine.com image 395x191]


A boy and his dog?
 
2013-04-18 07:26:39 AM

ZAZ: Ordering lazy people to take drug tests that motivated people can skip is not the important part of the law. This is: Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.


This works for me.
 
2013-04-18 07:55:13 AM
Work for the government, get drug screening ... okay.

Get money from the government for doing nothing, drug screening ... bad.

About the sum of liberal arguments?
 
2013-04-18 08:00:58 AM

skullkrusher: spawn73: Why isn't recieving a welfare that provides for basic food and shelter a human right in USA?

Probably because you guys don't consider recieving free treatment and education is a right either.

I think that's partially the point of this backasswards policy. They want to ensure that welfare is not used on drugs and instead is used on food and shelter


If it wasn't for the banning of people for life part of it, that would actually make sense. Because if I have an impression that drug addicts probably don't have food and shelter regardless of welfare.
 
MFK
2013-04-18 08:02:09 AM

titwrench: buzzcut73: FTFA: "The drug testing program and treatment is estimated to cost about $1 million the first year, after any savings from people losing benefits."

Good fiscal conservatism there, Kansas.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/04/16/2764370/brownback-signs-bill-that-re q uires.html#storylink=cpy

$1million is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of annual spending for a state and that is only for the first year. There is always going to be an initial opportunity cost. If that's all it will cost to weed out the deadbeat druggies that want to sit around all day getting high off of the backs of Kansas' hard working citizens I say go for it. If you have enough money to buy drugs then you don't deserve financial help. I am all for welfare as a system to help people get back on their feet but there are too many trailer parks and tenements full of people that have created a culture of welfare abuse and they need to be stopped. It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.


yeah. a third of your paycheck goes to drugged up welfare cheats. Let me roll my eyes harder, asshole.
 
2013-04-18 08:02:28 AM

Thunderpipes: Work for the government, get drug screening ... okay.

Get money from the government for doing nothing, drug screening ... bad.

About the sum of liberal arguments?


Politicians 1st is my counterargument.  I support drug screening of recipients. I do NOT support cutting funding because of it.
 
2013-04-18 08:17:05 AM
1) Ban birth control. Ban abortion. Abstinence-only edumakashun.  Defund Planned Parenthood.
2) Wonder why so many out of wedlock births.
3) Abolish food stamps. That'll larn them Welfare Queens. (The Welfare Queens with the babies, of course, not the ones with the zillion-dollar contracts with the Small Government®.)
4) Ship all the well-paying jobs overseas.
5) Gut the public schools. You don't need no edumakashun to work a McJob, and teachers are Union Thugs (except when the NRA wants to arm them).
6) Hike taxes on people who work for a living. Cut them on the plutocrats. Abolish the minimum wage. David Koch's Mercedes is six months old and he wants a new one.
7) Wonder why so many people break the law instead of starving quietly, or getting a McJob for take-home pay that won't take them home.
8) zOMG CRIME WAVE!
9) Zillion-dollar Small Government® contracts for private prisons and purveyors of riot gear.
10) No ??? here, baby.
11) Profit!
 
2013-04-18 08:21:05 AM

MFK: titwrench: buzzcut73: FTFA: "The drug testing program and treatment is estimated to cost about $1 million the first year, after any savings from people losing benefits."

Good fiscal conservatism there, Kansas.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/04/16/2764370/brownback-signs-bill-that-re q uires.html#storylink=cpy

$1million is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of annual spending for a state and that is only for the first year. There is always going to be an initial opportunity cost. If that's all it will cost to weed out the deadbeat druggies that want to sit around all day getting high off of the backs of Kansas' hard working citizens I say go for it. If you have enough money to buy drugs then you don't deserve financial help. I am all for welfare as a system to help people get back on their feet but there are too many trailer parks and tenements full of people that have created a culture of welfare abuse and they need to be stopped. It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money. fark em, let them die in the streets.

yeah. a third of your paycheck goes to drugged up welfare cheats. Let me roll my eyes harder, asshole.


You know what?  1/3 of your paycheck does go to taxes, and I for one, am tired of a large portion of the money I earn working going toward the support of lifer welfare losers whose only requirement is that they produce a [largely illigetimate]  baby to receive benefits.  You really need to pay more attention - either that or why don't you volunteer 50% of your paycheck to help these oh so pitiful dregs of society.
 
2013-04-18 08:21:34 AM

cman: But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote

All of it was partisanship

When one party has a supermajority stupid shiat like this happens.


Wow, did not know they only had 16 dems in the house and 9 in their senate. At least they require drug testing of officials as well...

FTA:" The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members"
 
2013-04-18 08:25:24 AM
Rufus Lee King

I'm not an idiot, my boy. I had a heart attack six months ago, and have been filling out disability forms over and over again the whole interim period.

What's the trouble? Why can't I get some temporary help?


When you apply, they should give you a case manager who will put you on Social Security Income -- which is a tiny stipend but gets you Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. From there you apply for full disability -- but NOT by yourself. Social Security automatically rejects 90% of the applicants to weed out the fakers.

They assume fakers will not take the time to reapply.

Get a Disability Lawyer. They work on commission. They will not take your case unless they're sure they can win -- so have copies of your medical files. Once they take the case, they'll act in your interest. Their payment will be a percentage of your initial benefits -- which track back to your first application.

The process can take around a year. (Which is why you should be on SSI.) You'll see a judge with the lawyer.

Once you're approved, your back benefits -- minus the lawyers fee, will arrive. You'll be taken off SSI and placed on Disability. Periodically your Primary physician will be contacted to verify you're still sick enough to get SSD.

Your lawyer will guide you through the process. Applying on your own nearly guarantees rejection.

BTW -- you may have to drain all of your savings to qualify.
 
2013-04-18 08:28:36 AM

titwrench: It sucks seeing nearly a third of my paycheck disappear each week to give these leeches drug money to blow schitt up in Iraq.


FTFY
 
2013-04-18 09:03:19 AM

Philbb: Rufus Lee King: White folks are not eligible for welfare, disability, or any other government program, no matter how bad the need.

Really. Try it sometime.


Looks like welfare is fun
 
2013-04-18 09:03:44 AM

ZAZ: Somacandra: Unless the exact same rule applies to KS legislators showing up for "work," then its bullshiat. Make the lords play by the same rules the peasants have to....and watch what happens to the "rules."

The lords do have to play by the same rules. Quoting the article: The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members suspected of illegal drug use.


This means that all welfare recipients are suspects. Sure, why not?
 
2013-04-18 09:11:23 AM
America's disgusting sense of entitlement ... The last vestige of the weak, stupid and lazy.
 
2013-04-18 10:04:46 AM
Quoting the article: The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members suspected of illegal drug use.

That's because they all use legal drugs, as in prescribed. When you are wealthy and working for the state, you just go get a prescription from your state-approved doctor. But they still abuse them. Legality of the drugs does not mean they can't be abused.
 
2013-04-18 10:32:51 AM

Nem Wan: I've never taken a drug test in my life. Let's see if I can make it the rest of the way like that.


If you want life insurance there's a good chance you'll be taking one.
 
2013-04-18 10:38:33 AM
Excuse me if this has been said already, but:

Please note that this was not a southern state (at least not this time).

/amusing to see such derp come from a state in the north
//double-amusing that they didn't check with Florida to see how it worked out for them
 
2013-04-18 10:47:20 AM

SevenizGud: Eliminate welfare.

Problem solved.




Then when the food riots start we can start up The Running Man!
 
2013-04-18 11:43:27 AM

Popular Opinion: no, that is not correct,
I want people on assistance to not be willingly sabotaging their ability to get off assistance.
this is not "undermining public assistance" in any way.
it is promoting self sufficiency.
people who are so stupid that they test positive only lose benefits until they complete a short training program.
if you can't be bothered to complete the program (cause you're too stoned, or too busy feeling sorry for yourself), then too farking bad.


To accomplish this goal of promoting self-sufficiency, you're willing to increase the cost of public assistance programs more than the money saved by kicking a handful of beneficiaries off of assistance. You're willing to increase the burdens on families of addicts, endure higher interpersonal crime rates and homelessness, and the reduced social stability and property values associated with both. Not to mention increase the bureaucratic hassles endured by the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries who don't use drugs at all.

I believe your cost-benefit calculation is irrational.
 
2013-04-18 11:44:40 AM
Thank you for your kind words to everyone who posted them in response to my post.
 
2013-04-18 11:46:41 AM
Why so much vitriol when this type of disqualification system is applied to welfare but just about zero vitriol when the Left wants to apply pretty much the same standards to the 2nd Amendment?

Just curious.
 
2013-04-18 12:12:51 PM

bugontherug: Popular Opinion: no, that is not correct,
I want people on assistance to not be willingly sabotaging their ability to get off assistance.
this is not "undermining public assistance" in any way.
it is promoting self sufficiency.
people who are so stupid that they test positive only lose benefits until they complete a short training program.
if you can't be bothered to complete the program (cause you're too stoned, or too busy feeling sorry for yourself), then too farking bad.

To accomplish this goal of promoting self-sufficiency, you're willing to increase the cost of public assistance programs more than the money saved by kicking a handful of beneficiaries off of assistance. You're willing to increase the burdens on families of addicts, endure higher interpersonal crime rates and homelessness, and the reduced social stability and property values associated with both. Not to mention increase the bureaucratic hassles endured by the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries who don't use drugs at all.

I believe your cost-benefit calculation is irrational.




Let's see how much of a cost savings there is when someone eventually sues.

Food riots FTW!
 
2013-04-18 12:40:54 PM
Works for me.  Less people sculing off my teet.
 
2013-04-18 12:58:53 PM

Spudsy1: Works for me.  Less people sculing off my teet.




Are you the owner of the drug-testing company?
 
2013-04-18 01:40:55 PM

HaveBeerWillTravel: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: I would imagine rolling out technology to limit the sort of expenses allowed is prohibitively expensive.

Oh, no doubt. Why, just imagine how difficult it would be to restrict food purchases, for instance, to comestible items; or making payments straight to the housing authority in the tenant's name and issuing them an ID card for access to their residence. Why, it might cost...nothing, since that's already what is done. And converting general relief payments and SSI/SSDI payments to EBT cards would be just as costly as opening a bank account in the recipient's name, and disallowing cash-back transactions if you're really that concerned.

Clearly, my idealistic pragmatism has overwhelmed me again, and I must go play a violent video game and kill shiat to get it out of my system.

not sure why you're snarking up a farking storm to me based on my ignorance of how EBT works.

I wasn't. I thought you were being sarcastic, since that is, in fact, how EBT and food stamps work. (You know me better than that!) No, it's why I made the comment. Really, there's no reason to be "tying welfare to drug test results" if the goal is to prevent it from being used to buy drugs--because the system is already pretty much set up that way. The idea that junkies and whores are out there using their "welfare money" to buy drugs and booze is really old, and hasn't been possible except with a lot of effort for many decades.

You don't, in fact, get "welfare money" in the form of cash except in cases of emergency--like when someone comes into the general relief office and needs $50 bucks to pay a doctor or something. Even bus fare is given in the form of tokens, not cash. But since people don't know this, they fall for the politician's line about people "using their welfare money to buy drugs" and it's all b/s. It's virtually impossible, except in states where they still actually use "food stamps" and not EBT cards. Same with Section 8 payment ...


In CA, a person can buy something with their EBT card and get cash back.  This is firsthand knowledge from when I was a cashier at a grocery store.  Granted, this was a few years ago, but I did see someone recently at Wal-Mart do the exact same thing, so I believe the process is still in effect.  I ring up a 50 cent candy bar and they would get 100 back.  Repeat 3 or 4 times (because of transaction limits) and now that person has 400 of our dollars in their pocket.  Now they could be using that money to pay for a doctor's bill, or books for their kids... I can't even finish that with a straight face.  They'd be back in line 5 minutes later with a case of beer and asking for cigarettes.  Then they'd require help to their expensive cars.  I got very biased working at a grocery store.  You see the worst of the worst scamming the system.  Then when you (or me in this rant) are in need of help, the system says "oh, you make too much money" when your bank account and bills say otherwise.  Fark this bullshiat system we have.  It's infuriating.  Career welfare motherfarkers who never aspire to be anything more than bottom-feeding scum.  The SS office is more of the same.  If there's money being handed out, people will line up with hands extended.  Meanwhile, me and you will never see a penny of the money we've paid into it.

/After reading over this it should have been prefaced with "FW: fw: fW: Fw: FW: You'll never believe what B. Hussein Obama is up to now"
//I still needed to vent about it
///Not a Republican.  I swear.
 
2013-04-18 05:54:45 PM
This is one of those things that's gonna cost taxpayers more than it saves, isn't it?
 
2013-04-18 06:39:09 PM
There's no statistics like cherry-picked statistics.

www.floridafga.org
 
2013-04-18 08:34:23 PM

KWillets: There's no statistics like cherry-picked statistics.

[www.floridafga.org image 850x356]


And you provided a terrific example. Thanks!
 
2013-04-18 08:48:46 PM

bugontherug: Popular Opinion: no, that is not correct,
I want people on assistance to not be willingly sabotaging their ability to get off assistance.
this is not "undermining public assistance" in any way.
it is promoting self sufficiency.
people who are so stupid that they test positive only lose benefits until they complete a short training program.
if you can't be bothered to complete the program (cause you're too stoned, or too busy feeling sorry for yourself), then too farking bad.

To accomplish this goal of promoting self-sufficiency, you're willing to increase the cost of public assistance programs more than the money saved by kicking a handful of beneficiaries off of assistance. You're willing to increase the burdens on families of addicts, endure higher interpersonal crime rates and homelessness, and the reduced social stability and property values associated with both. Not to mention increase the bureaucratic hassles endured by the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries who don't use drugs at all.

I believe your cost-benefit calculation is irrational.


I believe you want hard working tax paying people to let drug addicts and criminals live off our taxes forever.

Sorry that I just cannot agree with you.
There are limited resources that should go to people who need it, not lazy drug addicts.
 
Displayed 200 of 200 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report