Should welfare recipients have to pas...

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#84 Feb 9, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
I see this has gone slightly off topic! lol!
Just a little... LOL!

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#85 Feb 9, 2013
Once someone's socks get involved, a thread really goes to hell.

“It's a secret”

Level 8

Since: Sep 12

Or maybe I just forgot!!

#86 Feb 9, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
Once someone's socks get involved, a thread really goes to hell.
This from Linda the Lonely widow,et.al.....you're too much...lol!
crazy idea

Memphis, TN

#88 Feb 9, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>I'm thinking some here are more interested in punishing poor people for their extravagant lifestyles than actually saving tax money. Or they have money invested in private prisons.
i don't think anyone wants to punish anyone but when people go to the butcher shop around the corner here and working people are get ground round and people on welfare are getting steaks it just pisses of the working people

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#89 Feb 9, 2013
Mister_ E wrote:
<quoted text>
This from Linda the Lonely widow,et.al.....you're too much...lol!
You gave in too quick! You always do!

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#90 Feb 9, 2013
crazy idea wrote:
<quoted text> i don't think anyone wants to punish anyone but when people go to the butcher shop around the corner here and working people are get ground round and people on welfare are getting steaks it just pisses of the working people
Working people in Memphis? No way! Who's your mayor now? How many do you have?

“It's a secret”

Level 8

Since: Sep 12

Or maybe I just forgot!!

#91 Feb 9, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>You gave in too quick! You always do!
What would be the point? You are determined to believe what you want. Right or wrong, doesn't really matter to you. You just want to think you're right. I'm good with it if you are...

Adieu

“It's a secret”

Level 8

Since: Sep 12

Or maybe I just forgot!!

#92 Feb 9, 2013
Doctor Diagnostic wrote:
<quoted text>
s/he really cant help her/himself
s/hes got melon-head-tinnitus
That explains it...lol

Maybe I was too rough on him then.

:)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#93 Feb 9, 2013
What would really be the point? Benefit money is not enough to sustain a drug habit, so taxpayers are not paying for people's drugs. Weed might be the exception, but does that matter when it's decriminalized in many places and no more troublesome than alcohol. As other posters have already mentioned it would be taxpayers paying for these tests and taxpayers paying for any criminal charges/incarceration brought about. The amount you may think you'll save is pittance compared to the overall benefits bill. Contrary to belief the majority of claimants are not addicts. Those that are, cutting of their rent allowances and money for food will not stop them, it will only make them homeless and commit more crime. Crime which will cost us taxpayers much more, financially and personally.

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#94 Feb 9, 2013
Mister_ E wrote:
<quoted text>
What would be the point? You are determined to believe what you want. Right or wrong, doesn't really matter to you. You just want to think you're right. I'm good with it if you are...
Adieu
Come on now Mr E..

The same can be said about you. You admitted you don't read articles supplied to you even though they come from military publications. It seems you are determined to believe what you want even in light of new and VALID information.

...And this is how we (Americans) stay ignorant!
Hoosier Hillbilly

Wakarusa, IN

#95 Feb 9, 2013
...And this is how we (Americans) stay ignorant!
~~~? who said that?~~~

“It's a secret”

Level 8

Since: Sep 12

Or maybe I just forgot!!

#96 Feb 9, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now Mr E..
The same can be said about you. You admitted you don't read articles supplied to you even though they come from military publications. It seems you are determined to believe what you want even in light of new and VALID information.
...And this is how we (Americans) stay ignorant!
How hard is it? Really?! They don't have an arm or leg can't walk or ailment due to the military, and medically proven..Put them on aid. Otherwise put them on the street.
crazy idea

Memphis, TN

#97 Feb 9, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Working people in Memphis? No way! Who's your mayor now? How many do you have?
first the company i work for main office is in Memphis so if you go on in any plant it will be Memphis. and so much for having an intelligent conversation.

“Cat got your tongue?”

Level 7

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#98 Feb 9, 2013
Mister_ E wrote:
<quoted text>
How hard is it? Really?! They don't have an arm or leg can't walk or ailment due to the military, and medically proven..Put them on aid. Otherwise put them on the street.
Put them on the street? What good does that do society? You are suggesting begging for a living in the United States of America? There will always be the poor. Why can't this society afford to provide the basic necessities of life? At least a place for the homeless to safely camp with toilets and showers. If the U.S. can afford 73.3 BILLION Pentagon/military budget(and that's not all)which is more than the next big 10 countries combined, then we can afford to provide for the poorest among us. As much as the good Christians (the ones who normally support this sort of legislation)want to tell us it's not punishment for being poor, we all know it is. We have this notion of "rugged individualism" in this country that has proven to be a false dichotomy. The governing elite determine economies and the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. I always hear "if you come to the U.S. and work hard enough, you can be anything you want to be." That is such elitist crap. Everybody I know is working their butts off...just to stay head of the household bills. Most of Americans are one or two pay checks from being homeless. Come on..we as a society can do better than that! Once again...I fail to see what putting people on the street does for society at large. Then there is the issue of community health. Don't you think it would be better if the homeless had toilets rather than pee in the bushes?(I didn't say on :) Wouldn't it be better for society, from a health standpoint, to know where these folks are?

Just a few things to think about.

“It's a secret”

Level 8

Since: Sep 12

Or maybe I just forgot!!

#99 Feb 9, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Put them on the street? What good does that do society? You are suggesting begging for a living in the United States of America? There will always be the poor. Why can't this society afford to provide the basic necessities of life? At least a place for the homeless to safely camp with toilets and showers. If the U.S. can afford 73.3 BILLION Pentagon/military budget(and that's not all)which is more than the next big 10 countries combined, then we can afford to provide for the poorest among us. As much as the good Christians (the ones who normally support this sort of legislation)want to tell us it's not punishment for being poor, we all know it is. We have this notion of "rugged individualism" in this country that has proven to be a false dichotomy. The governing elite determine economies and the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. I always hear "if you come to the U.S. and work hard enough, you can be anything you want to be." That is such elitist crap. Everybody I know is working their butts off...just to stay head of the household bills. Most of Americans are one or two pay checks from being homeless. Come on..we as a society can do better than that! Once again...I fail to see what putting people on the street does for society at large. Then there is the issue of community health. Don't you think it would be better if the homeless had toilets rather than pee in the bushes?(I didn't say on :) Wouldn't it be better for society, from a health standpoint, to know where these folks are?
Just a few things to think about.
I'm saying that too many know how to play the system. You put them in a easy situation and many are going to take advantage of it. Nothing is free for the rest of us. Why should they get a free ride.

If they don't work they don't eat. My paraplegic neighbor works. Anybody that is willing to work can take care of themselves. One way or another.

Anyway, I don't believe in forced charity either which is what you're doing when you take the money of others and give it to deadbeats. Not everyone can work. Some have to be taken care of but if they are able to work then they should. Or maybe we could all just quit and live happily ever after on the growing national debt..

As far as military spending. I think they should close all foreign bases sell them and pay off the debt. This nation should not be a foreign police nation.

My take.

“Tequila time”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#100 Feb 9, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's going to pay for child care? Wouldn't that time be better spent preparing for and looking for a real job that pays a living wage?
I understand that some people would have to find ways to care for their kids, but the fact that it would greatly affect the millions of lazy-assed people out there (NOT saying you are one cuz I don't know you) if they actually had to work for their free money. Plus; the cities would be cleaner from their efforts

“I looked, and behold,”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#101 Feb 12, 2013
Maliciousness wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just being silly! Maybe you should take your own advice and do some research yourself.
Of course truck drivers should be tested. Anyone in a job that could endanger peoples lives by causing an accident due to being UI should take the test.
So you feel itís okay if folks on welfare do drugs? You feel itís okay for them to use taxpayer money to subsidize their habit? If not, then this comment about truck drivers is neither here nor there.
Maliciousness wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe we should start testing school kids also. What do you think?
No. They arenít grown adults capable of taking care of themselves, but instead living off of taxpayers.
Maliciousness wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that testing people on welfare is going to be less expensive?
It doesnít really matter to me if it costs a bit more. I feel that there should be some incentive for folks to get off of welfare, unlike democrats who want to normalize it and make it a way of life. They fail to appreciate that all things being equal someone who could make a few hundred bucks doing more work verses doing no more work and collecting government benefits, will almost always choose the latter, absent some sort of incentive to choose the former.
Maliciousness wrote:
<quoted text>
Think again! These tests cost money. People have to be paid to carry out the test, there is the risk of false positives. Do you eat poppy seed buns? If you do, you run the risk of testing positive for opiates!
Despite this I still have been drug tested and many folks are still drug tested. I actually pay taxes too, instead of sponging off of everyone else. Are the rights of free loaders more important than mine? If not, why should this observation of yours prevent them from being tested, but not me?
Maliciousness wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone would be found to have drugs in their system, then what? Stop their money, they get made homeless, their kids are taken in to care, they may even turn to crime and end up in prison. Who do you think will pay for that? The money fairies?
Or maybe, just maybe they will wise up and make better choices in life, now that the gravy train no longer provides.
Maliciousness wrote:
<quoted text>
It is FACT! Carrying out drug tests will cost the tax payer more money and not benefit anyone. Maybe we should consider burning all druggies at the stake. Wouldn't you agree? Or maybe, we should be trying to help them get off the drugs and turn their lives around for a better future for themselves and their children. Most addicts don't enjoy being controlled by drugs, they just need to be shown a way forward. Taking their welfare away will not help anybody.
Yes, we should give them welfare and spend tons of money to help them get off of drugs Ö the entire purpose of the federal government should be to provide handouts and help poor people. Every single dollar taken by the federal government should be spent for this purpose Ö because in reality when you look at projected federal spending that is where we are heading Ö more and more federal money is being spent on providing for people, which is the way you want it.

“I looked, and behold,”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#102 Feb 12, 2013
victoria1 wrote:
<quoted text>
drug addicts will not forgo such behavior even if when the drugs bring them to the brink of death.
Most of these folks who would be affected by testing are not hardcore junkies ... they are just lazy folks who would rather party and have a good time on occasion and have taxpayers subsidize their lifestyle. Kind of like my cousin who is on food stamps but is out at the bar all the time. Meanwhile, I'm at home with my family more nights than not and paying taxes to subsidize some loser like that.

If you don't think people like her are the norm (maybe they don't do exactly the same thing ... but there is a lot of poor decision making involved for most of these folks) on these programs, you don't know enough of them.

Or maybe they are like my childhood buddy who can't hold down a job (always late ... doesn't show up sometimes) and who had a dream job that everyone told him not to f' up, which he did in a matter of weeks by being late all the time and showing up at a clients house reeking like weed. He gets food stamps, Obamacare, you name it.

Every person I have ever known on these programs fits the profile of those two. I have no doubt that it is the exception who does not. The exception isn't going to risk taking drugs too.

“I looked, and behold,”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#103 Feb 12, 2013
Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Hair follicle testing costs about $115 per.
http://drugtestsinbulk.com/judicialcourt-hair...
The states send the tests to private labs. States do not have to money or time to drug test...the labs barely have the time for real crime. Hair follicle is cost prohibitive and has flaws.
They don't have to send it to private labs. They choose not to create their own. If Obama can set up insurance exchanges in every f'ing state to further his agenda of ever increasing entitlements despite the large costs involved, fact that we have a mountain of debt that is ever increasing, fact that we have more folks than ever as a percentage of our population on entitlements, states or the federal government could set up a testing lab to prevent fraud on taxpayers.

It's not done because it's not a priority ... and it's really not in democrats interest to decrease the numbers on welfare. Expansion is their priority. These folks make reliable voters.

Level 7

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#104 Feb 12, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of these folks who would be affected by testing are not hardcore junkies ... they are just lazy folks who would rather party and have a good time on occasion and have taxpayers subsidize their lifestyle. Kind of like my cousin who is on food stamps but is out at the bar all the time. Meanwhile, I'm at home with my family more nights than not and paying taxes to subsidize some loser like that.
If you don't think people like her are the norm (maybe they don't do exactly the same thing ... but there is a lot of poor decision making involved for most of these folks) on these programs, you don't know enough of them.
Or maybe they are like my childhood buddy who can't hold down a job (always late ... doesn't show up sometimes) and who had a dream job that everyone told him not to f' up, which he did in a matter of weeks by being late all the time and showing up at a clients house reeking like weed. He gets food stamps, Obamacare, you name it.
Every person I have ever known on these programs fits the profile of those two. I have no doubt that it is the exception who does not. The exception isn't going to risk taking drugs too.
I agree you're right! Test them. Hire more people to keep a better eye on these folks. Make them do what is needed to eliminate the help all together or if anything lessen the amount they get. It is there to help them at bad times not to keep living on it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 1,065
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 5,994
Word Association (Mar '10) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 22,776
Word Association (Jun '10) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 32,771
"3 Syllable" Word s - A-Z" 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 64
One Word (Jan '09) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 18,406
**4 Syllable Word A-Z** (Jul '12) 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 980
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 226,122
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr F_R_E_D 32,515
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 6,767
More from around the web