PDA

View Full Version : Florida's debated welfare drug-screen measure kicks in


Spiritwalker
07-03-2011, 11:41 AM
I do understand the concern of the ACLU.. but come on.. doesn't it make sense!


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/florida.drug.tests.welfare/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

CNN) -- A controversial law requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening has gone into effect in Florida.

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott signed the legislation in June.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Under the law, which went into effect on Friday, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify.

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Shortly after the bill was signed, five Democrats from the state's congressional delegation issued a joint statement attacking the legislation, one calling it "downright unconstitutional."

And the ACLU has filed suit against the state for requiring all state workers to take a drug test and is considering suing the state for drug-testing welfare applicants.

Controversy over the measure was heightened by Scott's past association with a company he co-founded that operates walk-in urgent care clinics in Florida and counts drug screening among the services it provides.

In April, Scott, who had transferred his ownership interest in Solantic Corp. to a trust in his wife's name, said the company would not contract for state business, according to local media reports. He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company, local media reported.

On May 18, the Florida Ethics Commission ruled that two conflict-of-interest complaints against Scott were legally insufficient to warrant investigation, and adopted an opinion that no "prohibited conflict of interest" existed.

Florida is not the first state to pass such legislation. Michigan passed a similar law that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional in 2003 since it violated the U.S. Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable search.

The court said the law would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to conduct drug searches for the safety of the public without prior suspicion.

Buzzard
07-03-2011, 06:40 PM
I do understand the concern of the ACLU.. but come on.. doesn't it make sense!


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/florida.drug.tests.welfare/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?

I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.

rockdawg21
07-03-2011, 07:25 PM
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?

I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.
It is true that there are more overweight/obese people than there are drug users. Their lifestyle undoubtedly costs us far more than drug abuse.

Spiritwalker
07-03-2011, 08:49 PM
It is true that there are more overweight/obese people than there are drug users. Their lifestyle undoubtedly costs us far more than drug abuse.


:laugh:

Spiritwalker
07-03-2011, 09:09 PM
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

If you want assistance from the state in living... you shouldn't be breaking the state's laws.


Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?

I do know that there are people that mooch off the state.... I do know that when I was in the hospital...I heard one guy telling another guy to "forget that job.. get you some food stamps.. and sell those".... and the article shows that they will recoup the cost of the test..


I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

I don't care about who makes money on the tests... I do care that money that I would rather see go to more cops.. better teachers... and such... do NOT go to provide for an addition

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

the contiguous United States??? maybe your fairly well off.. or still living at home... but I don't want my tax dollars being snorted up a nose and such...

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.


Would you rather provide for those that don't want to provide fro themselves because their are people out there that will provide for them.. and then allow them to pervert the system that takes from you.. and gives to them...?

I would rather see the new(ish) debit cards that took the place of food stamps... can only be used at local government "grocery stores". And in those stores.. no.. there are no Doritos .. and such.. it would suck for the kids... not to get a treat.. but I am working my arse off.. to provide for my family.. I shouldn't have to subsidize people I don't even know while they are puffing on the pipe.... I haven't had a great steak in a while... but my taxes go to provide for the family with the Escalade in their front yard.. while their house is falling down... and yes.. I am using a specific example.. 4 miles from my home.. that's exactly what's going on.. and they still have their cable TV... but the cops still cruise by.. can't wait...

When I was a kid.. I lived on government cheese and such.. but my mom always had a bottle of cheap vodka and smokes in the house.. my mom used to sell her food stamps to friends and family for .50 on the dollar. I am not kidding... that's how it was... I don't want to fund that at all.

VCURamFan
07-04-2011, 12:20 AM
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?
Buzz, that's no different than the drug test you take when you're applying for many jobs. Those tests aren't forced. You are given 2 choices: take a drug test or apply for a different job. Same thing here - take the test or look elsewhere for money. And no, I don't feel sorry for the poor people who are "forced" to take that second option because that means that they're criminals & it's they're own fault.
Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?
That is a great deal of money, but the article clearly states that they will be reimbursed that money when they pass.
I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.
Did you completely miss the part where a) they were found to be not guilty of conflict of interest on two seperate counts and b) "He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company"? This means he doesn't have any chance of making money off this & his conflict of interest is negated.
I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.
This is kind of an interesting case, isn't it? On the one hand, the government is taking a bit more power for itself (making itself larger), but on the other hand the whole purpose of that power is to remove itself from the lives of some of its citizens (making itself smaller). Who wants to lay on odds that they two won't balance out? :laugh:
EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.
While I understand the correlation you're drawing between a pair of 2 unhealthy lifestyle choices, the simple flaw is that being overweight isn't illegal while being a drug abuser is. The simple, underlying premise of the bill is that if you're going to receive state funds, you shouldn't be breaking state laws. This is very similar to when you as a father (you did say you have kids, right? If I'm remembering this incorrectly, then clearly I mean this as a hypothetical scenario!! :laugh:) withhold your child's allowance (or cell phone or car keys or etc., etc., etc.) because they disobeyed you by breaking curfew. In both situations, the money is a privilege, not a right & is therefore capable of being revoked for infractions.

NateR
07-04-2011, 01:35 AM
I see nothing at all wrong with this law. Anyone applying for government aid (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.) should be required to submit to a drug test prior to receiving that aid.

It's only logical and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If you object to the test, then you simply don't receive the government aid. It's not like welfare, unemployment benefits, etc are constitutional rights; so no freedoms are being infringed upon.

Some might argue that there are people who depend on that money, but therein lies the problem. Nobody should depend on government handouts to survive. That gives the government way too much control over the life and death of its citizens - something that no government should have.

flo
07-04-2011, 02:03 AM
Well said, Nate, well said. It's time that people remembered that this isn't money from some government lock box - it's from the sweat of the American taxpayer. There's now a generation of people who believe it's "owed" to them. I think it was Dawn who posted about seeing just that attitude in working with people seeking to receive disability payments.

Time to tighten up the government handouts and fraud connected to entitlement spending - ALL gov't spending, for that matter, including DoD.

flo
07-04-2011, 02:05 AM
It was a step back, IMO, to do away with assets being a consideration for receiving FS; this is a step forward.

Whew, good thing the ACLU is on the case.


/not

Buzzard
07-04-2011, 07:36 AM
If you want assistance from the state in living... you shouldn't be breaking the state's laws.

You're going with the assumption that they are already guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is how we do it in America. Are you going to check them to make sure they don't drink alcohol, after all, you don't want them buying booze with that money do you.


I do know that there are people that mooch off the state.... I do know that when I was in the hospital...I heard one guy telling another guy to "forget that job.. get you some food stamps.. and sell those".... and the article shows that they will recoup the cost of the test..


Anecdotal. Was this guy on drugs? Not even related to this discussion.


I don't care about who makes money on the tests... I do care that money that I would rather see go to more cops.. better teachers... and such... do NOT go to provide for an addition


I do care who makes money, especially if it involves a conflict of interest. Again, innocent until proven guilty is how we do it here in America. Unlawful search.


the contiguous United States??? maybe your fairly well off.. or still living at home... but I don't want my tax dollars being snorted up a nose and such...

CONUS is the CONstitution of the United States. Again, you are making an assumption of guilt based on them being poor.


Would you rather provide for those that don't want to provide fro themselves because their are people out there that will provide for them.. and then allow them to pervert the system that takes from you.. and gives to them...?

That's not the issue. Innocent until proven guilty and no illegal searches and seizure is what I wish. Are you going to smell their fingers to make sure they don't smell like McD's fries?


I would rather see the new(ish) debit cards that took the place of food stamps... can only be used at local government "grocery stores". And in those stores.. no.. there are no Doritos .. and such.. it would suck for the kids... not to get a treat.. but I am working my arse off.. to provide for my family.. I shouldn't have to subsidize people I don't even know while they are puffing on the pipe.... I haven't had a great steak in a while... but my taxes go to provide for the family with the Escalade in their front yard.. while their house is falling down... and yes.. I am using a specific example.. 4 miles from my home.. that's exactly what's going on.. and they still have their cable TV... but the cops still cruise by.. can't wait...

Now I can agree with you a bit on this. Make it so the cards are ID picture cards so they can't be bartered and make it so only food and necessities are allowed, but don't punish the poor by making them pay for a drug test which they already can't afford. If they wish to voluntarily take a test and get treatment, I'm ok with that.


When I was a kid.. I lived on government cheese and such.. but my mom always had a bottle of cheap vodka and smokes in the house.. my mom used to sell her food stamps to friends and family for .50 on the dollar. I am not kidding... that's how it was... I don't want to fund that at all.

That sucks for you and I'm sorry you had to go through that. Alcohol is legal though so your mom wouldn't be caught in that and could still continue that even if she had to take a drug test.

Buzzard
07-04-2011, 08:04 AM
Buzz, that's no different than the drug test you take when you're applying for many jobs. Those tests aren't forced. You are given 2 choices: take a drug test or apply for a different job. Same thing here - take the test or look elsewhere for money. And no, I don't feel sorry for the poor people who are "forced" to take that second option because that means that they're criminals & it's they're own fault.

Yes it is. A person can choose a job where there is no drug test. A poor person with no money has no choice. If they can't feed themselves, how can they pay $238 for a drug test? Getting reimbursed requires them to first have the money to pay for it. No money to pay for it, no assistance. Do you really wish to deprive children of food and shelter? That is so sad in so many ways. Do you wish for them to do something illegal in order to get the money. Do you want the mothers to prostitute themselves?


That is a great deal of money, but the article clearly states that they will be reimbursed that money when they pass.

How does a poor person with no money get the money to pay for the test. If they have $228, then they can buy food for themselves. Desperate people will resort to desperate measures. Man, you'll feed a prisoner, but not a law abiding poor person with no money to pay for a drug test. For $238, I can feed myself for well over a month or two easily.


Did you completely miss the part where a) they were found to be not guilty of conflict of interest on two seperate counts and b) "He subsequently sold his majority stake in the company"? This means he doesn't have any chance of making money off this & his conflict of interest is negated.

I didn't miss that. If you look, I said it was a conflict IMO. Do you really trust the government to do what's right? Do you really trust politicians? Of course they won't find it a conflict, they are in this together. His wife still has a financial interest in the company if you read the article. Conflict still exists.


This is kind of an interesting case, isn't it? On the one hand, the government is taking a bit more power for itself (making itself larger), but on the other hand the whole purpose of that power is to remove itself from the lives of some of its citizens (making itself smaller). Who wants to lay on odds that they two won't balance out? :laugh:[QUOTE=VCURamFan;171055]

While I understand the correlation you're drawing between a pair of 2 unhealthy lifestyle choices, the simple flaw is that being overweight isn't illegal while being a drug abuser is.

Can you show me a law where it states that being a drug user is illegal? Just wondering if you can. Illegal searches are illegal, which this is. Innocent until proven guilty in America.


The simple, underlying premise of the bill is that if you're going to receive state funds, you shouldn't be breaking state laws. This is very similar to when you as a father (you did say you have kids, right? If I'm remembering this incorrectly, then clearly I mean this as a hypothetical scenario!! :laugh:) withhold your child's allowance (or cell phone or car keys or etc., etc., etc.) because they disobeyed you by breaking curfew. In both situations, the money is a privilege, not a right & is therefore capable of being revoked for infractions.

No kids here. I'm happy and headache free. That scenario doesn't equate to this situation, though I understand the point you are trying to make.

Again, you are making an assumption that all poor people use drugs. Again, $238 can buy a lot of food for a child. Do you think that these poor folks have $238 just lying around? So you have no problem with a person using welfare money to buy alcohol and gamble with it, but damn the poor non-drug user who can't afford a drug test and can't get assistance because of it. It seems like they are trying to kill off the poor or get them to commit criminal acts in order to acquire the money to pay for a non-constitutional drug test.

That is not American.

Another problem is that drug tests are easy to pass even when positive. What's to stop a person from pissing clean, then getting the money and then buying drugs with it? It's a completely asinine system. Are you going to strip search and do body cavity searches to make sure that they don't have anything up there to tamper with the results. So do you want to subject every poor person who is already humiliated because they have to go on the dole with the humiliating body cavity search and piss test, which they can be clean for and then purchase drugs after the fact if they so wished?

Please understand that while I may be blunt in my response to you, I hold no ill will for you, just your position. Yes, I do wish to change you mind on this. Who will think of the children, who will think of the children?:frantics::laugh:

There has to be a better way. It's a money making scam through and through. It's cost will outweigh the benefits. How many times are you going to make these people take drug tests?

Buzzard
07-04-2011, 08:08 AM
I see nothing at all wrong with this law. Anyone applying for government aid (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.) should be required to submit to a drug test prior to receiving that aid.

It's only logical and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If you object to the test, then you simply don't receive the government aid. It's not like welfare, unemployment benefits, etc are constitutional rights; so no freedoms are being infringed upon.

Some might argue that there are people who depend on that money, but therein lies the problem. Nobody should depend on government handouts to survive. That gives the government way too much control over the life and death of its citizens - something that no government should have.

I believe it violates the 4th amendment. No unlawful searches and seizures. Nothing logical to it at all. You assume everyone is guilty.

Sure no one should depend on the government, but things happen. You are giving the government control over people by requiring this drug test. You contradict yourself here.

County Mike
07-05-2011, 11:24 AM
How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits?

I'm OK with that too. If they can afford enough food to get fat, they don't need gov't assistance. Eat less and save money.

NateR
07-05-2011, 02:56 PM
I believe it violates the 4th amendment. No unlawful searches and seizures. Nothing logical to it at all. You assume everyone is guilty.

Sure no one should depend on the government, but things happen. You are giving the government control over people by requiring this drug test. You contradict yourself here.

I completely disagree.

First of all, the drug test isn't mandatory. If you don't want the test, you simply don't apply for the government aid. Problem solved.

Secondly, submitting to a test that indicates the use of ILLEGAL narcotics is not an invasion of privacy, because the "right to privacy" doesn't give us the right to break the law. That kind of thinking falls into the "it's only wrong if you get caught" mentality, which is one of the major moral downfalls of our culture right now.

NateR
07-05-2011, 02:59 PM
I'm OK with that too. If they can afford enough food to get fat, they don't need gov't assistance. Eat less and save money.

I'm okay with severely cutting back welfare benefits as well. Originally the system was designed to help out widows of soldiers killed during wartime and I think that's all it should be. If your husband/wife/father/mother/guardian wasn't killed in action during wartime, then you shouldn't qualify for welfare. Period.

Even then I think there should be a drug test.

J.B.
07-05-2011, 05:27 PM
We have all debated this in the past, and I have always disagreed with this policy simply because I don't think it's going to be all that effective, and it's probably just going to cost even more money in the long run. I do agree with the logic behind it, but I just don't think it's going to have much impact.

Most users know how to pass basic urine tests, so that's a waste of time. Blood tests are more comprehensive and harder to pass, but they also take more time and cost more money. Then there is always the issue of separating those who are taking certain drugs for legit medical conditions and those who are abusing prescription drugs. A lot of these trailer park pill junkies are in the welfare system but they aren't all buying their drugs on street corners. They con doctors with fake medical records, x-rays, and mri's to get their hands on their fix so it appears to be legal.

Also, what about all the dependents in those households who are on drugs? Are we testing them too? Just because mom isn't shooting crank this week don't mean her two teenage kids that live at home aren't.

Or, what about alcohol? Are they going to test for that too? Seems kinda harsh to suggest that a person shouldn't be allowed to drink at all simply because they are on welfare. Now, if they are an alcoholic, or have DUI convictions or things of that nature, that is a different story. Still, you are gonna have to pay somebody to go over all that crap in each individual case. In the end, it's just adding MORE government spending.

As I said, I can agree with the logic behind it, and I am opposed to welfare on many levels, but I just don't see this as being any sort of a game changer. They will bust a few people and the majority will pass their tests while the problem still remains.

Primadawn
07-05-2011, 05:41 PM
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children

This is a big issue. They can basically fail the drug test, have the grandparents receive the benefits, and then what? Hand them right over, that's what! So what's the point?
I like the idea. But there are too many loopholes. It's not going to really get a significant amount of people off welfare. Every little bit helps of course, but I wonder about the cost effectiveness.

J.B.
07-05-2011, 07:54 PM
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children

This is a big issue. They can basically fail the drug test, have the grandparents receive the benefits, and then what? Hand them right over, that's what! So what's the point?
I like the idea. But there are too many loopholes. It's not going to really get a significant amount of people off welfare. Every little bit helps of course, but I wonder about the cost effectiveness.

Winner winner!!! Chicken dinner!!!! :wink:

County Mike
07-06-2011, 11:29 AM
Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children

This is a big issue. They can basically fail the drug test, have the grandparents receive the benefits, and then what? Hand them right over, that's what! So what's the point?
I like the idea. But there are too many loopholes. It's not going to really get a significant amount of people off welfare. Every little bit helps of course, but I wonder about the cost effectiveness.

That's the dumbest loophole ever. If they fail the drug test, they need to be investigated for the possiblity of having the children placed with relatives. I'm fine with giving the person plenty of notice to get clean before taking the test. If they're unable to, then they have a real drug problem and have no business raising children.

CAVEMAN
07-06-2011, 02:04 PM
I'm all for the drug testing! Welfare is a broken system and encourages laziness!

BamaGrits84
07-06-2011, 02:26 PM
No it doesn't. It's an unlawful search. No probable cause. What other rights are you willing to give up?

Do you know how much a drug screen costs? I do. It's $228.00. I have a receipt in front of me showing it. Do you think poor folks can afford that?
I find it to be a total conflict of interest on the Gov's part too. How nice that he and wife share stock in a company that provides drug screens. Putting it under his wife's name doesn't take away the conflict. Sure they say they won't apply for the contract now, but they will eventually imo.

I thought folks wanted a less intrusive government, maybe that's only the one's who care about the CONUS though.

EDIT: How about we deny any welfare or any benefits to fat people, because we know that they chose the gluttonous lifestyle with their unhealthy eating habits? Do you really want to live in a nanny state? Attacking and charging the poor when they don't have the funds to feed themselves is repulsive and unAmerican.

I'm not sure where you have that is charging that much for a drug test but let me tell you someone is getting ripped off. As part of my job I process invoices to our accounting department which include invoices for new hire drug screens and accidental drugs screens. The standard rate is $57 when done by our regular doctor's office and $98 if it had to be done in an emergency room.

And as to the unlawful search, the constitution doesn't give anyone the right to have the government give them money just because the refuse to work to why should the constitution be used to "protect" them from being cut off of a program they are no entitled to anyways?

BamaGrits84
07-06-2011, 02:32 PM
I have to pass a drug test to get a job and to keep it if my employeer ask me to submit to one I must also pass. Why shouldn't the people who are sitting on their asses have to do the same to get the tax money I'm out here working to make?

County Mike
07-06-2011, 02:33 PM
Let's just do away with welfare and avoid the need for testing.

If you want to survive, work. Just like the olden days.
Work or die - either way you won't be a burden on society.

CAVEMAN
07-06-2011, 02:42 PM
Let's just do away with welfare and avoid the need for testing.

If you want to survive, work. Just like the olden days.
Work or die - either way you won't be a burden on society.

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause::applause:

The Bible says that if a man not work, let him not eat!

Vizion
07-06-2011, 05:26 PM
Let's just do away with welfare and avoid the need for testing.

If you want to survive, work. Just like the olden days.
Work or die - either way you won't be a burden on society.

:laugh:

Vizion
07-06-2011, 05:27 PM
Buzzard: what do you think of this old saying:

Sometimes the best help you can give someone, is no help at all.

Play The Man
07-30-2011, 11:31 PM
I think that people receiving welfare should have to exhibit some modicum of responsibility for the money they receive from taxpayers. For example, when I travel on an expense account, I have to document my expenses in a report and submit receipts. If I submit false information, I would be fired and possibly charged with theft or embezzlement. Every year when I submit my taxes, I have to provide receipts or other documentation for every deduction I claim. If I commit fraud, I could be fined or imprisoned. For various jobs I have had, I have had to submit to the following: credit history checks, criminal background checks, FBI background checks, physical examinations (including a digital rectal exam! :grumpy:), signed affadavits stating that I do not use illegal substances or have mental health issues, etc.
Welfare is not a constitutional right. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. In order to get a firearm, I had to: be fingerprinted and have the fingerprints sent to the FBI, have a criminal background check, sign permission documents for the state to have access to my private medical records, etc.
I would propose the following for welfare recipients: 1) If they do not have employment, they must complete 40 hours of community service per week. That is the average workweek of the people paying taxes. Welfare recipients should have to work at least as hard as the taxpaying citizen. 2) Welfare payments are made from money collected from tax-paying citizens through government coercion. Taxes are not voluntary. They are mandatory. Ultimately, taxes are collected at the point of the barrel of a gun. If you do not pay your taxes or the resulting fines, eventually a policeman will show up with a gun to take you away to jail. Welfare recipients should have to fill out expense reports documenting how they spend the checks. Taxpaying citizens have to fill out expense reports and tax forms (this year I had to pay an accountant $500 to process my taxes. This did not include the many hours of my labor to collect and collate the information in order to fill out the forms), welfare recipients should have to exhibit similar responsibilities. 3) Welfare recipients should certainly have to submit to all the indignities that taxpayers have to submit to when seeking or keeping employment: drug tests, background checks, audits, etc.

flo
07-30-2011, 11:55 PM
If only, PTM.

Your points are excellent. I hadn't thought of welfare accountability in terms of what the average worker has to document but it's an apt comparison.

Play The Man
07-31-2011, 12:38 AM
If only, PTM.

Your points are excellent. I hadn't thought of welfare accountability in terms of what the average worker has to document but it's an apt comparison.

Flo, have you seen the recent report by the Heritage Foundation about poverty in America? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Don't get my wrong, I would not like to live in poverty. In addition, I think we as relatively wealthy Americans have a moral obligation to help our fellow citizens in poverty. However, I was shocked by some of the statistics on America's poor.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.ashx?w=600&h=581&as=1 In my opinion, I don't think a person who is taking money from other citizens (by government force) should own a television, DVD player, car, cable t.v., jacuzzi, etc. I think we should make sure that people don't go hungry, or die from an untreated medical emergency. We should help people have access to clean water and sanitation. We should help children have access to an education. In my opinion, we are under no obligation to make sure people have amenities. In fact, in my opinion, people accepting welfare should be audited for any non-essential expenses and forced to give up these expenses before they are given a check. For example, they should not be allowed to buy tobacco, alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets, cable television, etc. If they have any assets, such as a car, television, cell phone, computer, etc., these assets should be sold to help them pay for their living expenses. As I mentioned, I think they should be compelled to work at community service if they don't have employment. I would make welfare recipients take mandatory classes on childcare, job skills, etc. I generally do not favor government intrusion in the lives of citizens; however, currently the onus is put on the taxpayer by the government. Our economic freedom is being limited. The government is taking money from me, by the threat of force and imprisonment, in order to give to someone, with relatively few strings attached. If I am going to be coerced by the government, the least the government can do is to make sure my money is spent on essentials and not wasted on amenities. Because I could be fined or arrested for not paying my taxes, the welfare recipient should be fined or arrested for obtaining money in a fraudulent way or spending money on items that are not absolutely essential for survival.

flo
07-31-2011, 03:52 AM
Flo, have you seen the recent report by the Heritage Foundation about poverty in America? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Don't get my wrong, I would not like to live in poverty. In addition, I think we as relatively wealthy Americans have a moral obligation to help our fellow citizens in poverty. However, I was shocked by some of the statistics on America's poor.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.ashx?w=600&h=581&as=1 In my opinion, I don't think a person who is taking money from other citizens (by government force) should own a television, DVD player, car, cable t.v., jacuzzi, etc. I think we should make sure that people don't go hungry, or die from an untreated medical emergency. We should help people have access to clean water and sanitation. We should help children have access to an education. In my opinion, we are under no obligation to make sure people have amenities. In fact, in my opinion, people accepting welfare should be audited for any non-essential expenses and forced to give up these expenses before they are given a check. For example, they should not be allowed to buy tobacco, alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets, cable television, etc. If they have any assets, such as a car, television, cell phone, computer, etc., these assets should be sold to help them pay for their living expenses. As I mentioned, I think they should be compelled to work at community service if they don't have employment. I would make welfare recipients take mandatory classes on childcare, job skills, etc. I generally do not favor government intrusion in the lives of citizens; however, currently the onus is put on the taxpayer by the government. Our economic freedom is being limited. The government is taking money from me, by the threat of force and imprisonment, in order to give to someone, with relatively few strings attached. If I am going to be coerced by the government, the least the government can do is to make sure my money is spent on essentials and not wasted on amenities. Because I could be fined or arrested for not paying my taxes, the welfare recipient should be fined or arrested for obtaining money in a fraudulent way or spending money on items that are not absolutely essential for survival.

No, I hadn't seen the chart, TY. Being poor in the US is a far cry from being poor (and starving) in Somalia. I'm for giving a hand up to those in need also. The problem, IMO, is that our good intentions have morphed into a hand out, not a hand up - many people now expect it.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7XA2UUpXRk) from the show Judge Judy that illustrates so well the "what's in it for me" attitude. It's 7 minutes long but worth watching all the way through.

Buzzard
07-31-2011, 05:53 AM
Flo, have you seen the recent report by the Heritage Foundation about poverty in America? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Don't get my wrong, I would not like to live in poverty. In addition, I think we as relatively wealthy Americans have a moral obligation to help our fellow citizens in poverty. However, I was shocked by some of the statistics on America's poor.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.ashx?w=600&h=581&as=1 In my opinion, I don't think a person who is taking money from other citizens (by government force) should own a television, DVD player, car, cable t.v., jacuzzi, etc. I think we should make sure that people don't go hungry, or die from an untreated medical emergency. We should help people have access to clean water and sanitation. We should help children have access to an education. In my opinion, we are under no obligation to make sure people have amenities. In fact, in my opinion, people accepting welfare should be audited for any non-essential expenses and forced to give up these expenses before they are given a check. For example, they should not be allowed to buy tobacco, alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets, cable television, etc. If they have any assets, such as a car, television, cell phone, computer, etc., these assets should be sold to help them pay for their living expenses. As I mentioned, I think they should be compelled to work at community service if they don't have employment. I would make welfare recipients take mandatory classes on childcare, job skills, etc. I generally do not favor government intrusion in the lives of citizens; however, currently the onus is put on the taxpayer by the government. Our economic freedom is being limited. The government is taking money from me, by the threat of force and imprisonment, in order to give to someone, with relatively few strings attached. If I am going to be coerced by the government, the least the government can do is to make sure my money is spent on essentials and not wasted on amenities. Because I could be fined or arrested for not paying my taxes, the welfare recipient should be fined or arrested for obtaining money in a fraudulent way or spending money on items that are not absolutely essential for survival.

While I agree with a lot of your ideas, how do you tell whether some of these amenities weren't gifts? If someone was given a video game player with a few games, shouldn't they be allowed to use it?

I like your idea of showing where the money goes, and having them accountable. I don't like the cheats and am by no means defending them.

How would one be able to look for a job if they had to give up their vehicle? Public transportation isn't always available. If they have no telephone or vehicle, they have no access to 911 services or any opportunity to look for a job. A lot of job opportunities are available through the internet, if they aren't allowed a computer or internet access, these opportunities are gone too. Throw no car, no computer, no internet, no access to public transportation all together and you might as well just accept that they will never get a job.

Just looking at it from a different perspective. I like the idea of new ideas and think they should keep coming.

Play The Man
07-31-2011, 08:57 PM
While I agree with a lot of your ideas, how do you tell whether some of these amenities weren't gifts? If someone was given a video game player with a few games, shouldn't they be allowed to use it?

I like your idea of showing where the money goes, and having them accountable. I don't like the cheats and am by no means defending them.

How would one be able to look for a job if they had to give up their vehicle? Public transportation isn't always available. If they have no telephone or vehicle, they have no access to 911 services or any opportunity to look for a job. A lot of job opportunities are available through the internet, if they aren't allowed a computer or internet access, these opportunities are gone too. Throw no car, no computer, no internet, no access to public transportation all together and you might as well just accept that they will never get a job.

Just looking at it from a different perspective. I like the idea of new ideas and think they should keep coming.

Good points. As far as a computer, public libraries offer access to computers and most cities have internet cafes with access to a computer for the price of a cup of coffee or a small fee. It is my understanding that 911 service is active at a house even if it does not have telephone service. So, if you plug a phone into a jack, it will dial 911 even if you don't have telephone service. The same goes for cell phones. Some people donate their old cell phones to battered women shelters. The women can carry the cell phone with them to call 911 if the abuser threatens them. The cell phone does not have to have a calling plan - it will call 911 as long as it has battery power. Lack of a car would not be a problem in most cities, as there is a public bus system. In rural areas, it would be more of a problem. I lived in a rural area at one time and there was a "Dial-a-ride" mini-bus. It took a bit of planning but you could schedule a pick up. When I was a kid and had an activity after school and missed the bus, I would walk home a few miles.
The fact is, our government is now trillions (not billions) of dollars in debt. We need to make major cuts. One aggravating thing to me is that all the examples you mentioned illustrate how I, as a taxpayer or customer, am "double or triple-billed" for things. I am forced, by law, to pay for a public library system, which I don't use (Our library has a homeless man who has lived in his car in the parking lot for the past 5 years. He spends the entire day in the library. I am fearful of him hurting my children). Ostensibly, the library provides computer access, at taxpayer expense, to give the public access to computers for job searches or for email access for those without a home computer. In reality, you have perverts using it as a free place to view pornography. There have been lawsuits by the ACLU demanding the right for free pornography on library computers. So, I am forced to fund a system that I don't use; the welfare recipient who is supposed to use it for a job search, doesn't; instead, the welfare recipient uses taxpayer-acquired money to fund his own home internet use. I pay for my share of the library, his share of the library, and indirectly fund his home internet use. The same is try for the public transportation system. I help pay for it, but never use it. The welfare recipient is supposed to use it, but you suggest that instead, he must have a car to search for a job. Why am I double or triple-billed? Why do I have to pay for something I don't use, pay for a public transportation system which apparently is not sufficient, and pay for a welfare-recipient to have a car?

Buzzard
07-31-2011, 11:02 PM
Good points. As far as a computer, public libraries offer access to computers and most cities have internet cafes with access to a computer for the price of a cup of coffee or a small fee. It is my understanding that 911 service is active at a house even if it does not have telephone service. So, if you plug a phone into a jack, it will dial 911 even if you don't have telephone service. The same goes for cell phones. Some people donate their old cell phones to battered women shelters. The women can carry the cell phone with them to call 911 if the abuser threatens them. The cell phone does not have to have a calling plan - it will call 911 as long as it has battery power. Lack of a car would not be a problem in most cities, as there is a public bus system. In rural areas, it would be more of a problem. I lived in a rural area at one time and there was a "Dial-a-ride" mini-bus. It took a bit of planning but you could schedule a pick up. When I was a kid and had an activity after school and missed the bus, I would walk home a few miles.
The fact is, our government is now trillions (not billions) of dollars in debt. We need to make major cuts. One aggravating thing to me is that all the examples you mentioned illustrate how I, as a taxpayer or customer, am "double or triple-billed" for things. I am forced, by law, to pay for a public library system, which I don't use (Our library has a homeless man who has lived in his car in the parking lot for the past 5 years. He spends the entire day in the library. I am fearful of him hurting my children). Ostensibly, the library provides computer access, at taxpayer expense, to give the public access to computers for job searches or for email access for those without a home computer. In reality, you have perverts using it as a free place to view pornography. There have been lawsuits by the ACLU demanding the right for free pornography on library computers. So, I am forced to fund a system that I don't use; the welfare recipient who is supposed to use it for a job search, doesn't; instead, the welfare recipient uses taxpayer-acquired money to fund his own home internet use. I pay for my share of the library, his share of the library, and indirectly fund his home internet use. The same is try for the public transportation system. I help pay for it, but never use it. The welfare recipient is supposed to use it, but you suggest that instead, he must have a car to search for a job. Why am I double or triple-billed? Why do I have to pay for something I don't use, pay for a public transportation system which apparently is not sufficient, and pay for a welfare-recipient to have a car?

I agree with you on all of the "why should I's" which you have posted, and have many more of my own. Some have to do with the corporations which pay little to no taxes because of loopholes, while I must pay them. Why am I constantly taxed on my home and property, while some/many organizations don't?

I just heard a bit about Ford opening a new plant which will give many jobs to a lot of people; the problem is it will be in India. I could go on and on about my complaints but unless I try to find solutions, I'm just one more complainer. At least you have offered up some ideas on how to rectify some of the problems. That's at least a start.

I have something going on in my life right now which I am lucky enough to have prepared for, otherwise I would be up the creek. On paper it shouldn't be a problem, but in real life it is.

Chuck
07-31-2011, 11:10 PM
Good points. As far as a computer, public libraries offer access to computers and most cities have internet cafes with access to a computer for the price of a cup of coffee or a small fee.




I am forced, by law, to pay for a public library system, which I don't use (Our library has a homeless man who has lived in his car in the parking lot for the past 5 years. He spends the entire day in the library. I am fearful of him hurting my children). Ostensibly, the library provides computer access, at taxpayer expense, to give the public access to computers for job searches or for email access for those without a home computer. In reality, you have perverts using it as a free place to view pornography.

It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself here brother. One minute you're saying people on Welfare don't need computers at their homes to look for jobs because they can use the library. Then it seems like you're complaining if they do. You lost me a little on this one my friend.

The fact is our country IS in incredible debt but I'm not sure how much money it would save even if we adopted your suggestions with regards to Welfare. That seems like focusing on a small portion of a much, much larger problem. IMO.

atomdanger
07-31-2011, 11:21 PM
If you honestly feel like a stove and fridge are an amenity you're an asshole.

Those are necessities.

atomdanger
07-31-2011, 11:29 PM
I will address cost of drug testing (I am all for it, for the record)

374,000 people got benefits in 2009 in my state (washington)

Now, the money varies, but is typically 400 - 500 cash, and 2 - 300 food.

So, 374K people x 700 (Middle number) in benefits.
(that isn't counting DSHS paying the daycare
which is typically 600 to 1K in the Seattle area)

= 261,800,000.00 a month.

Now, that is a staggering number.

Say even 10 percent were on drugs.

You could save the state (Washington) 26 million dollars a month.
That is 312 million a year.

How much better shape would our schools be in with that much extra money?

Now look at a state like Florida where they have about 600K people on state benefits.

atomdanger
07-31-2011, 11:30 PM
I see nothing at all wrong with this law. Anyone applying for government aid (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.) should be required to submit to a drug test prior to receiving that aid.

It's only logical and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. If you object to the test, then you simply don't receive the government aid. It's not like welfare, unemployment benefits, etc are constitutional rights; so no freedoms are being infringed upon.

Some might argue that there are people who depend on that money, but therein lies the problem. Nobody should depend on government handouts to survive. That gives the government way too much control over the life and death of its citizens - something that no government should have.

Agreed 110 percent.

and I work in a hospital, our clinic charges around 90 dollars for a drug test.
So....

Buzzard
07-31-2011, 11:50 PM
Agreed 110 percent.

and I work in a hospital, our clinic charges around 90 dollars for a drug test.
So....

My drug test figure came from an actual test I didn't know I was taking. It was screened by Quest Diagnostics. I'm having some health issues and along with other lab tests, he EDIT: (my GP) /EDIT ordered a (UA) urinalysis drug screen. I was on legal prescription pain meds due to a severe shoulder injury. He obviously thought I was on other drugs and didn't trust me when I told him I wasn't. He asked me, I was honest with him. With the amount of weight I have lost, I look like a skinny junkie, especially now with all of the bruises on my arms due to the many sticks I have had in regard to blood work etc.

Lucky for me I have insurance for now.

If your state did it as Florida does, then the positive tested drug user could just assign someone else to collect the money if the positive tested person had children, and you would be still out the welfare money, plus the money paid to process the drug screens.

I can't see how that would save any money.

Play The Man
08-01-2011, 12:13 AM
It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself here brother. One minute you're saying people on Welfare don't need computers at their homes to look for jobs because they can use the library. Then it seems like you're complaining if they do. You lost me a little on this one my friend.

The fact is our country IS in incredible debt but I'm not sure how much money it would save even if we adopted your suggestions with regards to Welfare. That seems like focusing on a small portion of a much, much larger problem. IMO.

We have a humongous debt problem. I am under no illusions that reforming the welfare system would be all that is required to balance our budget. I don't say that anywhere. Deep and painful cuts will need to occur in all areas of spending. The thread is about welfare so that is what my post focused on, for the most part. In another thread we could talk about other areas of spending.
I am trying to advocate some limits in welfare benefits by introducing the concept of necessities vs. amenities. The definition of each could be flushed out. In current public discussions of taxes, I don't think it is recognized that people are being forced, via the threat of government coercion and imprisonment, to give up their assets to be redistributed to other citizens. I think it is more difficult to justify this policy for amenities, such as DVD players, video game systems, etc. vs. necessities such as food and water. Essentially, the economic freedom of the taxpayer is being encroached by government (the money that I am required to pay in taxes, which go to the welfare recipient, cannot go to the charity of my choice, clothing for my children, investments for my retirement, etc). I am advocating that the economic freedom of the welfare recipient should similarly be encroached by government. Welfare can be used to pay for purchases that support survival - food, water, sanitation, shelter, etc. Any money that remains should be given back to the government to reimburse the taxpayer, instead of funding amenities (tv's, DVD players, stereos, etc.).
In post #31, Buzzard was arguing that without some of these amenities, it would be very difficult or impossible to get a job. I am saying that currently, the taxpayer is giving money to welfare recipients that can purchase amenities, such as a computer and funding public services that are ostensibly provided for people with limited incomes to afford computer access, transportation, etc. I am advocating that the welfare recipient use public internet service, public transportation, laundromats, etc. rather than own or purchase amenities. I am advocating that the welfare recipient keep expense reports and only spend money on necessities. I am frustrated that public libraries and transportation are misused and abused, but I realize that the possibility of reforming them is practically nil.

Play The Man
08-01-2011, 12:16 AM
If you honestly feel like a stove and fridge are an amenity you're an asshole.

Those are necessities.


Who, pray tell, is "you"?

flo
08-01-2011, 12:17 AM
It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself here brother. One minute you're saying people on Welfare don't need computers at their homes to look for jobs because they can use the library. Then it seems like you're complaining if they do. You lost me a little on this one my friend.

The fact is our country IS in incredible debt but I'm not sure how much money it would save even if we adopted your suggestions with regards to Welfare. That seems like focusing on a small portion of a much, much larger problem. IMO.


Hmm, I thought PTM's arguments were perfectly compatible. On the one hand, he was answering Buzzard's concerns about a job-seeker not having a home computer; I think he's on board with that. I read his objection as having to support, with his taxes, a welfare recipient not using it for job search but for viewing porn - with the ACLU threat-of-lawsuit flag waving in the background.

As to the cuts, I'm sick of these pols - both parties - saying it's not enough, it's too much, blah, blah, blah. Have you seen this latest bill? That will cut 1 trillion in 10 years? Math isn't my strong suit but it seems to me that would work out to about 100 years to pay of our current debt, no?

I appreciate PTM having some concrete solutions to offer. I like to complain but my only workable solutions so far are to our border/illegal immigration problems. If I could be Queen, I'd start cutting federal departments completely - we could start with Dept. of Education and the EPA.

flo
08-01-2011, 12:18 AM
Er, it took me so long to post, I see that PTM has already answered you, Chuck, :ashamed:

Play The Man
08-01-2011, 01:31 AM
Hmm, I thought PTM's arguments were perfectly compatible. On the one hand, he was answering Buzzard's concerns about a job-seeker not having a home computer; I think he's on board with that. I read his objection as having to support, with his taxes, a welfare recipient not using it for job search but for viewing porn - with the ACLU threat-of-lawsuit flag waving in the background.

As to the cuts, I'm sick of these pols - both parties - saying it's not enough, it's too much, blah, blah, blah. Have you seen this latest bill? That will cut 1 trillion in 10 years? Math isn't my strong suit but it seems to me that would work out to about 100 years to pay of our current debt, no?

I appreciate PTM having some concrete solutions to offer. I like to complain but my only workable solutions so far are to our border/illegal immigration problems. If I could be Queen, I'd start cutting federal departments completely - we could start with Dept. of Education and the EPA.

Thanks, Flo. I really think the entitlement mentality has gotten out of hand. My best friend's wife is a dentist. She doesn't own her own practice, she works part-time for another dentist. Apparently, in the area she works, there is some sort of program to help provide dental care for the poor. It covers basic dental care. She had a lady come in as part of the program - expensively dressed, smart phone, jewelry, french manicure, etc. The woman was receiving free dental care and mentioned that she wanted to make her appointment longer in order to get her teeth professionally whitened (for hundreds of dollars). My friend's wife questioned her use of a free dental program if she had hundreds of dollars to spend on whitening her teeth. Essentially, the patient became belligerent and my friend's wife feared for her safety. I think there is an attitude amongst many that the government owes them the necessities of life and because those necessities are covered, they can use their money as discretionary income for amenities/luxuries.

NateR
08-01-2011, 02:04 AM
Thanks, Flo. I really think the entitlement mentality has gotten out of hand. My best friend's wife is a dentist. She doesn't own her own practice, she works part-time for another dentist. Apparently, in the area she works, there is some sort of program to help provide dental care for the poor. It covers basic dental care. She had a lady come in as part of the program - expensively dressed, smart phone, jewelry, french manicure, etc. The woman was receiving free dental care and mentioned that she wanted to make her appointment longer in order to get her teeth professionally whitened (for hundreds of dollars). My friend's wife questioned her use of a free dental program if she had hundreds of dollars to spend on whitening her teeth. Essentially, the patient became belligerent and my friend's wife feared for her safety. I think there is an attitude amongst many that the government owes them the necessities of life and because those necessities are covered, they can use their money as discretionary income for amenities/luxuries.

Yeah, I know a guy who works part time for Walmart and it still collecting unemployment from the state. He says it's to cover for the wages that he's missing out on because he's not full-time. However, I don't believe that people are "entitled" to make a certain wage and unemployment should NOT be given out as some kind of "supplemental living allowance" from the government.

Actually I don't believe there should be such a thing as unemployment benefits in the first place; but if we must have it, then it should be limited solely to assisting those people who have no income whatsoever while they look for a job. Anything else is just leaching off of the government.

flo
08-01-2011, 02:20 AM
Thanks, Flo. I really think the entitlement mentality has gotten out of hand. My best friend's wife is a dentist. She doesn't own her own practice, she works part-time for another dentist. Apparently, in the area she works, there is some sort of program to help provide dental care for the poor. It covers basic dental care. She had a lady come in as part of the program - expensively dressed, smart phone, jewelry, french manicure, etc. The woman was receiving free dental care and mentioned that she wanted to make her appointment longer in order to get her teeth professionally whitened (for hundreds of dollars). My friend's wife questioned her use of a free dental program if she had hundreds of dollars to spend on whitening her teeth. Essentially, the patient became belligerent and my friend's wife feared for her safety. I think there is an attitude amongst many that the government owes them the necessities of life and because those necessities are covered, they can use their money as discretionary income for amenities/luxuries.

That's creepy. If we could just cut back on fraud we'd be saving an incredible amount. I heard that a private contractor in Iraq has recently charged the DoD up to 1200% mark-up for many items. When questioned, they rationalize it "we won the contract through the bid process", as if that's an excuse! :angry:

PTM, you may have missed this link I left for you in previous comments but it perfectly illustrates the "what's in it for me" attitude you and Nate are talking about. I hope to heaven none of my family read this but...a very close family member, who is quite well off, was complaining a few years ago when they didn't get the $300 tax rebate. I told them "well, you make too much money to qualify!". And this is a kind and generous person!

Yeah, I know a guy who works part time for Walmart and it still collecting unemployment from the state. He says it's to cover for the wages that he's missing out on because he's not full-time. However, I don't believe that people are "entitled" to make a certain wage and unemployment should NOT be given out as some kind of "supplemental living allowance" from the government.

Actually I don't believe there should be such a thing as unemployment benefits in the first place; but if we must have it, then it should be limited solely to assisting those people who have no income whatsoever while they look for a job. Anything else is just leaching off of the government.

I agree with you, Nate. But instead, we are RELAXING the requirements to draw as well as extending the amount of time one can receive benefits! Every study has shown that people will draw as long as the tax dollars are available and THEN look for work. But if you disagreed with the Congress's last extention (what is it now, 96 weeks?!?) you are a heartless/hobbit/extremist/teaparty/gun-toting/bible hugging/ oh heck, fill in the _____.

flo
08-01-2011, 02:28 AM
A U.S. government contractor in Iraq charged the Pentagon a whopping amount of money for inexpensive items, including $900 for a $7 control switch, according to a new report from a U.S. watchdog.

U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said review found that Anham, LLC, which is based in suburban Washington, allowed its subcontractors in Iraq to also charge $3,000 for a $100 circuit breaker, and $80 for a piece of plumbing equipment worth $1.41.

Link here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/30/us-contractor-in-iraq-charges-pentagon-00-for-7-control-switch-report-finds/)

atomdanger
08-01-2011, 03:03 AM
My drug test figure came from an actual test I didn't know I was taking. It was screened by Quest Diagnostics. I'm having some health issues and along with other lab tests, he EDIT: (my GP) /EDIT ordered a (UA) urinalysis drug screen. I was on legal prescription pain meds due to a severe shoulder injury. He obviously thought I was on other drugs and didn't trust me when I told him I wasn't. He asked me, I was honest with him. With the amount of weight I have lost, I look like a skinny junkie, especially now with all of the bruises on my arms due to the many sticks I have had in regard to blood work etc.

Lucky for me I have insurance for now.

If your state did it as Florida does, then the positive tested drug user could just assign someone else to collect the money if the positive tested person had children, and you would be still out the welfare money, plus the money paid to process the drug screens.

I can't see how that would save any money.

Blood work? A lot more than a UA.

But a UA for drugs should NEVER Be more than 100, that's insanity.
(We over charge honestly, other places its 40)

I am not saying Florida's plan is perfect.
In Washington though, if you test positive for drugs, you go to jail.
(Possession by consumption)
So you get possession of whatever drug you popped for.

Then your kids would probably either be taken, or given to a family member that is not on drugs.

Buzzard
08-01-2011, 05:48 AM
Blood work? A lot more than a UA.

But a UA for drugs should NEVER Be more than 100, that's insanity.
(We over charge honestly, other places its 40)

I am not saying Florida's plan is perfect.
In Washington though, if you test positive for drugs, you go to jail.
(Possession by consumption)
So you get possession of whatever drug you popped for.

Then your kids would probably either be taken, or given to a family member that is not on drugs.

I've had the random drug test at work, but never knew what their cost was. The blood work was all on a separate receipt, and it was 3x the cost of the UA. The UA was the only charge on the bill. I've got it in front of me right now.

The description of service is: Drug Screen, Single. Charge $228.00. After insurance I had to pay just under $30.00. I'm willing to scan my bill if anyone is doubting me.

Miss Foxy
08-01-2011, 02:58 PM
Yeah, I know a guy who works part time for Walmart and it still collecting unemployment from the state. He says it's to cover for the wages that he's missing out on because he's not full-time. However, I don't believe that people are "entitled" to make a certain wage and unemployment should NOT be given out as some kind of "supplemental living allowance" from the government.

Actually I don't believe there should be such a thing as unemployment benefits in the first place; but if we must have it, then it should be limited solely to assisting those people who have no income whatsoever while they look for a job. Anything else is just leaching off of the government.

If your paying taxes into unemployment why should you not be able to reep the benefits of them? I know going from full time to part-time would KILL me.. I also see I pay a few hundred a month into benefits such as disability, umemployment, SSI.. The list goes on. I think if one rightfully has not put into it they aren't entitled, but if you have paid your dues whats wrong with collecting?

Miss Foxy
08-01-2011, 02:59 PM
I've had the random drug test at work, but never knew what their cost was. The blood work was all on a separate receipt, and it was 3x the cost of the UA. The UA was the only charge on the bill. I've got it in front of me right now.

The description of service is: Drug Screen, Single. Charge $228.00. After insurance I had to pay just under $30.00. I'm willing to scan my bill if anyone is doubting me.

Sounds about right. I pay on Quest, Sonora, and a few other labs...

atomdanger
08-01-2011, 04:24 PM
I've had the random drug test at work, but never knew what their cost was. The blood work was all on a separate receipt, and it was 3x the cost of the UA. The UA was the only charge on the bill. I've got it in front of me right now.

The description of service is: Drug Screen, Single. Charge $228.00. After insurance I had to pay just under $30.00. I'm willing to scan my bill if anyone is doubting me.

No no, I don't doubt you, the pain in the rear about medical is,
we can charge whatever we want.

I've seen hospitals charge crazy amounts for crazy things.

Neezar
08-01-2011, 04:55 PM
With every civil right there has to be a corresponding civil obligation. ~Edison Haines

County Mike
08-01-2011, 05:31 PM
With every civil right there has to be a corresponding civil obligation. ~Edison Haines

Da Troof haz been spoken!

flo
08-01-2011, 05:37 PM
With every civil right there has to be a corresponding civil obligation. ~Edison Haines

Hear hear.

Buzzard
08-01-2011, 05:47 PM
No no, I don't doubt you, the pain in the rear about medical is,
we can charge whatever we want.

I've seen hospitals charge crazy amounts for crazy things.

It's good. Sorry if you thought I was singling you out. It wasn't my intent but I could see how it could be taken that way.

As for the costs, you're absolutely right. When I worked in the hospital, I couldn't believe the cost of charges from my department. I wasn't a highly paid person, but for me to enter a room for 30 seconds and do a simple task would cost the patient quite a bit of money. Have me do it for 10 patients on each floor and I would bring in a load of money for them.

While I don't miss the job, I miss some of the excitement that went with it and the knowledge that I helped someone.