JohnnyD
 

I think you were the one who proposed this a while back. Well, here you go. I think it's great, but doubt it will actually work.

Florida governor defends measure requiring drug tests for welfare - CNN

Frankly, I could care less if they're doing drugs. I do think any one receiving welfare should be required to do public service though (paint schools, rake leaves, etc.).

"What (Scott) is doing is giving ugly legitimacy to an unfortunate stereotype that has been in this country for a couple of decades -- that all welfare recipients are a bunch of drug abusers," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida."

Actually what he is doing can BREAK the stereotype!!! Sounds like all the immigration nonsense too - why do liberals hate data? If its not true, why worry?

WTF? If they have enough dough to buy drugs, why should the public pay for their groceries, clothes and medical bills?

we have a small food pantry in Mansfield. My kids and I have volunteered there to help out a few times. i drive by on the weekends when they are open and see the people waiting to get the donations. They're smoking butts, drinking DD coffee. I always get po'd. If they can afford to smoke and buy coffee they dont need handouts. Im sure some families really benefit from the food, but I think a lot just take advantage.

maybe they grow their own pot.

then they have the skill to be assigned to tend the public parks.

I was just talking to the misses about this. She worked at Brattleboro Retreat in VT during one of her medical rotations. It's one of those live-in mental health properties.

She did an entrance medical exam on every new patient. She'd ask every single unemployed addict "medically disabled" person that was hooked on heroin, pills or alcohol how they could afford to get their drugs. The typical response???

"Oh, I use my government stipend for them."

People are complaining that this is an invasion of privacy. My opinion? If you don't want to pee in a cup, get an effing job or go hungry. Most people that actually have government jobs have to submit to drug tests - and they're actually employed. Why the hell shouldn't people that want something for free be forced to piss in a cup too?

In the end, if you don't want to take the test, then get off the government dole. Why the hell are we helping these people continue to be lazy pieces of crap that will never contribute to society?

I don't think they are all pieces of crap, many are mentaly ill or fell on hard times.
The government thinks throwing money at problems is the answer and it's not.
No doubt the feeling of entitlement has been passed on from generation to generation because the politicians want the votes.

Point in fact, the average student cost in NJ for suburban schools is $15-18,000 per pupil while the average inner city is $28,000 per student. So how come the drop out rate is double in the inner city compared to the suburbs?

If a person is capable and really wants to work and learn they can always enlist in the armed forces.
Now that's a good program.

Bingo, and there should be a rule that any legislation designed to help
the inner cities should only be developed by members of Congress who
either lived, worked, taught or mentored in the inner city.
They would be the only ones who know the realities.

Notice I said lived, as I guarantee, you couldn't find one who lives there now.

It's nice that your girl is preparing to get married to you.:rotf2:

This whole thing is really simple. It's not like anyone who tests positive for drugs can't get any govt. money. If you fail the test, you can get treatment and still be eligible for assistance. I see no problem with that. If you decide that drugs are more important to you, go eff yourself.

:claps: :claps: :claps: :claps: :claps:

You really don't care if they're doing drugs? How about the people who call the rescue to be taken to the hospital so they can try to get their pain meds that they don't really need? Would you want to have to wait for an ambulance if you or a family member had been in an accident and needed to be rushed to an ER? It's all fine for some of you if the drug users/abusers don't affect you and you don't see the drain they put on public services. Talk to a paramedic in a city or town that has a lot of drug users. You might be surprised at how much time and money is spent on them that could be put towards other important things.

We tried "welfare to work" under the Clinton Admin. It was a failure. I fired several employees because they failed to show up for work. UNless it is tied to the stipend it does nothing more than create more of an administrative nightmare and tension.

I agree with JD (Can you believe that one?) about testing. It is a good thing in my book.

Drug test and make them work for the check.

Nothing less.

Scott,

Good concept...hard to implement. Even in Florida they are suggesting that "family members" can get the stipend for the children if the recipient tests positive. So now you have baby gandmas getting the check instead of the mommas and the money goes to the same place...

Nothing galls me more than to see abuse of the system. I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just know from experience that it is difficult to make work. One way to change that is to open government run daycare and transportation. Use the employees about to be laid off and have them pick up at specific sites. The kids can be watched by government folks who provide lunches. The total cost can be deducted from teh welfare. Just a thought...

Always an angle. Do it like they used to do unemployment. It required a person
to go once a month to the unemployment office with a list of where they applied
for a job with the employers telephone #.

Have the welfare recepient have a pic ID and go to the welfare office once a month to pick up their check after being tested.

Liberals would call this a hardship, but if someone is using drugs on our ticket that's tough.

Unfortunately this will not change until a politician with balls says "NO MORE" and actually does it!

Remember that welfare families and immigrants (legal and ILLEGAL) are the current voter base that the current politicos rely on for re-election.
When the powers that be show as much concern for the actual tax-paying, hard working legal citizens of this state/country, then and ONLY then will real change be a possibility.

Keep in mind that there are going to be unions and civil liberty groups that will come a'running to the aid of the welfare "victims".
Then you'll also have the baby-factory families that will now claim that they can't afford to support their ever-growing family if they have to actually work for money!

I say YES for the drug test, and let the circus show begin!

nothing to do with balls. the aclu and every lib organization with a big wads of cash from lib sympathizers will sue and the states will burn your hard earned tax dollars to fight it in court.

got #'s on that or are you projecting based on your opinion?

2008, Obama won by 9.5 million votes. There are 6 or 7 million welfare recipients. 1/3 are in California so that leaves about 4 million in the rest of the country. Many come from Appalachia and predominately white areas in the south and like many voters in WV wouldn't vote or Obama.
In any case, suppose 1/2 welfare recipients actually voted (only slightly below national average), then you are talking 3.5 million, half of whom are in CA. 1.8 million everywhere else in the country. Out of 133 million people that voted, 1.8 million spread between 49 states is not really worth "relying" on for election. I am guessing this is just one more example of reality being very different than the conservative propaganda

iN MASSACHUSETTS, YOU CANT GET MONEY UNLESS YOU ARE DOING DRUGS.