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  
•       •       •

8220 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2013 at 10:11 PM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report