Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. I got ME a job and expect others to do the same. How, you ask? By preparing for one - starting with an A.A., followed by a B.Sc., then added two M.Sc. degrees! I guess the old 'party-hearty in high school' plan may work for some, but I just didn't feel that call. So now I'm working while some others do not. The downside is that the tax dollars I pay are passed on to them. I see signs every day advertising available jobs, but I guess all the Ph.D.'s sitting in front of the xBox are too good to work for minimum wage when they can collect a check just as easy and not have to pass any drug tests. You see at least one member here looking for 18 people, and I'll bet those jobs are still empty tomorrow. I think a better motivator than me looking for jobs for the welfare recipients is to cut them off the dole. Hunger is a powerful reason to find gainful employment. Very effective, too!
Didn't get the bottle humor, eh? You need to chill a bit!
Yeah, I 'got your 'bottle humor', and see how pathetic and idiotic it is! Somebody that claims to be as educated and intelligent as you say you are, wouldn't stoop to such foolishness. And you say 'I got me a job'. So your awful grammar, shows that you're not very educated at all.
Employers that pay minimum wage, don't want to hire educated professionals, since they are overqualified for low-wage jobs. And a self-supporting adult, can't live off of minimum wage anyway. Especially if they have a family to support. If you were really educated, you'd realize that fact.
Last edited by CaseyB; 12-15-2010 at 03:28 PM..
Reason: off topic - no grammar discussions
I posted this poll out of pure curiosity. I do live in Montana and have seen the system abused first hand here... I am curious to see what other people from around the country think. I'm not a legislator, nor a person in any kind of position to address this kind of thing, just an open minded working guy that is wondering what other people think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
Why are you putting these two things together?
They are two different programs that have nothing to do with each other (???)
Do YOU think those Uber-Wealthy who got huge tax breaks from Bush and continue to do so should be drug tested?
Do you think the Wall Streeters who got bailed out and received huge bonuses with OUR money should be drug tested???
Didn't think so...
So there's what I think.....do you have any answers???
Yeah, I 'got your 'bottle humor', and see how pathetic and idiotic it is! Somebody that claims to be as educated and intelligent as you say you are, wouldn't stoop to such foolishness. And you say 'I got me a job'. So your awful grammar, shows that you're not very educated at all.
Wow, you *really* don't have a sense of humor!
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn
Employers that pay minimum wage, don't want to hire educated professionals, since they are overqualified for low-wage jobs. And a self-supporting adult, can't live off of minimum wage anyway. Especially if they have a family to support. If you were really educated, you'd realize that fact.
And YOU need to do something more productive, than arguing endlessly on this thread, in the first place. You might want to start, by go reading a book on how to use proper grammar.
And you've been right here arguing all along!
Educated professionals should know how to best qualify themselves and prepare so they're not in the situation of having to apply for welfare *and* deal with drug tests they cannot pass. Your logic fails.
The point remains, no one is entitled to collect taxpayer funded benefits as welfare or UC and then spend that money on drugs. And, if they have money to buy drugs, then they don't need such benefits. Comprehensive drug testing for all receiving such monies is one way to deal with this, and recipients have no reasonable expectation of privacy under these conditions.
Educated professionals should know how to best qualify themselves and prepare so they're not in the situation of having to apply for welfare *and* deal with drug tests they cannot pass. Your logic fails.
The point remains, no one is entitled to collect taxpayer funded benefits as welfare or UC and then spend that money on drugs. And, if they have money to buy drugs, then they don't need such benefits. Comprehensive drug testing for all receiving such monies is one way to deal with this, and recipients have no reasonable expectation of privacy under these conditions.
And you conservatives, are always griping about how you don't want government interference in our lives! Then you want to impose the most invasive program against the poor, that's possible! What hippocrites!
You're basically saying that ALL of the welfare and UI benefit recipients out there, use drugs, and thus need to be tested. You have absolutely no proof, to back this up. It's just your own unfair judgement, against people that are less fortunate than you.
And many people who collect benefits, DID save for a rainy day. But I guess it never ocurred to you, that a person can go through their savings trying to keep up with their expenses, if they're out of work for a long time. Which most people are these days, if they've lost their jobs.
You can argue and argue, but there's no way that you can justify automatically imposing drug testing on government benefit recipients, just because they collect government benefits. That's facism at it's worst. And it would move this country further along into the police state, that's it's been drifting towards since the Bush administration was in control. So it's YOUR logic, that's deeply flawed!
That's a lot of drug testing and a lot of money. I don't think the savings would be offset much by those leaving the system because they couldn't pass a test. Anyone can pass a test if they know how and druggies almost always know how.
About training the welfare office to detect symptoms...my concern would be that it would create the same mindset that's plaguing the TSA right now. Government employees shouldn't have that much power over the lives of individuals who have committed no crimes and the training would involve of course more tax dollars.
Alcohol is legal. It's probably unconstitutional to mandate that someone cannot drink at all while receiving benefits. In Alaska...weed is legal. It's legal to grow so many plants--six I think, not sure, in your own home for your own personal use, so the same principle would probably apply. I'd rather have a weed smoker than a drunk around any day btw.
I doubt that very many of the posters in this thread are even aware that federal welfare law bans all people convicted of a drug related felony from receiving food stamps or cash assistance. The law also gives individual states the option of eliminating the ban or amending it somehow.
Personally I think that enrollment in job training programs is a better option. There's no way to fake that.
Good points. As to the alcohol, though, I don't think they should be drinking if we are helping them pay bills. They are spending needless money to have alcohol instead of spending money on food, housing, etc. I think laws would have to vary by state, and in AK, if growing your own weed is legal, then the issue of them spending money on a habit is a moot point, so AK could have the option of not testing for that substance. I agree with you on the job training, at least in theory.
I think that law about felons is a good one. I did not know that, thanks for bringing it up.
I do still stand by my assertion that the druggies should have the cost of testing come out of their checks.
Employers that pay minimum wage, don't want to hire educated professionals, since they are overqualified for low-wage jobs. And a self-supporting adult, can't live off of minimum wage anyway. Especially if they have a family to support. If you were really educated, you'd realize that fact.
Employers want good employees, period. As an employer, I know educated people are generally more articulate, more reliable and have a better work ethic. If they are willing to work for what I pay, then they are welcome in my establishment. You are telling falsehoods, and if you were really educated about this topic, you would know this. And if someone is self-supporting, they know they have to do whatever it takes to make ends meet, including working two jobs if their first job only pays minimum wage.
Last edited by CaseyB; 12-15-2010 at 03:26 PM..
Reason: off topic - no grammar discussions
And you conservatives, are always griping about how you don't want government interference in our lives! Then you want to impose the most invasive program against the poor, that's possible! What hippocrites!
You're basically saying that ALL of the welfare and UI benefit recipients out there, use drugs, and thus need to be tested. You have absolutely no proof, to back this up. It's just your own unfair judgement, against people that are less fortunate than you.
And many people who collect benefits, DID save for a rainy day. But I guess it never ocurred to you, that a person can go through their savings trying to keep up with their expenses, if they're out of work for a long time. Which most people are these days, if they've lost their jobs.
You can argue and argue, but there's no way that you can justify automatically imposing drug testing on government benefit recipients, just because they collect government benefits. That's facism at it's worst. And it would move this country further along into the police state, that's it's been drifting towards since the Bush administration was in control. So it's YOUR logic, that's deeply flawed!
I don't believe that all welfare and UC recipients are using drugs. I do believe, however, that enough are to warrant a program to determine which ones are as part of an effort to remove them as beneficiaries. This is not government money which is being given away - this is Taxpayer money, drawn from a pool into which I and every other gainfully employed person pays into and do not draw from at the same level which the aforementioned beneficiaries do. I fully endorse the Golden Rule - "Those with the gold, make the rules!" If you want to be generous with your money by directly supporting such people, then by all means do so in funding local food banks, church charities, shelters, etc. Do not be so free with my money.
Anyone not using the drugs being screened for will not have a problem once it's established that failure to participate will remove them from the program. They're not giving up any freedoms as it's their choice to continue using drugs should they wish to, but they just won't get any money from the rest of us while doing it. That's ok by me - maybe they'll be too stoned to realize how hungry they are. The clean ones will continue to receive benefits.
Where's the facism part come in? It seems like a win-win for the taxpayer and the government as it will lessen unnecessary spending and also lessen the workload on those who must monitor welfare cases. Those who continue to collect are validating their position as well. The only winners under the current arragenment are the crackheads, and libs who feel better giving away everyone else's money, neither of which deserve consideration in this case.
You can't compare parenting, which is a choice, to people getting welfare and UI benefits. That's patently absurd! Welfare and UI recipients, already have to follow certain guidlines to qualify for benefits. And you're assuming that ALL welfare and UI recipients, are using their payments to buy drugs. Which is also absurd.
Once again, you're assuming that welfare and UI recipients, are ALL lazy, shiftless, immoral, and irresponsible. It's the same old song and dance, that you conservatives put on. I think that if anyone should be drug tested, it should be you conservatives. With the harebrained schemes that you all come up with to harass the poor, you must be under the influence of some kind of illegal drug(s)!
You have yet to answer.
Why should we give someone food stamps when they have money to spend on drugs?
I never assumed anything I simply asked you a question. I believe I said in fact that no one is saying everyone on welfare does drugs. So much for that.
Nice insults. I love how you love to dish out the little comments. I also love further along in this thread you call out someone for insulting you when they didnt.
That one's easy. A lot of people grow it themselves. In some states it's even legal to do so.
What state besides Ca is it legal to grow pot?
Also what state is it legal in to do coke or heroin or meth? There is more drugs then pot
Fla it is not legal to do either but I know a couple that smokes over 100.00 a week in pot. They dont get married simply to keep the aid . Why should we be giving them almost 400.00 a mth in food stamps and daycare and insurance? The father lives with them earning around 20 an hour. They have been together since teen years and now in their mid 30s.
Can you please explain to me why they should be getting gov aid?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a better motivator than me looking for jobs for the welfare recipients is to cut them off the dole. Hunger is a powerful reason to find gainful employment. Very effective, too! 
