Chemical Welfare

[Holy Mole]

Should those receiving welfare, WIC and such like assistance be tested for drug use?

 

[Timothy]

Should those receiving welfare, WIC and such like assistance be tested for drug use?

Probably not. I think it depends on what they exactly do with a positive test.

 

[JustABigKid]

Should those receiving welfare, WIC and such like assistance be tested for drug use?

Yes

Reason: I worked for the government workforce program for almost 2 years. During this time I saw many of these folks who could care less about getting a job. They spent most of their money from the government on alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. If they knew they had to have some personal responsiblity for receiving the money then maybe they would think twice about how they use the money and better yet maybe they would try to actually get a job.

 

[Timothy]

Should those receiving welfare, WIC and such like assistance be tested for drug use?

Yes

Reason: I worked for the government workforce program for almost 2 years. During this time I saw many of these folks who could care less about getting a job. They spent most of their money from the government on alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. If they knew they had to have some personal responsiblity for receiving the money then maybe they would think twice about how they use the money and better yet maybe they would try to actually get a job.

Are you saying that only lazy bums use drugs?

 

[FreeToBeMe]

I'm sure most of us would like to see them tested; however, where do you think the money to pay for the drug tests will come from? 

The military performs urinalysis tests regularly on its members, and I can tell you the lab costs are not cheap.

The answer to your question would be "whatever is more cost effective".  IOW, whatever is cheaper for us taxpayers.

 

[JustABigKid]

Should those receiving welfare, WIC and such like assistance be tested for drug use?

Yes

Reason: I worked for the government workforce program for almost 2 years. During this time I saw many of these folks who could care less about getting a job. They spent most of their money from the government on alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. If they knew they had to have some personal responsiblity for receiving the money then maybe they would think twice about how they use the money and better yet maybe they would try to actually get a job.

Are you saying that only lazy bums use drugs?

No not only lazy bums. I have to fire people from my company every week for failing drug screens. What I am saying is that druggies have found a way to stay on drugs and not work through our welfare system to the point that they no longer care to even work.

 

[JustABigKid]

I'm sure most of us would like to see them tested; however, where do you think the money to pay for the drug tests will come from? 

The military performs urinalysis tests regularly on its members, and I can tell you the lab costs are not cheap.

The answer to your question would be "whatever is more cost effective".  IOW, whatever is cheaper for us taxpayers.

Well let us look at the numbers. A screening depending on what type you use can be anywhere from an inhouse pee cup for about $4 to being sent out screening and analysis around $100 each.

Now a average size family on TANF 1-2 adults and 2 kids gets about $500-$600 a month, Food Stamps at about $700/month, plus housing assistance which cost about $500-$700 a month, and utility help probably around $150/month. 

So in 1 month you dish out to 1 family approximately $1800. Multiply that into 1 year and now you have given out about $21,600 per year. (recently i read an article where in some states this amount is even more.)

So let's compare we pay $100 for a drug screen that knocks a person out of this program or we pay $1800/month for as long as they chose to stay on welfare?

So what is the common sense better road for the taxpayers?

Problem is most politician don't have common sense or we wouldn't be in the state we are with the budget and these entitlement programs.

 

[Timothy]

Should those receiving welfare, WIC and such like assistance be tested for drug use?

Yes

Reason: I worked for the government workforce program for almost 2 years. During this time I saw many of these folks who could care less about getting a job. They spent most of their money from the government on alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. If they knew they had to have some personal responsiblity for receiving the money then maybe they would think twice about how they use the money and better yet maybe they would try to actually get a job.

Are you saying that only lazy bums use drugs?

No not only lazy bums. I have to fire people from my company every week for failing drug screens. What I am saying is that druggies have found a way to stay on drugs and not work through our welfare system to the point that they no longer care to even work.

How could they work? You fired them. Just saying ....  8)

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=JustABigKid]Well let us look at the numbers. A screening depending on what type you use can be anywhere from an inhouse pee cup for about $4 to being sent out screening and analysis around $100 each.

Now a average size family on TANF 1-2 adults and 2 kids gets about $500-$600 a month, Food Stamps at about $700/month, plus housing assistance which cost about $500-$700 a month, and utility help probably around $150/month. 

So in 1 month you dish out to 1 family approximately $1800. Multiply that into 1 year and now you have given out about $21,600 per year. (recently i read an article where in some states this amount is even more.)

So let's compare we pay $100 for a drug screen that knocks a person out of this program or we pay $1800/month for as long as they chose to stay on welfare?

So what is the common sense better road for the taxpayers?

Problem is most politician don't have common sense or we wouldn't be in the state we are with the budget and these entitlement programs.[/quote]

If you are going to look at numbers, you should look at real ones. The average family on welfare isn't getting anywhere close to $1800/ month in assistance.

(FTR: I'm generally opposed to the welfare state as it is currently structured.)

 

[Castor Muscular]

If you are going to look at numbers, you should look at real ones. The average family on welfare isn't getting anywhere close to $1800/ month in assistance.

(FTR: I'm generally opposed to the welfare state as it is currently structured.)

In Washington, DC, you can get up to $50,000 per year in benefits if you take advantage of all the available programs.  That's tax-free, of course, which makes it equivalent to a much higher salary. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

That’s the startling revelation at the heart of a new report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington D.C., which annually reviews the average value of welfare benefits in each of the 50 states.

A combination of food stamps, temporary cash grants, WIC, and housing assistance is worth a pre-tax value more than $30,000 in 16 states. In Hawaii, the most generous state, a working family of three would have to earn almost $61,000 just to be even with the $50,000 in welfare the government hands out.

http://watchdog.org/102295/in-many-states-welfare-can-pay-better-than-an-honest-days-work/

 

[JustABigKid]

If you are going to look at numbers, you should look at real ones. The average family on welfare isn't getting anywhere close to $1800/ month in assistance.

(FTR: I'm generally opposed to the welfare state as it is currently structured.)

In Washington, DC, you can get up to $50,000 per year in benefits if you take advantage of all the available programs.  That's tax-free, of course, which makes it equivalent to a much higher salary.

Correct they don't necessarily receive actually cash in these amounts but all the benefits combined that are freely handed to them. I didnt even begin to mention things like healthcare, cell phones, and other programs.

 

[rsc2a]

If you are going to look at numbers, you should look at real ones. The average family on welfare isn't getting anywhere close to $1800/ month in assistance.

(FTR: I'm generally opposed to the welfare state as it is currently structured.)

In Washington, DC, you can get up to $50,000 per year in benefits if you take advantage of all the available programs.  That's tax-free, of course, which makes it equivalent to a much higher salary.

The latest Cato white paper shows Massachusetts paying $521/month in SNAP benefits. According to state officials, the average total is actually $237/month. The Cato paper shows TANF benefits at $618/month, while state officials say the number is actually $456/month (and qualifications are stricter).

Sure, you might be able to get "up to" that, but the average person on welfare isn't receiving anything close to that amount. There needs to be significant welfare and disability reform (including disqualifying a lot of people), but the conversation needs to be had based on the actual numbers and not some worst (or best) case scenario just to score political points.

For example, Cato could have used dollar amounts that were much more in line with what the median recipient is actually receiving, but they wouldn't have been able to have as large a number for their "Welfare pays more than working in XX states". However, they could have easily made the case that welfare doesn't have to pay more; it just has to pay enough to offset the lost opportunity cost associated with working.

 

[JustABigKid]

If you are going to look at numbers, you should look at real ones. The average family on welfare isn't getting anywhere close to $1800/ month in assistance.

(FTR: I'm generally opposed to the welfare state as it is currently structured.)

In Washington, DC, you can get up to $50,000 per year in benefits if you take advantage of all the available programs.  That's tax-free, of course, which makes it equivalent to a much higher salary.

Correct they don't necessarily receive actually cash in these amounts but all the benefits combined that are freely handed to them. I didnt even begin to mention things like healthcare, cell phones, and other programs.

you mean like free bus passes if a medical condition prohibits you from driving?....

Yes that could be one of many. Now things like that are needed for some people and I am not against helping those who truly need the help and are not trying to abuse the system. Those people will be ok with taking drug test in order to receive the help. It is the ones that abuse the system that drug testing would hopefully eliminate.

 

[Castor Muscular]

The point is that if you're savvy, you can live as well as a working person without lifting a finger.  And that's not good.  Those who are not willing to work, neither should they eat. 

 

[rsc2a]

The point is that if you're savvy, you can live as well as a working person without lifting a finger.  And that's not good.  Those who are not willing to work, neither should they eat.

I would agree with this. But I would also add that those who cannot work should still be able to eat.

 

[Castor Muscular]

The point is that if you're savvy, you can live as well as a working person without lifting a finger.  And that's not good.  Those who are not willing to work, neither should they eat.

I would agree with this. But I would also add that those who cannot work should still be able to eat.

That's fine with me. 

 

[JustABigKid]

If you are going to look at numbers, you should look at real ones. The average family on welfare isn't getting anywhere close to $1800/ month in assistance.

(FTR: I'm generally opposed to the welfare state as it is currently structured.)

In Washington, DC, you can get up to $50,000 per year in benefits if you take advantage of all the available programs.  That's tax-free, of course, which makes it equivalent to a much higher salary.

Correct they don't necessarily receive actually cash in these amounts but all the benefits combined that are freely handed to them. I didnt even begin to mention things like healthcare, cell phones, and other programs.

you mean like free bus passes if a medical condition prohibits you from driving?....

Yes that could be one of many. Now things like that are needed for some people and I am not against helping those who truly need the help and are not trying to abuse the system. Those people will be ok with taking drug test in order to receive the help. It is the ones that abuse the system that drug testing would hopefully eliminate.

really?.... because.. i am one of those people and i am not ok with taking a drug test.....  the day they start calling me up and telling me i have to be at a certain place within 2 hours to pee in a cup in front of a drug testing agent.. just to keep my disability bus pass....  i will do whatever it takes to convince the doctor in charge to certify me to drive again...... even if it means going off the other medications that caused me to lose that certification in the first place....... very bad idea...... there are people still having nightmares over the thought of me being behind the wheel of a car.... :-\

but there is something even more serious that the people who support drug testing for a wide variety of other people should consider...... how long will it be before this drug testing ball you put into motion comes around and rolls back onto you?.... ???... the case could be made today..(based on the arguments already used in other cases to support drug testing).. to justify the random drug testing of every individual in the united states based on what job they do... who they come into contact with... what kind of machinery they operate... including their own personal cars.... etc etc...... the list is endless.....

but the big question is this.......... would you be willing to submit to random drug testing in order to keep your personal drivers license?..... ???......  eventually it;s going to come down to that.... if things continue as they are and the random drug testing ball keeps on rolling... ......

Actually the ball of drug testing is already in place for those who do work. I dare say that there is not a single employer that does not have some sort of drug testing policy. I had to take a drug test to begin my current employment and I have to take random test regularly to maintain my employment. It is as simple as that. If a working person has to do it then someone who is getting my tax dollars for free should to.

And I would be more than ok to take a drug test just to keep my license. I already have to do it to keep my job and I need my license to get to my job.

There are rules set up for those who have ligimate situations that require they need assistance in things like bus passes, etc. I am not being heartless here but if you would have seen the people I met for almost 2 years every single day you would be ok with Drug Testing as well especially when you see how they waste your hard earned tax dollars.

 

[Castor Muscular]

The point is that if you're savvy, you can live as well as a working person without lifting a finger.  And that's not good.  Those who are not willing to work, neither should they eat.

.... ... .... and i was halfway hoping you would say random drug testing was started by pagans........  .......... oh well.....  :-\

Psychedelics are pagan.  The opiates are Gothic.

 

[JustABigKid]

Actually the ball of drug testing is already in place for those who do work. I dare say that there is not a single employer that does not have some sort of drug testing policy. I had to take a drug test to begin my current employment and I have to take random test regularly to maintain my employment. It is as simple as that. If a working person has to do it then someone who is getting my tax dollars for free should to.

And I would be more than ok to take a drug test just to keep my license. I already have to do it to keep my job and I need my license to get to my job.

There are rules set up for those who have ligimate situations that require they need assistance in things like bus passes, etc. I am not being heartless here but if you would have seen the people I met for almost 2 years every single day you would be ok with Drug Testing as well especially when you see how they waste your hard earned tax dollars.

i have seen it.... my dad has been a firefighter paramedic with the state for over 25 years and he has seen it too..... he is also in the same boat you are in when it comes to random drug testing....... but in both your cases you can only tested while on the job..... in the case of what they are suggesting for people like me who receive any kind of public assistance... we would be subject to getting calls telling us to proceed to the testing lab any time of day or night.... 24-7 .....  and like i said ..... (and my dad supports me on this... he doesn;t believe i should have to submit to testing like that either)....  people will see me back behind the wheel of a car again before that happens.... :-\..... 

there are better ways to keep tax money from being wasted.... than by infringing on the rights of others in a way now, that will only result in your own rights being infringed upon in the future...... or to put it in the words of aesop.... freedom is too high a price to pay for satisfaction....

I believe that there could be some stipulations for people with specific health problems to eliminate them from the process. I am not saying someone who has some sort of disability be that much more troubled with loopholes. I am talking about those that could and should be working but do not chose to do so because of welfare.

Some people on welfare consider that their job. They spend their days do the appropriate items to check the boxes so they can get next month's money. So why shouldn't they have to be under the same requirements.