Tests could lead to positive outcomes
I have no problem with requiring urine tests. This could be a great way to encourage those with a problem to seek treatment. If there was a failed test, there of course would be follow ups, and ample opportunity to enroll in legitimate treatment, with expected clean tests to follow. There would be a lot of details to work out. But it could bring about positive changes for some people who need it.
I do not think it is a right or left issue (though those lines typically get drawn as such).
But of course there are those who really want to eliminate welfare altogether, and they might see tests, and erroneous assumptions that all wefare reciepients are low life losers with drug problems, and pee tests as a ticket to end welfare forever. Life is never that simple. And they might be shocked at the true demographics of welfare, and especially at which states excell in enrollment.
> In Oklahoma, we're trying to pass a law requiring any recipient of "social services" (including unemployment) to take a periodic piss test. You oughta hear the 'public' outcry.
>
> (tongue-in-cheek)How can the government be so invasive by trampling on our Constitutional Rights?
>
>
> go figger..
Yeah, that stopped when they included state legislators.
> IMHO, forcing people to have their piss checked is just more of that right wing need to punish and humiliate people for being poor. Sick stuff!
Remember poor people are immoral.
discretionary spending
why should any welfare recipient be allowed to :
own any pets
go to the movies
have cable tv
have internet access
go out to eat
own a car (if public transit is available)
drink alcohol
own a cell phone
buy itunes
buy any food other than meat, potatoes or vegetables
basically they should live like the Amish. instead of fuel oil assistance, just dump a log length load of wood of in the front yard with a maul and a bow saw.
I think a far better idea would be for the Top 1%'er to keep the poor as pets. They would be well cared for, cleaned up after, and off the government dole.
So if the Catholic Church receives any money from the government (even if it is a low percentage of their total costs) to run schools, hospitals, etc., the government has the right to dictate what kind of insurance they provide and other strings attached but for a welfare recipient, the government doesn't have a say in how the welfare recipient spends the tax payers money or what they have to do to receive it?
Liberal mindset I guess.
Tim, I have never been asked to pee in a cup. IMHO, just because they do it to you and you can't do anything about it, doesn't mean it is right ( Constitutional). I will always think of it as an invasion of my privacy. Safety concerns are important, but they are trying to do it to everyone even where there is no safety concerns. Where is the safety concern with the unemployed or the welfare recipient?
discretionary spending
:good:
Florida has no requirement for government employees (including teachers) to pass a drug test, nor is there a requirement for goverment contract workers who work on goverment property (schools, etc.) to take a pee test. I had to pass a "background check" to work on school property a couple years ago, but no drug test. My bother-in-law's best freind is a teacher and a major pothead. Seems screwed up when someone who sits at home watching Judge Judy all day has to take a drug test, but teachers, cops, firemen, state legislators, etc., do not. Google the "Daily show" and "florida drug tests" for a laugh.
Tests could lead to positive outcomes
The way the Florida law works is that if you fail the test once, you and your family lose your benefits for a year. No second chance or opportunity to enroll in a program.
Tests could lead to positive outcomes
So the old lady fails the test and they punish the kids and the blind husband?
Different report on Florida drug testing
:good:
Tests could lead to positive outcomes
Actually, after reading some more on this, there is some policy that if you fail, and have children, you can appoint someone who doesn't live in the house to recieve the children's portion of the benefits.
> The definition of poor is about like a room full of surveyors trying to agree on NORTH.
>
> Being poor through little or no part of your own choice is vastly different than choosing to play the games that will qualify you as being "poor" for some handout. I know a fellow whose father is an Irish Catholic multi-millionaire. The son is one-half Hispanic. He runs a construction business that is considered disadvantaged because he is a minority, according to the way the rules are written. Daddy's company gets the prime construction contract and the son's gets the gravy jobs.
I agree with you. That sounds like that could be borderline fraud at best.
But there are bigger fish to fry. Like the oil co's $4 Billion subsidies when they're raking in record profits and the $16 billion in farm subsidies etc. Are they peeing in a cup too? Why target only the poor folks?
> So if the Catholic Church receives any money from the government (even if it is a low percentage of their total costs) to run schools, hospitals, etc., the government has the right to dictate what kind of insurance they provide and other strings attached but for a welfare recipient, the government doesn't have a say in how the welfare recipient spends the tax payers money or what they have to do to receive it?
>
> Liberal mindset I guess.
Roman Catholic mindset, no insurance money for birth control but plenty of insurance money for Viagra. Typical Roman Catholic Church reasoning. That's one of the reasons why I do not attend Roman Catholic Churches any longer, too many inconsistencies.
Viagra promotes the ability to create life, birth control kills/prevents life. I see a big difference.
