Florida's debated welfare drug-screen measure kicks in

Originally Posted by Buzzard

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?

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?

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.

Originally Posted by County Mike

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.

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

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by County Mike

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.

[Vizion]

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]

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! ), 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]

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]

Originally Posted by flo

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/rep...hat-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.

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]

Originally Posted by Play The Man

Flo, have you seen the recent report by the Heritage Foundation about poverty in America? http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-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.

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 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.