100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 'Urine or You're Out'... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
living offa welfare isnt enough....lets sell some drugs to get by. im jsut being sarcastic. bad habit... but i am speaking with some experiance also. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Tue 11/25/08 05:58 PM
|
|
I think poor young single mothers are the scum of the earth and should all be shot... I am only kidding of course. But i dont think most people when suggesting this idea to drugs test welfare recipiants, really mean these people. You cannot deny that there are a lot of drug abusers who are on welfare, as well as a lot of bone idle layabouts. Some of whom will be using their welfare payment to buy said drugs instead of feeding their kids properly. It would be good if something could be done about these people. There are crooks in every system. They will be until the end of time. But..they are the minority. If someone is on welfare here, they must be going to work or school and they can only be on it for a few years. That minority costs your country BILLIONS AND BILLIONS every year. They need more caseload workers to investigate more the applicants more thoroughly. I don't know the figures of billions and billions every year for the crooked minority. How did you come up with that amount? If it's any comfort, when they quit working or going to school or actively looking for work, they will be kicked off of it. And like I said, if they are going to school, etc, they can only be on it for a few years. You are right we do need more oversite and control. The big one DCFS, its crinimal some of the things they just turn their back on and let happen..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Tue 11/25/08 05:56 PM
|
|
dam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree that recipients of assistance should be given a mandatory drug tested. That is a discriminatory practice in that it assumes everyone who needs assistance is a drug abuser and that usage was what created the need. While I completely understand the frustration involved, I also must add that the cash assistance is not usually the only assistance one gets. Recipients usually get food stamps, assistance in paying for daycare, as well as free or very low cost medical assistance. Most are eligible for assistance with housing, but it's harder to get and many do not take advantage of that benefit. Then, of course, there is the assistance in paying for school and/or finding a job. It is what you make of it.
Public assistance is not meant to give anyone a cushy life, it's meant for survival and is meant to be temporary. And, yes, it is an absent parents responsibility to pay for the welfare of their child, but more often than not, it is tax payers who take on that responsibility. I've done this work for 25 years and I have to say that there have been times when my clients had more spendable income than I did. Being a single parent is not easy on most. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Tue 11/25/08 06:30 PM
|
|
In my state, the amount of food stamps that one can receive is almost nothing.
Also, for one (adult) to receive state health insurance, you have to not make over $200 per month. That Governor just got voted out.  He's the one that made it that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree that recipients of assistance should be given a mandatory drug tested. That is a discriminatory practice in that it assumes everyone who needs assistance is a drug abuser and that usage was what created the need. While I completely understand the frustration involved, I also must add that the cash assistance is not usually the only assistance one gets. Recipients usually get food stamps, assistance in paying for daycare, as well as free or very low cost medical assistance. Most are eligible for assistance with housing, but it's harder to get and many do not take advantage of that benefit. Then, of course, there is the assistance in paying for school and/or finding a job. It is what you make of it. Public assistance is not meant to give anyone a cushy life, it's meant for survival and is meant to be temporary. And, yes, it is an absent parents responsibility to pay for the welfare of their child, but more often than not, it is tax payers who take on that responsibility. I've done this work for 25 years and I have to say that there have been times when my clients had more spendable income than I did. Being a single parent is not easy on most. other then the first two lines...I agree with you young lady...you see a urine test as discriminatory...I see it..as tough love...a form of shown responsibility... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my state, the amount of food stamps that one can receive is almost nothing. Also, for one (adult) to receive state health insurance, you have to not make over $200 per month. That Governor just got voted out. He's the one that made it that way. It is that way for able bodied adults with no children. One adult with one child on TANF here gets about $250 to #300 food stamps and medical assistance. I'm pretty sure it's about the same in every state. It depends on the wealth of the state and the Federal assistance the state receives. I suspect with universal health care, the policy for adults w/o dependants will change. I just hope people understand that if that is what we want, we have to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Tue 11/25/08 06:54 PM
|
|
In my state, the amount of food stamps that one can receive is almost nothing. Also, for one (adult) to receive state health insurance, you have to not make over $200 per month. That Governor just got voted out. He's the one that made it that way. It is that way for able bodied adults with no children. One adult with one child on TANF here gets about $250 to #300 food stamps and medical assistance. I'm pretty sure it's about the same in every state. It depends on the wealth of the state and the Federal assistance the state receives. I suspect with universal health care, the policy for adults w/o dependants will change. I just hope people understand that if that is what we want, we have to pay for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Tue 11/25/08 07:12 PM
|
|
In my state, the amount of food stamps that one can receive is almost nothing. Also, for one (adult) to receive state health insurance, you have to not make over $200 per month. That Governor just got voted out. He's the one that made it that way. It is that way for able bodied adults with no children. One adult with one child on TANF here gets about $250 to #300 food stamps and medical assistance. I'm pretty sure it's about the same in every state. It depends on the wealth of the state and the Federal assistance the state receives. I suspect with universal health care, the policy for adults w/o dependants will change. I just hope people understand that if that is what we want, we have to pay for it. Our Governor cut it down. He also took coverage out that would have helped the disabled. He didn't accept matching Federal funds either. I'm referring to the state medical - Medicaid. It was geared towards single women with children too. The food stamps amount is severely low. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my state, the amount of food stamps that one can receive is almost nothing. Also, for one (adult) to receive state health insurance, you have to not make over $200 per month. That Governor just got voted out. He's the one that made it that way. It is that way for able bodied adults with no children. One adult with one child on TANF here gets about $250 to #300 food stamps and medical assistance. I'm pretty sure it's about the same in every state. It depends on the wealth of the state and the Federal assistance the state receives. I suspect with universal health care, the policy for adults w/o dependants will change. I just hope people understand that if that is what we want, we have to pay for it. Our Governor cut it down. He also took coverage out that would have helped the disabled. He didn't accept matching Federal funds either. I'm referring to the state medical - Medicaid. It was geared towards single women with children too. The food stamps amount is severely low. Your governor was Republican. Mine is and has been Democrat. It's the opposite here. We are increasing assistance to all sectors of the low income, and, under insured working class. The money for all assistance must come from somewhere. I would like to see our government now set out to cut the wasteful spending in public assistance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
noblenan
on
Tue 11/25/08 07:54 PM
|
|
I don't agree that recipients of assistance should be given a mandatory drug tested. That is a discriminatory practice in that it assumes everyone who needs assistance is a drug abuser and that usage was what created the need. While I completely understand the frustration involved, I also must add that the cash assistance is not usually the only assistance one gets. Recipients usually get food stamps, assistance in paying for daycare, as well as free or very low cost medical assistance. Most are eligible for assistance with housing, but it's harder to get and many do not take advantage of that benefit. Then, of course, there is the assistance in paying for school and/or finding a job. It is what you make of it. Public assistance is not meant to give anyone a cushy life, it's meant for survival and is meant to be temporary. And, yes, it is an absent parents responsibility to pay for the welfare of their child, but more often than not, it is tax payers who take on that responsibility. I've done this work for 25 years and I have to say that there have been times when my clients had more spendable income than I did. Being a single parent is not easy on most. other then the first two lines...I agree with you young lady...you see a urine test as discriminatory...I see it..as tough love...a form of shown responsibility...  The first two lines were the only thing you could have agreed with me on!  There, again, how much tough love do you give. You want them wearing ankle bracelets to be sure they are not spending the assistance on things we deem they shouldn't, IE., going to a bar?  Oh, and TOUGH LOVE? Are we punishing these folks? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone sent me this...not a bad idea...if I do say so myself... Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, ! have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass, doing drugs, while I work. . .Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? what ever happened to the 5th ammendment anyway violation to drug test before a incident and afterwards as well ------------------------------------------- Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ------------------------------------- nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ---- yer being forced to be a witness against your self and they confiscate proberty with out compensation as well free country my azz nice color dont ya think  The constitution is a joke anyways.It has about as much value as toilet paper.Any lawyer can tell you that.The government and the police and judges don't go by it.You dont really have any rights.We just think we do. The Constitution has a lot of value but we the people need to take back our government.It offends me to hear a great document compared to toilet paper. As for drug testing,the people in my building are responsible for the care and safety of the residents.If you are high you aren't prepared for an emergency or to steady a shaky oldster.I have no problem with it. and that is why the constitution has no value if yhey have no sympyoms of use why should they be tested watch who gets tested are they the questionable ones or the ones they know will test clean drug testing is a farse of major magnitude |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You agreed to take a job that requires a urine test. Thats YOUR problem, not mine buddy! the key word is " job "...when the taxpayer is payin' your way...I think a little piss ...for a little doe is fair...don't you ? absolutely not it is illegal according to those that founded this country and those legalities is why there was a revolution in the first place |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
someone sent me this...not a bad idea...if I do say so myself... Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, ! have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass, doing drugs, while I work. . .Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Sounds kinda like accusing the poor of a crime. And even if the parents do drugs, the kids will still need to get food from somewhere. And does this mean the rich can do drugs? I can't see the crime angle in this..I think if you had to stay clean to get your money...that's actually a good thing...at what point are parents held accountable for their actions ?...at what point is the call for responsibility required ? Ignorant statement at best.  You really have NO idea how the system works. You see, let me enlighten you just a bit. I am a former welfare recipiant. I got 190 bucks a month, that was for me and my son. That is what a family of two recieves in the state of Alabama. In turn for getting the money I had to go to school full time or work full time. I started school, but realized that I still didn't have enough money for my son, so I got a full time job. I was cut off after six months and now my sons father is paying every red cent the state paid me back to the state. So I never took from taxpayers, considering I worked and paid taxes as well, and it's getting paid back. Why should I have to take a urine test to get a little help to get on my feet? You really need to know what the hell your talking about before you start complaining of people getting welfare. 190 bucks a month isn't living a lavish lifestyle. your's is one case...shall we go over the other 40 million or so...take the test...get your money...how hard is that... no you are taking the rare case and acting like it is the norm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
since this country endorses and mandates drug testing for some
and it is a govt backed all govt payyees should be tested from the prez down to the dog catcher either that or no one gets tested and no one should get tested imo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the main reason imo for drug testing
is to give insurance companies a reason not to pay a claim give that some thought by the corp for the corp smoking seat belts helment laws can go either way (cheaper to bury them if no helment if required they have not figured it out yet and they think it saves life ins payouts |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lynann
on
Wed 11/26/08 01:02 AM
|
|
Swell..
People who buy this are the same people who once said, "If you aren't doing anything wrong what do you have to fear?" I think we've seen the flaws in that arguement. One of the things that makes the United States great is the presumption of innocence. Our forefathers I am sure could not have imagined the technology available to government but they did have some experiences with invasive and crushing governmental powers but knew government had the power to quash even legal activities with it's heavy arm. It's a slippery slope. Is it okay to test without reason for high sodium levels? After all, if you use too much salt despite knowing the detrimental effects of high sodium, aren't you injuring yourself and therefor society by costing it more in health care costs? Kiss freedom good-bye ladies and gentlemen....while you are picking your arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(((Lynann)))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/pounce HUGS Winx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for drug testing,the people in my building are responsible for the care and safety of the residents.If you are high you aren't prepared for an emergency or to steady a shaky oldster.I have no problem with it. Yeah if you are high you probably arent capable, but if you smoked a doobie the previous night are you gonna be high? They don't do random testing but if you smoked the night before,don't get in an accident because before you fill out an incident report you are tested.If positive,goodbye.In NH you don't need a reason to quit and they don't need one to fire. It's called work at will. You have a good head on your shoulders! thanx nan, 
|
|
|
|
|
