Fla. Gov. Rick Scott: Who? Me? Pee?
As you may or may not know, Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants the sunshine state’s welfare recipients to pee in a cup to prove they’re not on drugs. A court has issued an injunction against that law.
The Daily Show’s correspondent Aasif Mandvi interrupted a Scott press conference to ask if he would do that same. Watch:
From Talking Points Memo:
Later, the Herald reports, Mandvi tried again to pass the cup forward: “I hate to keep harping on this, would you pee in a cup?”
Scott fired back: “You don’t get to run this.”
(Missouri is also making welfare recipients pee. And in Georgia, which has also proposed the Orwellian practice, a Democratic state lawmaker has introduced a bill requiring state legislators to take urine tests, too.)
Which lawmaker is going to propose pee-for-welfare it here in Virginia?
December 8, 2011 - 2:00 PM
We should demand NOTHING from welfare recipients. They have a RIGHT to collect that check for as long as they are alive. Who cares if their drug addicts? That’s their business.
Welfare recipients would be hardworking , productive citizens if only the evil 1% were not robbing them blind. The only way to get welfare recipients to work is to give them more money and benefits. Then,magically, they will be motivated to work and the socialist utopia will thrive.
Can someone explain what is wrong with requiring those on public assistance take drug tests? Individuals who work for the state are required to take a drug test as a condition of employment and some are required to take random tests as well. That should be with legislators, as well.
How are we “helping” anyone who is addicted to drugs by giving them additional support without actually addressing the possible causes of them needing the assistance in the first place? Someone who is addicted to drugs and accepts public assistance will just use, for example,foodstamps to subsidize their addiction by using that for food and freeing up additional money for drugs.
It seems to me that the smart thing to do would be test individuals, find help for them if they are addicted to drugs or not give them an additional way to help fund their addiction if they do not accept that help.
Someone please enlighten me as to why this is such a horrible thing…
Right Terps. And the Faux news, Republican right wing promoted image of all those welfare recipients who are drug addicts already turned out to be a complete bust in the five mmonths during which Florida required the drug test. No fewer applicants than before. Less than 2% tested positive for drugs (considerably less than the projected 8% for the general population) and the money saved from denying the benefits has been less than the cost of the testing. One more right wing myth exposed for what it is, a political ploy to appeal to its base of bigoted voterw.
C Daddy,
All of us benefit from our society in various ways. We may not get welfare, but we get police protection, fire departments, public schools, roads paved, etc. These are valuable benefits.
Given that, why shouldn’t EVERYONE be subject to random pee tests?
CDaddy
And everywhere that drug testing has been implemented for welfare recipients has shown that the number of people testing positive is less than the number who test positive in the general population, including state employees. It is a waste of money and unwarranted infringement upon
their individual rights. If testing programs in place had revealed large numbers of positive drug tests, it MIGHT be an issue.
“It seems to me that the smart thing to do would be test individuals, find help for them if they are addicted to drugs or not give them an additional way to help fund their addiction if they do not accept that help.”
Really? “Smart thing”? Your position is admirably utopian, but completely ignores the reality that plenty of drug use is ILLEGAL, and the recipient who tests positive for X drug is way more likely to be thrown in jail than “helped”.
Dan,
I believe you are taking my points and expanding them far beyond what most people would do. Are you going to say that anyone using a public sidewalk should also pee in a cup because it is a “benefit?” Using such a broad definition may try to explain away my points, but it is quite a stretch.
Those on welfare are receiving direct monetary benenits from the government in the way of foodstamps, WIC, housing etc. Everyone benefits from those that you listed and the sidewalks I mentioned above.
You did not address the part of my post about helping those who may be fighting addiction that may be a part of them needing the assistance in the first place.
dave is right. Welfare recipients test positive at a lower rate than the general population. Why? It’s because they’re poor, and they have less of a tendency to waste money on drugs.
If C Daddy really wants to have an impact, we should test the general pop.
4
The average person PAYS for said benefits in taxes.
Also, Food and Housing is above and beyond what the average person receives, Dan.
Not sure how much the average welfare recipient PAYS in taxes.
Unfortunately, our Social services have long been taken advantage of by some. Many people don’t get married because they will LOSE “benefits”. Some have more and more children thinking they will get MORE and more “benefits”…and they DO!
I worked (until recently) with a person who got caught falsifying a document to the Housing Authority claiming he/she was NOT employed for the past year…SO he/she could get Section 8.
He/She FABRICATED a document with our company’s letterhead, FORGED our HR Mgr.’s name and faxed it from our office.
Sadly, this person isn’t too bright, he/she forgot to remove his/her extension number on the form.
We’d have known anyways, but the point is…there is a ton of fraud and abuse in this area.
Dan,
You make a very good point.
Drug testing is not a good idea, especially random drug testing.
There are ways to beat the test and the ones who know all the ins and outs of that are the frequent drug users.
I have seen time and time again the occasional pot smoker lose his job while the alcoholic keeps his.
It is a slippery slope and Dan’s pointy that we all receive government benefit is valid.
To all the people who take the I have nothing to hide position let me ask you this…
What is keeping a disgruntled employee from spiking the community coffee pot at your place of work with cocaine?
What are you going to tell HR?
There will always be rampant crime when it comes to the poor. Desperation does that to people. It’s expected.
Our REAL problem is the crime at the TOP of our society, starting with the White House.
LC, whereever did you get the idea that WF recipients pay no taxes?
They pay tax on every gallon of gas they buy, just like you and me. They pay meals taxes (where those are levied) just like you and me. They pay utility taxes and other taxes too.
And they are subject to the exact same rules that govern income taxes for you and me.
They don’t pay income taxes on their meager incomes! you cry.
Neither do you or I on identical portions of our income.
Come on now, Dan. You’re starting to be just a little bit silly. And, that may be giving you too much credit. There should be nothing wrong with drug testing those who would be using public assitance. The fact that it is intended as “help” for those who need it, there should be something noble about providing additional help for those who are struggling with addiction.
I will admit that I have not heard of the studies showing a lower rate than the “general population.” But, I am a little suspicious about that considering I don’t know how you would garner a test from the general population…
C Daddy wants drug testing because he has suspicions, and he thinks it’s a good idea. Even if they cost more than they save, by kicking drug users off welfare.
Oh please.
12
Dan…you’re right. They pay taxes. Whatever.
What do YOU think should be done instead, to combat the fraud and abuse?
So Dave, if someone is denied welfare, they are being “denied a benefit? Really? I thought a benefit was something earned(ie health insurance, pension, etc.).
Until now, I thought welfare was charity for people in need of a helping hand when they have nowhere else to turn. I’m ok with charity, but the last thing you should call welfare is a benefit.
Legalizing drugs would be a good 1st step in welfare reform.
“Dan…you’re right. They pay taxes. Whatever.
What do YOU think should be done instead, to combat the fraud and abuse?”
LC,
For starters, don’t pee them. That has nothing to do with WF fraud and abuse, which may or may not be rampant, notwithstanding your single example.
While we’re at it, should we DNA test them, too, under their shaky theory that they might be rapists?
Should we fingerprint them too, because the fact that they’re poor somehow implies they’re probably burglars?
What about gunshot residue tests on their hands, because they might have fired a gun?
Are there other ways we could malign and abuse and otherwise rob the dignity of people whose only “crime” is to be poor and needing of temporary assistance?
This is sick, folks.
@18 – of course its sick and its unfortunate, but you didn’t answer the question.
18
Surely, you aren’t saying there isn’t ANY fraud and abuse. This issue didn’t come up out of thin air.
You have no ideas? Nothing to offer?
if they are taking illegal drugs, why should we pay them with food stamps or other welfare dan? why?
Terps@4:07
Youi can pl;ay the hgame of semantics all you want. When a person receives a welfare check it is referred to as a benefit. It is not intended to be long term and the system was reformed years ago. Could there be better enforcement of who gets it and could more cheaters be weeded out? Probably. All you’d have to do would be to hiore more personnel to do the backgroung investigations and checks required to accomplish that. But in case you haven’t heard, we’re reducing employment
on the federal payrolls , not increasing it. At what point does hiring more people become more expensive than the fraud and abuse they would weed out? Wake up and think of the consequences of what you ask for.
@#6
How many people do you know of that has tested possitive for drugs who have been thrown in jail other than those on probation, for which the drug use is in direct violation?
It seems funny to me that for all of those who want to help others at any expence seems to be the biggest ones scoffing at the idea of actually getting people the help that they need.
@Dan – You just keep throwing out all of the crazy things hoping that one of them actually sticks. If a person who is employed by the state must take a drug test, why not others who receive financial assistance from the state? Is it too much to ask that those who are on public assistance actually not use illegal drugs?
I would be VERY happy to pee in a cup if it meant that I could get help feeding myself and my family.
Dan, you can say what you want about what Welfare recipients pay on taxes or don’t, if they get out more than they take in then it is a net cost to the rest of the public dole.
That’s kinda like saying we should have more government workers because they pay taxes (Nancy Pelosi). Problems is that they are also PAID BY TAXES, and take out much more than they bring in.
And it isn’t sustainable, as the current deficits reflect.
C Daddy,
Back when I was hired by TRT, I had to pass a urinalysis. The last time I hired anyone they did, too.
So what? Are you suggesting we should test all our the newspaper’s subscribers, too? Should we add our online readers to that equation? Otherwise (gasp!) a drug user might benefit from info he or she reads in the newspaper!
You’re the one who’s sounding ridiculous, pal. Especially when you want to spend more taxpayer money finding dope users than you will save if you kick them out of the WF program.
BobH,
Virginia gets more (way more, btw) in federal tax dollars than it pays in. In other words, Virginia is a welfare state.
Please tell us where the feds should cut down on Virginia’s federal spending. To correct that, I mean.
Or don’t we count?
#23 I don’t think that most applicants for state jobs in Virginia have to take drug tests. Only for certain jobs, I’m pretty certain.
Cdaddy,a) I don’t personally know anyone in jail for drug use. Fact it our prisons are overflowing with people incarcerated for association with drugs.
B) I consider drug use to be a public health issue, not a criminal one. Do I think people should have access to help getting clean if they want it? Yes. I weirdly also think they should have access to every other aspect of health care. All of them. Im a single-payer person. I don’t think any of it should be forced on welfare recipients or any other population.
“This issue didn’t come up out of thin air.”
I believe it came out of the thin air between Megyn Kelly’s ears.
So what? Are you suggesting we should test all our the newspaper’s subscribers, too?
Do that, Dan. I can think of at least three old men who would fail it.
What about the rights of employed people Dan? We don’t have the right to do drugs on the weekend on our own time or we lose our job on Monday. We don’t have the right to free speech due to employer media network policies and can get fired for posts or pictures on facebook that don’t reflect a good corporate image even though it is our personal time and business. If we have to pass drug tests and censor our speech in order to earn the money that results in the taxes contributing to social support programs, then the recipients should also have to pass a drug test to receive it. I personally know a number of social support recipients and the vast majority of them have verified drug problems. They get free cell phones, food stamps, welfare, and are perfectly capable of working…but choose not to. They choose to sit at home and get high while I go to work because they have no responsibility or accountability to anyone.
“It seems to me that the smart thing to do would be test individuals, find help for them if they are addicted to drugs or not give them an additional way to help fund their addiction if they do not accept that help.
Someone please enlighten me as to why this is such a horrible thing…”
Sure C Daddy, If you REALLY want to go down this slippery slope, and you decide that anyone who tests positive for drugs will lose whatever we are giving them. You will create a whole new group of drug addicted criminals. That’s srike one. No matter how few that is, it is still another criminal, probably not a good one and another mouth to feed and house in prison. (Who is STILL paying?) That is strike two. Finally, are you going to test for alcohol? Do you know how much these tests cost? Who will pay for them? How many “chances” will they get to test clean? More kids in foster care…who pays for that? Who will pay for the “treatment” they need? Those are, at minimum strike three. Do you see the slippery slope and increased cost yet? And to what benefit? Where is the evidence; the hatred of all people poor from the right wing ideologues notwithstanding, prove there is a need for any of it.
Yo, Bug, come on. You have a better mind than this. You’re wasting it, engaging in such claptrap.
Seriously, your employer makes you pee every Monday?
C’mon, y’all. Everybody knows all you gotta do to pass a drug test is study. That’s how I passed all mine.
Wow, (o\ ! /o) knows some high class folks no doubt. Have you turned any of these dope heads in to Social Services for investigation?
Where on earth do you work? That kind of control went out with slavery and company stores. Hope you are paid well for surrendering your freedom to make an addict and an ass out of yourself.
People employed to operate machinery or equipment, drive vehicles or perform many procedures should be responsible for their capacity and drug testing is an option for any employer with good sense and something they are risking. We do have too many functioning alcoholics, pot heads, prescription addicts, and illegal drug users in this nation. Those doing that while sitting on their lazy butts in the hood do not bother me more than those on the highway or bulldozer I have to come in contact with. Paying for their drug treatment is not something I am jonesing to do either.
Reagan created the drug-testing industry. Marijuana will never be legalized because there’s too much money spent fighting it, plus the prison-industrial complex needs a continuous influx of warm bodies. Bug has a point, but it’s a twisted variation of Leno’s view on gay marriage, “why shouldn’t they be as miserable as the rest of us.”
I haven’t read all of the posts, but I do have this to say: Marijuana is illegal. People who smoke it have no respect for the law. What does marijuana do for you? It makes you lethargic and not care about anything. People that receive welfare benefits need to be proactive to get off welfare – not likely to happen if you are stoned all the time. As for employers – I would not hire someone that smokes pot.
Dan – By continuing to throw out the wacky arguements such as testing all newspaper subcribers just shows that your really have no arguement at all other than stomping your feet and saying that it shouldn’t be done. At least others here have been giving thoughtful responses.
Kristen – It already is forced on certain portions of the population as requirements for employment. When I worked for the state, I had to submit to a drug test and was also randomly tested. Heck, I was tested in the office of a job services company when I was looking for temporary work. I fail to see the difference between testing as a requirement for employment and a requirement for receiving welfare.
Sandi – I don’t really see the slippery slope. As I said in response to Kristen, it is far from unprecedented to drug test people as a requirement of employment. Also, saying that you are creating another criminal is false. Those who engage in an illegal act are creating a criminal out of themselves. While I would be for legalizing some now-illegal drugs, they are still illegal now. Alcohol is not illegal.
I cannot say off the top of my head how much a test costs, but some of the simple ones cannot be very expensive when temp. employment places use them in their offices.
Thanks Sandi and Kristen for actually discussing this subject.
I do find it confusing that there are those who I have observed here on the blogs are against this because of the cost. Usually you are the same ones arguing against any cuts for those less fortunate and in need of help.
AGAIN, DAN if they are taking illegal drugs, why should we pay them with food stamps or other welfare dan? why?
cant answer this one huh, no good reasons huh…..
C Daddy, I have given the subject some thought. And that’s led me to the conclusion that you’re insincere and that what you’re writing is ridiculous.
1. General pop. test positive at a higher percentage than WF recipients.
2. Tests cost money. Cheep screens must be followed by more expensive screens.
3. EVERY study done of this shows the testing system costs more than it saves via kicking people out of the system.
4. The issue isn’t helping addicts. Because we both know that WAY WAY more WF recipients are addicted to alcohol (the most deadly of all drugs) than they are illegal drugs. But you’re not talking about that one at all. So that exposes your help-the-addict meme as total BS.
5. The issue is all about treating poor people as crappily as you possible because they’re poor, and a handful of bullies want to dump on them.
#39 “cant answer this one huh, no good reasons huh…..”
Is anybody helping pammala out? She sounds like she’s choking on something.
Cheep screens
This is the guy who makes fun of misspellings.
Dan, I’m glad that you are able to jump to such conclusions based on what I’ve written. But, once again, you have not really addressed the issue at hand given that two of the five points (#4 and #5) you gave do not address that issue at all and are just conjecture on your part about what my motives are. Two more of the five (#2 and #3) bring up points about things that I have not even brought up as an arguement for testing.
That said, I’ll respond to them anyway, just for fun.
1. As I said earlier I have not seen any of the studies showing the difference in the general pop. and WF recipient drug use. I’d still be interested in seeing such a study. As I have seen many times here, please provide back-up. If I made the assertion of the opposite, you and others would ask that I provide a link to prove my point.
2. Nothing I have said is about “saving money.” Not once have I used that as a reason to test those who apply for WF. You do not know my stance on WF, so please do not put words in my mouth.
3. Please see #2
4. The issue for everyone my not be about helping addicts. Please feel free to take issue with them. I would have no issue with helping those addicted to alcohol find and get treatment, especially those with children. As a child of an alcoholic I understand the turmoil the disease can cause a child. That being said, I do not know if there is a good/fair way to test for that. I am not against someone having a few beers, but I do not know of a test that can weed out those who have a few beers on Sunday watching the Redskins game and those who drink a case a day. Maybe BAC test when someone comes into the office for their interview would be a good indicator.
5. How is treating someone applying for WF the same as someone applying for a job as a ditch digger treating a poor person crappy? I fail to see the logic in such an arguement. All one has to do is read your comments directed to me on this issue to see who the real bully is. I have more than once given, what I feel, thought out arguements for the positives of testing those who wish to apply for WF. You then throw out wild extentions of my words such as testing those who subscribe to a newspaper or use other public uses such as police and roads. BTW, if you do choose to drive (using roads), then you are subject to being tested for drugs and/or alcohol if a police officer feels that you are under the influence while using them.
if poor people can get illegal drugs, then they can find a way to get groceries or pay their own bills, TEST ALL OF THEM
SAME GOES FOR BOOZE…
Dan’s #5 says is all. That’s all it’s about. I mean, just read “Lake’s” comments about the poor (he seems very knowledgeable on the subject.
“There will always be rampant crime when it comes to the poor. Desperation does that to people. It’s expected.”
Newsflash there, Lake…the economic crash was brought to you by gangsters wearing $5000 suits. No poor person ever hurt you.
CDaddy, the fact that there’s only interest in “testing” for illegal substances puts paid to the faint notion of any interest in “helping” the addict. Anyone genuinely interested in improving public health would be looking for far more common and harmful substances like alcohol and nicotine. The health of someone smoking the occasional doob isn’t going to be damaged nearly the way a pack a day smoker’s will be.
It’s all about some weird misdirected hating on the poor, whose lives are apparently so easy and blissful that some feel the need to make them a little more miserable.
And Sandi and I are always willing to discuss something with people who can resist calling us godless unemployed “communistic” anti-American welfare leeches.
You know, Up until Pammala made her comment about Booze, I generally agreed with the idea that people on welfare should not be spending their money on drugs. In fact, I still agree with that point.
But now I understand the point of why his “drug test” is a bad idea. If we were to test for booze as well, we would be essentially be expanding government power ( a terrible right wing no-no ) into the homes of the public. If they were to deny welfare based on the consumption of alcohol, in no way could a welfare recipient partake at all, even on drinks that were free. A Welfare Recipient couldn’t go visit family and have a glass of wine provided to them by someone else. They couldn’t go out after work and have a co-worker buy them a beer for the hard work they do (Yes, Virginia, some, in fact probably MANY welfare recipients work full time.)
Do I think someone on welfare should be buying beer? No. You should be spending your money on the bare essentials. But should you be exempt from drinking beer? HELL NO. That’s just too much government.
I support Marijuana legalization, though I do not partake, simply because the benefits outweigh the negatives. For every stoner out there, there is someone who will use to reduce any number of medical maladies from anxiety all the way up to stage four cancer. It will improve revenues, and lower our prison budget. It will likely force the violent cartels to stick to other drugs like cocaine or heroin, which have less demand, and hopefully will result in fewer deaths over trafficking.
However, as it stands, Marijuana is illegal, and as such, many employers want to invade your privacy and test you for it so as to reduce their liability.
I think if you are on welfare or unemployment and you receive a job offer that would end your benefits and fail a drug test, you should immediately lose your unemployment or welfare benefits. That seems a lot more responsible than the government invading your space.
Thank you Pammala, you specifically, and your extremist radical stance was directly responsible for changing my mind about Drug Testing for Welfare recipients. Not only is it a bad idea, its pretty much immoral.
46
Kristen, what are the high crime areas of Roanoke?
Where do people go to buy drugs?
Where can one find prostitutes most readily?
It’s no secret that crime is RAMPANT in poor communities.
—–
Why do I keep thinking liberals will acknowledge truth and reality. Shame on me.
It’s no wonder I banished myself from this ship of fools a while back.
My compassionate nature is at fault. I simply can’t stand by and let ignorance, deception and evil stand proud and unchallenged.
If you don’t hear from me, it’s because I’ve lost interest.
Kristen, As I said to Dan above, I do not have an issue with alcohol treatment…or help to stop smoking, either. Both can be factors in needing to be on assistance in the first place besides the far more serious health effects. I would have no issue if that were a part of medicaid (if it’s not already, but I honestly do not know). The reason I initially was only speaking about illegal drugs? That is what the blog post is about.
I am still curious as to how I’m some kind of poor-hater. How is helping someone get off of drugs (or alcohol) making their life more miserable? I have seen the effects of both a drug addict and alcoholism and that is misery not only to the person addicted, but also to their family.
If smoking the occasional doob is OK, then why do so many employers, including the government test as a condition of employment?
C Daddy
If the purpose of the drug testing was to identify people who need help and get them into programs to help them that would be one thing. That however, is not the puirpose of the programs. Their actual purpose is to punish people who test positive by refusing to approve them for food stamps, wic, or other welfare programs.
We had a thread on the testing program in Fla. some time ago after it had been in place for over 4 months and stats had been compiled. There are numerous links on that thread which refer to the studies and the reporting of Fla. and other states who have the drug testing requirement.
We don’t need to go back and reinvent the wheel for you. Just google the subject and you will find plenty of information confirming the low number of positive drug tests, the costs of the testing program, and the fact that it has not saved money, which was the other pretense under which the testing laws were passed. It is not intended to help anybody but rather to be punitive and supposedly to save money. Neither argument flies.
“If you don’t hear from me, it’s because I’ve lost interest.” From your fingers to God’s ears!
Sorry, you do not get to post as you do and then claim you have a “compassionate nature”. You have an angry, passionate nature and there is a difference. Your judgmental posts lack all compassion, and I agree that is and will remain a fault. You may think it is “ignorance, deception and evil” you are challenging, but is is more like you are proving them. You are not helping Jesus gain followers. You are not helping Conservatism gain followers either.
C Daddy, no one can deny that there is fraud, abuse and just plain lazy no-good people scamming the system meant to help “the least of these”. People who “know someone” and do not turn them in are part of the problem not part of the solution. We need to weed out such people and they should be on their own. Of course the lack of jobs will make them possibly a bigger problem but that is part of being in a society too.
If you feel we already spend too much money on welfare, adding testing mechanisms is not going to be cheaper. The cheaper testing is also more easily fooled and less reliable and an appeals process would have to be established (more government employees). An individual test from a certified lab is going to be cost prohibitive. Retail employers pay $33 for a drug screen and $44 for alcohol. Times how many “recipients”? Big money.
How do you test for drug use and not alcohol abuse? When does “use” become “abuse”? Will we also employ drug abuse specialists to determine that? Will we “profile” or test granny as well as baby mama? Do you have any idea of the thousands of dollars treatment can cost? Incarceration rates will go up as people are kicked off the system so they will still cost us.
It is simply not worth whatever payoff you have in mind as I see it. If we make a real effort to crack down on fraud, abuse and able bodied “disabled” people, that is money better spent IMO and I support that too. I am no more interested in supporting someone too lazy to work than I am in giving subsidies to Exxon and tax exemptions to AEP. We waste entirely too much money paying people to do nothing or paying people to make profits. Our system is messed up.
I think Sandi has nailed this one.
It’e enough to make you wonder whether C Daddy works in the drug-testing industry, and is looking for a nice payday.
Sandi, I have watched extended family members that fall into this category for the last decade. Young, healthy, raised by good people and they choose not to work and battle addiction to illegal drugs and then brag about how they are racking up on all of the free things they get from the government. It chaps my butt, and they have been caught by the police and nothing ever gets done to them. They just waste their lives on drugs and rake in the free services while I go to work 12 hours per day and pay taxes.
And yes, I have a job that is that serious in an industry in which you must pass intense background checks, government sanction checks, drug tests, and have strict policies regarding media networks and public image. I have made many personal sacrifices for my career and I have been compensated accordingly.
Why should these people get a job? They don’t NEED to. They are allowed to continue getting something for nothing with no responsibility or accountability. It is human nature to continue in a pattern of behavior when there is no accountability.
Bug
Newt Gingrich takes the credit for reform of the welfare system as we know it today as one of his major accomplishments. And if you know of people who are violating the rules and gaming the system, as a citizen you have an obligation to report them to the authorities. Until you do,
you should stop griping about it.
Newt Gingrich takes the credit for reform of the welfare system as we know it today
0bama gutted Newt’s welfare reforms. That was one of the first things he did. Now we are back where we started.
(o\ ! /o), you say “It is human nature to continue in a pattern of behavior when there is no accountability“. That is patently unfair and untrue. Since the beginning of time, people have “done the right thing” even when there was no reward, accountability or lack of effort involved. Millions upon millions of us do so every day of our lives. There is never “no accountability”. If you thought their lives were so great, you would emulate it, that is what we do when we find a lifestyle that appeals to us. You would not trade places because you LIKE what your efforts have brought to you. Most of us do. I have NEVER seen one of you complainers offer to trade places with all those losers “allowed to continue getting something for nothing with no responsibility or accountability” who are “racking up on all of the free things”. Odd huh?
I haven’t heard anyone suggest that WF recipients be given lie-detector tests.
Why not?
Shorter Eric; I’m a slave to the corporations, they should be just as miserable as I am.
#55 That’s one really sad, dim view of people, bug.
well then if you are against government power, scott, then you will vote against 0bama the marxist boy
There is no argument that can be made for testing welfare recipients that can’t be made about just spam testing the entire population. Receiving public assistance doesn’t rob anyone of their civil rights. You don’t own a slave because someone gets welfare or foodstamps.
Lake, I’ll leave it up to you where the best drugs and hos can be found in Roanoke. You’re the expert.
So bug knows lots and lots of welfare recipient junkies. Lake knows intuitively where all the criminals are and how much they earn.
Maybe y’all would be in a better frame of mind if your found better folks to hang out with.
So I’m the only person here who has extended family in this situation, or best friends whose kids grew up to have these issues. Well, I wish yall would teach me how you choose your family so wisely and unfriend people when their kids get into trouble. On second thought, I don’t want you to teach me those things.
My experience with a sister-in-law caught up in this for the last 10+ years is where I garnered much of my opinion. Raised in a good home by good hard working people and got caught up in drugs. Had college paid for and dropped out, had jobs and lost them due to drugs, and now chooses not to work and sit at home gathering social support while she does drugs. She has been busted by the police many times for many things and it doesn’t impact her financial support one bit. Her family has called the police and they don’t care. They have let her out of jail free to go many times when her parents asked them to keep her in hoping it would influence her to change. No deal. IF she works, her subsidized housing rent goes up and she has to pass a drug test. She told me once “why should I work, I get everything I need and have the freedom to do whatever I want.”
That’s my personal observation and info straight from the horse’s mouth. Make out of it what you want.
Bug,
None of my kids has gotten involved with drugs. That said, you are most definitely not the only person here who has personal observation about these matters.
When I talk with my S-i-L about these issues and her lifestyle choices, it chaps my butt that this person didn’t HAVE to live this way…she CHOSE to. She had a good home, good family, and a free ride through college and pissed it all away for drugs. Now, I have to go to work every day 12+ hours per day, pass drug tests, background checks, government sanction checks, and get fingerprinted by a government agency just for the opportunity to make an honest living and pay taxes while people like her live off of society. The sad part is she is NOT “gaming” the system…the system is broken and it allows her to choose to continue living this way on our dime with no consequences for her choices. The less she does, the more she is given. She gets busted for drugs, shoplifting, failure to appear in court, and nothing ever happens to her or her free ride. They don’t want to waste their time on small potatoes. Just my observation. Do you want to hear about the neighbor of my parents on disability who the police and everyone else knows sells drugs, killed his brother, and drove drunk everyday for 2 years and the police won’t do anything about it? That’s a doozie.