Prisoner#1 said:

Phychotron said:

welfare doesn't drug test because drug users are circumventing the law every day, a test would be a minor set back to some users, but otherwise would not phase the serious users.

---

convoluted logic, drug users circumventing the law has nothing to do with
welfare abusers not being drug tested, if someone is using food stamps to
buy drugs they've violating the law, if they're committing fraud they need
to be detected and prosecuted for it, there's no circumvention of the law
and heavy users are much more easily detected than casual users whom would
be far less of a problem

Quote:

How often are they suppose to test you? times that by the millions of people that need testing regularly and find someone who's willing to pay for all those tests. you won't make that cash up cutting off tweekers with a 3 day window for testing.

---

really, like we arent already paying for the support of the drug habit, if
we test at random on a monthly basis we pay for the test with the number
of peolple cut from the program for abusing it, if there's 10million
people on welfare/food stamps and each recieves $1200/mo in benefits, and
we're spending $10/test to test them and it eliminates 1% of the
recipients we've already saved close to $1billion in public funds in a
month on a $100million investment

now, who would we find to pay for it, well, the majority of america is
more than willing to have a few more cents taken from their paycheck to
eliminate much of the welfare fraud

Quote:

Also if it did work, Id claim discrimination because the group receiving aid would not model the actual population.  You exclude those American citizens for receiving aid while merely fitting into a society. 

---

they already dont model the population since there's an abundance of minorities and mostly women receiving these benefits while the white man is all but excluded and the wealthy arent supposed to be receiving it anyway

Quote:

very once in awhile this arguement comes up as the cure-all to poverty

---

it's not about ending poverty, it's about ending fraudulent use of public funds

---

zappaisgod said:

Prisoner#1 said:

because the liberals love to give away other people's money (zappisgod's money mostly)

---

Correct, it is mostly my money.

---

AntiEverything said:

badchad said:

DieCommie said:

Its not a case of 'good' or 'bad', its a case of necessity and luxury.  If you can afford luxuries, then you arn't poor enough to warrant federal assistance for necessities.

---

I certainly don't have all the answers, but the salient point is that when you place restrictions on welfare, someone has to decide on those restrictions, what they are, and whether they are reasonable.

What is a "luxury" and what is a "necessity".  A car?  nope.  Take the bus.  A cell phone is probably almost the same amount of money as a landline.  Should we deny someone the use of a phone?  What if they have an emergency?  What about obesity?  If you have enough money to over-indulge in food, why are you getting welfare?

The other issue to consider is the consequences of denying welfare.  Now people who need assistance can't get it.  Now what?  Let them starve?  Let them die?  Are they going to have to rob me to get by?  There is a great potential for adverse consequences.

---

you fail to see the bigger issue: poverty
you must think of ways to restructure society without including poverty, this includes NOT giving handouts to the poor and stimulating american infrastructure vs. outsourcing our labor

---

Phychotron said:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

it's that whole probable cause business, you can't subject individuals to a search due to a few instances of fraud. Submitting a drug test for government assistance is a violation of our individual privacy.

---

Phychotron said:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

it's that whole probable cause business, you can't subject individuals to a search due to a few instances of fraud. Submitting a drug test for government assistance is a violation of our individual privacy.

---

Quote:

really, like we arent already paying for the support of the drug habit, if
we test at random on a monthly basis we pay for the test with the number
of peolple cut from the program for abusing it, if there's 10million
people on welfare/food stamps and each recieves $1200/mo in benefits, and
we're spending $10/test to test them and it eliminates 1% of the
recipients we've already saved close to $1billion in public funds in a
month on a $100million investment

now, who would we find to pay for it, well, the majority of america is
more than willing to have a few more cents taken from their paycheck to
eliminate much of the welfare fraud


 

---

meatwodd7600 said:

Where are you getting your numbers from?  I would sure like to live in a state that would give me $1200.00/mo for food.  Seems like that figure is a way too high. The number is closer to $400.00/mo.

---

Quote:

I am a (working) single parent on assistance

---

Quote:

Personally, I do give a fuck if people on welfare spend my money on drugs.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

WTF are you talking about?

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Phychotron said:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

it's that whole probable cause business, you can't subject individuals to a search due to a few instances of fraud. Submitting a drug test for government assistance is a violation of our individual privacy.

---

where's the part about welfare being a right?

it's really simple, set a cutoff date for welfare, if they want to reapply
they need to submit, it's no different than the implied consent laws
regarding driving, refuse the breathalyzer and they take your license

---

Prisoner#1 said:

meatwodd7600 said:

Where are you getting your numbers from?  I would sure like to live in a state that would give me $1200.00/mo for food.  Seems like that figure is a way too high. The number is closer to $400.00/mo.  At least that is what a single mother of three I know  gets.

---

Quote:

foodstamps can run as high as $1200/mo, that's the cutoff but then there's
welfare, it's average of around $800/mo, now take your $400 food stamps and
combine it with the $800 in welfare and you have my numbers and more than my
current monthly income

---

  Damn, $1200.00/mo they must have 20 kids to qualify for that kind of food benefit.  Oh, btw your original numbers only said foodstamps benefit ammounts, not added welfare benefits.  Isn't math fun?  So, someone not working getting welfare and foodstamps can have more moneys worth of food and services than  people working full time minimum wage jobs. Kinda makes you wonder why should I work in the first place if I can live better off of the system. Oh wait, I know why.  So I can funnel more money back into the hands of the wealthy business owner who pays me... That's why.

Quote:

I am a (working) single parent on assistance

---

I'm a single unemployed parent that cant get assistance

---

Phychotron said:

Prisoner#1 said:

Phychotron said:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

it's that whole probable cause business, you can't subject individuals to a search due to a few instances of fraud. Submitting a drug test for government assistance is a violation of our individual privacy.

---

where's the part about welfare being a right?

it's really simple, set a cutoff date for welfare, if they want to reapply
they need to submit, it's no different than the implied consent laws
regarding driving, refuse the breathalyzer and they take your license

---

but they'd have to suspect you of driving under the influence before they test you, not just pull you over and tell you that, because your using a publicly funded highway you are subject to screening. again, going back to probable cause: you can't treat everyone like a criminal by default.

---

destructo_low said:

I was reading this thread in the Shroomery News Service, and I noticed this sentence, "Republican lawmakers demanded the study last March, saying their constituents considered it unfair that some Idahoans are drug-tested by their employers while those on public assistance are not".

I have read a lot of people on here say they oppose random drug tests being required for welfare, but that statement in the article makes the drug testing completely fair. It's not right for actual workers to be drug tested, while people who sit at home, getting free income aren't drug tested. Thoughts?

---

Phychotron said:

again, going back to probable cause: you can't treat everyone like a criminal by default.

---