Sound off

Sep 7, 2011 Full story: Las Cruces Sun-News 40

Stop taking dogs to the Farmers Market. People will enjoy it better without having any dog hair on their food.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#1 Sep 7, 2011
I love how the holier-than-thou crowd accuses anyone who receives assistance of being a drug user. Maybe they should ask some of the elderly at their church, who more than likely receive some form of assistance, just how they feel about them.

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#2 Sep 7, 2011
A couple with four screaming brats in line at Fiesta foods is paying for their basket full of unhealthy goodies with their state issued credit card. Both parents are covered in tattoos, including area codes, tear drops etc. He has his baggy shorts down around the crack of his azz, she has her "makeup" permanently installed. They have enough cash to purchase several 18 packs of Bud Light, but not apply any towards the insufficient balance in their "account". Items need to be re-scanned and deducted. The first to go is the meat and cheese. They need more so they take off the cereal. This leaves the basket full of mostly junk snack food.
This is why people on that kind of assistance need to be checked monthly. Profiling? You are darned right. It works.

Since: Sep 08

Placitas, NM

#3 Sep 7, 2011
u know im right wrote:
A couple with four screaming brats in line at Fiesta foods is paying for their basket full of unhealthy goodies with their state issued credit card. Both parents are covered in tattoos, including area codes, tear drops etc. He has his baggy shorts down around the crack of his azz, she has her "makeup" permanently installed. They have enough cash to purchase several 18 packs of Bud Light, but not apply any towards the insufficient balance in their "account". Items need to be re-scanned and deducted. The first to go is the meat and cheese. They need more so they take off the cereal. This leaves the basket full of mostly junk snack food.
This is why people on that kind of assistance need to be checked monthly. Profiling? You are darned right. It works.
Yeah and they drove there in their new Escalade.
impossible

Los Alamos, NM

#4 Sep 7, 2011
PlacitasRoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah and they drove there in their new Escalade.
because if they could drive, they would be able to get a voter's ID and DRIVE to the polling place and we all know that isn't possible.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#5 Sep 7, 2011
u know im right wrote:
A couple with four screaming brats in line at Fiesta foods is paying for their basket full of unhealthy goodies with their state issued credit card. Both parents are covered in tattoos, including area codes, tear drops etc. He has his baggy shorts down around the crack of his azz, she has her "makeup" permanently installed. They have enough cash to purchase several 18 packs of Bud Light, but not apply any towards the insufficient balance in their "account". Items need to be re-scanned and deducted. The first to go is the meat and cheese. They need more so they take off the cereal. This leaves the basket full of mostly junk snack food.
This is why people on that kind of assistance need to be checked monthly. Profiling? You are darned right. It works.
I'm not saying there aren't those who are on assistance who don't deserve it or who don't do drugs. But I doubt it's the majority. I know an lady in her 80's who is on assistance. She gets like $60 a month, total. I also know plenty of working poor who get assistance and are drug tested at their places of employment. Why waste money testing them? Why assume and accuse everyone receiving assistance is on drugs?

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#6 Sep 7, 2011
Fed Up in NM wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not saying there aren't those who are on assistance who don't deserve it or who don't do drugs. But I doubt it's the majority. I know an lady in her 80's who is on assistance. She gets like $60 a month, total. I also know plenty of working poor who get assistance and are drug tested at their places of employment. Why waste money testing them? Why assume and accuse everyone receiving assistance is on drugs?
++++++++++
Surely, we are not talking about folks who have put into the system their entire lived and now find themselves finally getting some of their money back. What is wrong here are the second and third generation scammers who have never done anything but receive and reproduce. Able bodied individuals who know that by virtue of their surname they will never need to provide for themselves or their spawn. Leave the elderly alone and go after the entitlement generation.

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#7 Sep 7, 2011
"I also know plenty of working poor who get assistance and are drug tested at their places of employment. Why waste money testing them? Why assume and accuse everyone receiving assistance is on drugs?"
++++++++++
That's great! If they are being tested for illicit drugs at work on a regular basis. Just make sure that Santos who is living with her is also checked. There are far too many men (poor choice of words) who habitually live off of the woman's income and benefits. He will stay home with their spawn and consume Bud Light with his homies while she is away.
It would not surprise me if the actual abuse rate was about 45% based on what I have seen here in Las Cruces over the last thirty years of managing my rentals.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#8 Sep 7, 2011
u know im right wrote:
"I also know plenty of working poor who get assistance and are drug tested at their places of employment. Why waste money testing them? Why assume and accuse everyone receiving assistance is on drugs?"
++++++++++
That's great! If they are being tested for illicit drugs at work on a regular basis. Just make sure that Santos who is living with her is also checked. There are far too many men (poor choice of words) who habitually live off of the woman's income and benefits. He will stay home with their spawn and consume Bud Light with his homies while she is away.
It would not surprise me if the actual abuse rate was about 45% based on what I have seen here in Las Cruces over the last thirty years of managing my rentals.
So, why waste the money testing the elderly and fully employed who receive welfare (not SSI)? Why not find a way to reform welfare without accusing all the recipients of being druggies? There has to be a way.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#9 Sep 7, 2011
u know im right wrote:
"I also know plenty of working poor who get assistance and are drug tested at their places of employment. Why waste money testing them? Why assume and accuse everyone receiving assistance is on drugs?"
++++++++++
That's great! If they are being tested for illicit drugs at work on a regular basis. Just make sure that Santos who is living with her is also checked. There are far too many men (poor choice of words) who habitually live off of the woman's income and benefits. He will stay home with their spawn and consume Bud Light with his homies while she is away.
It would not surprise me if the actual abuse rate was about 45% based on what I have seen here in Las Cruces over the last thirty years of managing my rentals.
Also, where do we draw the line at testing? Do we test for alcohol and tobacco? High fat diets? Too much junk food and not enough exercise? I agree welfare needs to be reformed, I just think mandatory drug testing will open up a whole can of worms we can't afford to deal with.

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#10 Sep 7, 2011
No, just stick to what is illegal. Our money does not need to be going to a household where there is illegal activity. The threat of losing their precious benefits would aid in self-policing each household. Also, the housing "authority" (laugh!) is notoriously lacking at checking these households for "extra people". Those two items would more than pay for the costs associated with testing for illegal drugs.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#11 Sep 7, 2011
u know im right wrote:
No, just stick to what is illegal. Our money does not need to be going to a household where there is illegal activity. The threat of losing their precious benefits would aid in self-policing each household. Also, the housing "authority" (laugh!) is notoriously lacking at checking these households for "extra people". Those two items would more than pay for the costs associated with testing for illegal drugs.
I see your point. I just don't agree with accusing all benefit recipients of being drug users. I think one easy, free, solution would be to make the user show a photo ID when they use their card. I'm aware that lots of people sell their food stamp card for cash that is (allegedly) used to buy drugs.

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#12 Sep 7, 2011
When an employer tells an employee that it is time for a drug test, is he accusing the employee? No.
Food stamp (SNAP) abuse is only the tip of the iceberg. It is those on cash assistance, SSI, and other programs that often have more cash on hand than working people.

Since: Sep 08

Placitas, NM

#13 Sep 7, 2011
First wave of drug tess from Florida are in:
mpleting the application process, for reasons unspecified, according to the Tampa Tribune.

The Tampa Tribune did some simple math and found out how much the governor’s assumptions about poor people going to cost the state:

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state:$3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24...

Since: Sep 11

Lodi, OH

#14 Sep 7, 2011
I'm a white male(citizen) on government assistance. I can speak for others like myself. We know these kinds of people are out abusing the privileges given to us, and to those of us who need it(temporarily), we welcome the idea of an inspector making sure the money is spent accordingly on essentials.

Since: Sep 08

Placitas, NM

#15 Sep 8, 2011
Damn sure glad to read:

"The ACLU filed a lawsuit Tuesday to challenge Florida’s law requiring new welfare recipients to be drug tested, saying the law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure protection.The civil liberties organization is suing on behalf of Luis Lebron, who refused to take the drug test. The executive director of Florida ACLU said the law “rests on ugly stereotypes.” http://thinkprogress.org

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#16 Sep 8, 2011
u know im right wrote:
When an employer tells an employee that it is time for a drug test, is he accusing the employee? No.
Food stamp (SNAP) abuse is only the tip of the iceberg. It is those on cash assistance, SSI, and other programs that often have more cash on hand than working people.
When an employee is offered a job, the drug policy must be disclosed beforehand. If they agree to random drug testing, that is part of their job. If randoms are part of the policy and not disclosed, the employee does not have to submit. So, if this drug testing for welfare benefits is to be implemented, it will need to be signed off on during the application process.
I agree that reform needs to take place. I just don't see the logic behind accusing everyone on assistance of being a druggie and wasting money trying to prove it.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#17 Sep 8, 2011
GHick44 wrote:
I'm a white male(citizen) on government assistance. I can speak for others like myself. We know these kinds of people are out abusing the privileges given to us, and to those of us who need it(temporarily), we welcome the idea of an inspector making sure the money is spent accordingly on essentials.
I am a half-breed on assistance. I know there are those people out there, too. I just don't agree with being accused of being a druggie just to stop the ones who abuse the system. I'd rather have to show ID, which will not cost a penny, than have to be subjected to more random drug testing, which I already am subject to at work.

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#19 Sep 8, 2011
There is nothing wrong with a little creative profiling. No one suggests that someone, who for the first time in their working life gets some temporary assistance should be scrutinized. Nor should your grandmother who is on SS and Medicare. I am talking about the second and third generation recipients. The people who were born into the system. Very few males are accepted into cash assistance programs right away. Those who get on SSI or disability are set for life. The others simply move in with the woman and her brood who will be on the system until she can no longer have babies.
I am "in the trenches" and see this stuff every day and have for the last 25 years in Las Cruces.

“ keep the loonies on the path.”

Since: Aug 10

Detroit

#20 Sep 8, 2011
Ok, then, how's this? If you do not want to be suspected of being a druggie, do not choose to look and dress, and behave like one. Quit shaving your head, do not tattoo your face and neck with that prison garbage, do not go out in public in your little bedroom slippers and white knee socks. Go to the men's department instead of the rodeo clown department when you purchase your britches.Put away that Bud Light and find a man's drink. Think about some HGH and perhaps do something about your pathetic 5'5" stature. There is a lot that one can do to improve themselves.

“Get over yourself...”

Since: Jan 08

You're not that important

#21 Sep 8, 2011
u know im right wrote:
Ok, then, how's this? If you do not want to be suspected of being a druggie, do not choose to look and dress, and behave like one. Quit shaving your head, do not tattoo your face and neck with that prison garbage, do not go out in public in your little bedroom slippers and white knee socks. Go to the men's department instead of the rodeo clown department when you purchase your britches.Put away that Bud Light and find a man's drink. Think about some HGH and perhaps do something about your pathetic 5'5" stature. There is a lot that one can do to improve themselves.
Ok, so now not 'anyone receiving benefits' needs to be tested, only those that look like they are drug users or have been on welfare for their entire life. I still don't like the idea of accusing them of being druggies, but I guess that's better than wasting money testing everyone. BTW, not everyone who uses drugs fits that stereotype and not everyone who fits that stereotype uses drugs. But, maybe we do need to change the rules for new applicants. Set limits for how long a person can receive benefits or set a cap on how much they can receive.

And, no, I do not look like the 'druggie' image you presented.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Bill Richardson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Letter: Governor Martinez has done a wonderful ... Jul '14 justice is just a... 5
Martinez is most transparent governor in New Me... Jun '14 seesi 4
Republican Martinez claims NM governor's seat (Nov '10) May '14 kyle richards 232
Positions count, but style wins (Jan '08) May '14 Top Of Mom 2
NM-Gov: Susana Martinez (R) Goes After Mother J... Apr '14 justice is just a... 1
With session over, O'Malley more free to focus ... Apr '14 William Jones 1
Gov. Bill Richardson: Obama to visit New Mexico (May '09) Mar '14 Oona 4
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Bill Richardson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••