It's about god damn time!!!!

[blacktalon606]

If you have a job, your subject to random drug tests.... but if you sit on your ass and collect a check you can smoke all the crack you want. It's about time someone did something about that!

"Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse." We will have a rash of stoners starving to death. Now that would be funny right there...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said. They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

[Todd#43]

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

+1

[V4junkie]

Also' date=' this probably should have been put in the "Politics" thread. Some of the other members may get tweaked that they accidentally read something of usefulness and thusly had to think about something.[/quote']

And I was wondering why my brain hurt about halfway through that post. Excuse me, I'm going to go back to sitting in my cubicle and whistling "On Top of Spaghetti."

[gixxie750]

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

+2!

[Disclaimer]

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

While I could easily stand behind this train of thought, practicality and economics dictate that this couldn't happen. Sorry, but economics will trump almost everything; including personal responsibility.

@ V4junkie.

[Todd#43]

While I could easily stand behind this train of thought, practicality and economics dictate that this couldn't happen. Sorry, but economics will trump almost everything; including personal responsibility.

@ V4junkie.

What do economics have to do with it?

Sadly, it'll never happen. Unfortunately even the liberal dems are not dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds them.

[DollFace]

Also' date=' this probably should have been put in the "Politics" thread. Some of the other members may get tweaked that they accidentally read something of usefulness and thusly had to think about something.[/quote']

NOT AT ALL! Coming from a mother of three, who on the third c-section was screaming CUT THEM! TIE THEM! BURN THEM! I DON'T CARE JUST MAKE ME STERILE! I am totally against women like friggin Nadya Suleman who lived off of government aide to care for her 14 children and to pay for her IVF, until of course the public began to have such an interest in her and she started getting paid for publicity. Stupid chick!

[kawi kid]

hell i have been drug tested since i was sixteen for my job. its not hard to stay clean.

[Disclaimer]

What do economics have to do with it?

Economics have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Let them starve - we'll have to pay people to pickup the bodies

Sterilize them - we'll have to pay people to perform the operation

Put them on welfare - we pay for that

Those that don't want to starve, it'll be survival of the fittest, they'll steal for it - we'll pay for that (prison and insurance)

Shoot them dead for stealing - See #1

I've went ahead and bolded the cheapest option for you.

[kawi kid]

i think #1 sounds the cheapest to me. burn the bodies thats not that expensive

[Todd#43]

Economics have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Let them starve - we'll have to pay people to pickup the bodies

Sterilize them - we'll have to pay people to perform the operation

Put them on welfare - we pay for that

Those that don't want to starve, it'll be survival of the fittest, they'll steal for it - we'll pay for that (prison and insurance)

Shoot them dead for stealing - See #1

I've went ahead and bolded the cheapest option for you.

Doubtful. Do you REALLY think that sterilization would cost MORE than paying to deliver and feed the offspring of the freeloaders?

How about some facts to back that up?

[jarvismb]

is this where I get to use my "Soylent Green is People!" line again??

please?

[robhawk]

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

we have that here where ppl have to donate their time inorder to get food stamps

[V4junkie]

is this where I get to use my "Soylent Green is People!" line again??

please?

Haha, this is exactly what I was thinking :grin:

Alternatively there is always the book "To serve Man"

[Disclaimer]

Doubtful. Do you REALLY think that sterilization would cost MORE than paying to deliver and feed the offspring of the freeloaders?

How about some facts to back that up?

You've got to remember that while sterilization is a one time cost, it still doesn't force them to be productive - then they still starve or steal, which leads to the other scenarios.

I like the forced community service idea, but even that needs to be supervised, and it's awful hard to get people to do something they don't want to do without using force. Then you're back to another one of the scenarios. Don't want to work -> no welfare -> no food ->STEAL or STARVE -> Dead bodies everywhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO_QntXc-c4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvEIffY3rNQ

[Todd#43]

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

Hard to believe as it may be, many people sucking from the government teat dont WANT to work. They'd rather get what they can for free - no matter what it is.

My business partner and I had an incident last summer with just such a person. It was a scruffy guy, probably in his 40's (could have been 30's or 50's) panhandling for money at the end of an off ramp on a nice sunny afternoon. We pulled off, and offered to PAY him to cut the grass at the shop, clean up the lot, etc. He refused, saying he didn't want to "work for food". Guess you just cant please some people.

[Todd#43]

You've got to remember that while sterilization is a one time cost, it still doesn't force them to be productive - then they still starve or steal, which leads to the other scenarios.

You're right, it doesnt force them to be productive, but it does mean less of them being unproductive.

Where's your facts dude? Come on, show me the numbers that your alternative is cheaper.

[Disclaimer]

I've already proven that welfare is cheaper than prison, can we agree on that? If you REALLY want me to dig up the old thread, I'll find it. But, I think it's logical that we can agree that the costs of supervising people > costs of people supervising themselves and spending money in society (albeit not their own money).

So, that boils it down to whether it's cheaper for welfare or cleaning up dead bodies. That might take some digging (ha, see what I did there?), but you realize there are tons of intangible costs and opportunity costs to cleaning up dead bodies - not to mention health/hygiene issues, which will undoubtedly drive the costs up. And since it's illegal to kill people, we can't setup gas chambers or something much more efficient - we have to let people starve or off themselves (via crime, suicide, etc) on their own. I could keep going, but suffice to say there's a HOST of more corollary issues that all cost money because SOMEONE has to do them to maintain a productive society.

I could probably keep stacking costs until I meet the welfare threshold if that's really what you want. Though it'd be just as easy to ask you to prove that welfare ISN'T the cheapest option? If you can, you should pitch it to the gov't - they don't spend money just because, I'm sure they'll be completely interesting in any cost-savings ideas you have because that means more money for tanks and bombs and A10s.

As much as we hate on policies, the majority of them aren't enacted without SOME thought (at least at the Federal level), usually by people much better versed on the topic than any of us. We can question them, we can suggest modifications once they because outdated to the society, but I don't think welfare falls into that yet.

[Todd#43]

I've already proven that welfare is cheaper than prison, can we agree on that? If you REALLY want me to dig up the old thread, I'll find it. But, I think it's logical that we can agree that the costs of supervising people > costs of people supervising themselves and spending money in society (albeit not their own money).

Disagree. You're stretching when you say that all the people taken off welfare will automatically turn to crime, and end up in prison. I dont believe for a minute that it would happen that way for two reasons - not everyone would turn to crime, and with the shiddy conviction rates not all of them would be there for long anyway.

So, that boils it down to whether it's cheaper for welfare or cleaning up dead bodies. That might take some digging (ha, see what I did there?), but you realize there are tons of intangible costs and opportunity costs to cleaning up dead bodies - not to mention health/hygiene issues, which will undoubtedly drive the costs up. And since it's illegal to kill people, we can't setup gas chambers or something much more efficient - we have to let people starve or off themselves (via crime, suicide, etc) on their own. I could keep going, but suffice to say there's a HOST of more corollary issues that all cost money because SOMEONE has to do them to maintain a productive society.

No, you left one out - sterilization. Again, you're assuming that everyone taken off the rolls would end up dead or in prison.

I could probably keep stacking costs until I meet the welfare threshold if that's really what you want. Though it'd be just as easy to ask you to prove that welfare ISN'T the cheapest option? If you can, you should pitch it to the gov't - they don't spend money just because, I'm sure they'll be completely interesting in any cost-savings ideas you have because that means more money for tanks and bombs and A10s.

Go for it. Lets see the numbers you're going to "stack up". You were the one that said it was cheaper, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

As much as we hate on policies, the majority of them aren't enacted without SOME thought (at least at the Federal level), usually by people much better versed on the topic than any of us. We can question them, we can suggest modifications once they because outdated to the society, but I don't think welfare falls into that yet.

Plenty of "policies" and spending are enacted with one thought only - "HOW MANY VOTES WILL THIS GET ME".

The welfare system is bloated, antiquated and rife with fraud and abuse. A program that was designed to be a temporary measure has turned into a lifestyle for a whole class of people. Its time that the fee ride ends.

[Cdubyah]

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

The program you speak of is called food sanctioning. I'm not sure if it is in place in all of the counties. When a persons card gets sanctioned they have to work, or they get nothing. Person remains sanctioned forever. All counties are tied together, so if they try to go to another county they are blocked there as well. Problem is finding them someone to work off the sanction. I agree that these programs need refined.

JFS and welfare is basically the same thing. JFS is the umbrella that most of these programs fall under.

I'm not positive, because I have no facts, but I'm thinking Ohio tried this not to long ago, and it got voted down.

[DLN1223]

Close' date=' but I'd rather see no more welfare for welfare recipients. Also, while they are drug testing I'd like to see the females implanted with an IUD. I know that may sound heartless to most people but if you can't afford to feed yourself what makes you think you can feed, clothe, and care for a child?[/quote']

I'd rather we just invest in the darwin theory and let the weaker ones die off. If you're not going to help yourself, I dont want to support the both of us.

If you're making an honest effort to get back on your feet, then no probs helping my fellow citizen out on hard times. But for people that fill out an application just to get their checks and never follow through. bahhhhh.

I still say bonuses for gov't employees that find someone cheating the system.

Also in order to receive your welfare/stamps I think you need to donate atleast 20 hours to your local state/city/county whatever may be in doing some free general labor to receive your check.

[DLN1223]

You've got to remember that while sterilization is a one time cost, it still doesn't force them to be productive - then they still starve or steal, which leads to the other scenarios.

I like the forced community service idea, but even that needs to be supervised, and it's awful hard to get people to do something they don't want to do without using force. Then you're back to another one of the scenarios. Don't want to work -> no welfare -> no food ->STEAL or STARVE -> Dead bodies everywhere

Yet in time the problem will correct itself as there will be less and less free loaders.

Sure there's going to be a lot of ashes going out for a bit, but soon being without a job won't look as good.

[cmoosego]

I say we require some type of service, ie some sort of community service program when enrolled to receive benefits. Why should it be free when the grounds of the city owned property needs cleaned? Or something as simple as a partnership with business to even clean them. Our work programs are sad and need revamped, more partnership between the department of job and family services and the welfare people, and local big business would create a circle that could benefit all.

this is perhaps the best idea I've seen on here lately.... rep for you sir...

[robhawk]

I just look at it this way, I joined the Army to not use govt programs and earn my way. I have no respect for lazy people that refuse to pull their own weight in society. Thus making me feel that they are useless and dont deserve benefits. I worked my A$$ off to get to where I am, the military is always hiring.