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.
Workplace drug testing is largely being abandoned in America (except in cases where the government mandates it) because it is very cost-ineffective. Part of the reason I decided to go self-employed was because I didn't like the idea of submitting to someone else's drug testing as a condition of employment, and I told the employer as much. The company later abandoned drug testing for employees, partly because they lost people like me who rebelled against their policies.
As for welfare, states can make their own decisions. But when we talk about 'costs,' we have to look at ALL the costs. Homeless people and homeless drug addicts are very expensive for cities, because they require a lot of hospital treatment that is never paid for. If a welfare payout can keep them out of the hospital for even a few days more than homelessness, then counterintuitively, it becomes cost-effective in a raw economic sense pretty quickly.
But that's just the economics of it. Obviously there are non-economic social considerations as well.
I disagree with the testing sentiment, but for those who support it why not test everyone who receives a benefit, including Social Security recipients and farm price supports?
If we test everyone who receives a benefit, we have to test everyone.
I think those on welfare should have a big W placed on their foreheads so we know who is sucking the free stuff off of us. Kinda like we do drunk drivers and the yellow plates. That will make them get a job real quick...............
Yeah. And we could have a different color W to put on the foreheads of Whiners...
Yes most definitely welfare recipients should be drug tested. There is no reason they should be allowed to lay around using drugs while the rest of us (who are drug tested) must go out and earn a living for them.
How about coffee? Are they allowed to have coffee while they're all just laying around? What if it's from Starbuck's? And pizza...are they allowed to order extra cheese with that?
People on welfare certainly do have the same choice -- if you can tell a job seeker to go get another job -- then we can tell the welfare recipient to go get a job too -- one that doesn't test for drugs.
Well, there's at least one flaw in your analysis, and that has to do with the number of welfare recipients in comparison to the number of available jobs that welfare recipents can qualify for.
Some of you seem to think that welfare people are all college grads who've decided to drop out of the rat race and live the life of ease on welfare for a while. All we need to do is "incentivize" them a little and they'll all go back into accounting or whatever and our taxes will all go down. Suffice it to say that your understanding of the problem is on the limited side.
While it is entirely true that a majority of people who are on welfare themselves cite drug abuse (that's abuse, not use, for those of you who are unaccustomed to making any distinction between the two) as a major factor that keeps people from getting off welfare, the implication of that is to provide means by which people can get clean. Treatment is cheaper than benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
So -- if welfare handouts are stopped for drug addicts -- then the welfare recipients who want to use drugs have TWO choices: 1. get a job, 2: stop using drugs.
Well, they'll all go with Door #1. Unfortunately, the job they get will be knocking you over the head with a big stick and swiping your purse or wallet. Since you're an expert on choice, you should know that if you leave people no alternative but to commit desperate acts, they will choose to commit desperate acts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
And for welfare women -- it should be required they are infertile in some way -- either a birth control patch or sterilization. There is no reason at all to breed a welfare class.
So, you're a eugenicist promoting the concept of designer-babies. Interesting...
What? No mandatory vasectomy for the deadbeat dads? Just the women, huh?
Ok, we'll sterilize the men, too. I'd be all for that. Happy now?
Here's my bottom line. If you are dependent on the state and, therefore, on me and other working, productive members of society, you have to play by our rules. If we want to drug test you, you better be ready to **** in the cup. If we tell you to stop having kids, you better start practicing safe sex. If you are unable to figure out how a condom works, we can take care of that, too. Hell, if it were up to me, when you sign up for welfare, you'd be taken off the voting rolls. Why should you get a say in how the country is run when you're not contributing anything to the benefit of the country? Of course the Dems wouldn't like that because they'd lose a huge chunk of their base, but it help stop people getting elected simply by promising more of my paycheck to someone sitting on their butt, not doing anything with themselves.
Christmas time, DW and I are in line to get checked out, the lady in front of me was nicely dressed, rings and jewels everywhere, nice fur coat, expensive purse etc, the whole 9 yards. Hair done perfectly etc. She had a cart FULL of baskets of candy, I thought wow she must really like that candy to pay 20 bucks for a basket full of candy let along a whole cart full. The clerk said to her, wow... you must really like xxxx candy. She said no, I always give my family these as Christmas gifts. Moral is.......... this scumbag pulled out an Welfare card and paid for her families Christmas gifts with my tax money !! Amazing. Our car was parked in the same row as hers and you wont believe what she was driving... you guessed it a brand new Explorer!
MOD CUT If she was swiping a welfare card at the grocery store (and assuming that you were actually able to tell what sort of card it was in the fractions of a second that you would have been able to see it), then it was an EBT card linked to her food stamp benefits. People who own a vehicle valued at more than $6,650 are ineligible for food stamps. People with net incomes of above $1,721 per month (for a family of four) are ineligible for food stamps. (Try affording the nice fur coat and a Coach bag on that.) The food stamp benefits for a family of four earning that net $1,721 a month are $26 a month. Not going to cover a cartful of candy-baskets at $20 a pop.
Bottom Line: You made this crap up, just like all the other Whiners who post such tales of welfare fraud and abuse that they have "witnessed" at the grocery store. But in case the day ever comes when you actually DO observe a case of welfare fraud and abuse, here is the number at which to report it in Ohio...1-800-627-8133.
Last edited by NewToCA; 12-31-2007 at 10:35 AM..
Reason: turn it down a tad
If she was swiping a welfare card at the grocery store (and assuming that you were actually able to tell what sort of card it was in the fractions of a second that you would have been able to see it), then it was an EBT card linked to her food stamp benefits. People who own a vehicle valued at more than $6,650 are ineligible for food stamps. People with net incomes of above $1,721 per month (for a family of four) are ineligible for food stamps. (Try affording the nice fur coat and a Coach bag on that.) The food stamp benefits for a family of four earning that net $1,721 a month are $26 a month. Not going to cover a cartful of candy-baskets at $20 a pop.
Bottom Line: You made this crap up, just like all the other Whiners who post such tales of welfare fraud and abuse that they have "witnessed" at the grocery store. But in case the day ever comes when you actually DO observe a case of welfare fraud and abuse, here is the number at which to report it in Ohio...1-800-627-8133.
Now, I know each state is different... but if the food stamp benefit is $26 a month for a family of four, please explain to me how the average food stamp transaction (at the Wal-mart I worked at) ranked at around $160/transaction. Walmart keeps tabs on what payment is used for how much - and the stats are not private.
And I could easily tell a Virginia EBT card from any other card. In fact, many other previous cashiers can easily tell an EBT card (of their state) from another. Virginia's are sky blue with a cardinal. They're also the cheapest pieces of dirt and over half of the ones I dealt with wouldn't swipe.
I'm not saying this person isn't making it up - I'm just saying that it is possible. If the items are marked as "Seasonal candy" instead of "seasonal", it's possible to pay with EBT. Because Seasonal Candy is a food item. And I have rung up people who get large amounts of candy and junk food - and they pay with EBT. I've also rung up people who are buying lobster, filet mignon and other "fancies" who get EBT.
I will also point to the sale of a house nearby my father's. About 7 years ago, a guy gave away some of his land to Habitat for Humanity. They built this cute little house (I helped) and the family moved in. Everyone was astonished when they arrived. TWO brand new Lexus cars... and one brand new Lexus SUV. All three had temporary tags. They spent their necessary time in the house, and now it's for sale. $285,000. 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 800 square foot.
Back to the topic of drug testing. So, we know who's on drugs and who's not. Now what? Do we cancel all benefits until they're clean? Desperate people will do desperate things. Personally, I'd rather let them keep their benefits and hope that their children will (hopefully) learn to not continue down that path.
Maybe get these people rehabilitation if they want benefits. Only problem is that once they return from the program back into society, they will get peer pressured into going back to "life as normal".
Now, I know each state is different... but if the food stamp benefit is $26 a month for a family of four, please explain to me how the average food stamp transaction (at the Wal-mart I worked at) ranked at around $160/transaction. Walmart keeps tabs on what payment is used for how much - and the stats are not private.
The food stamp benefit is $26/month for a family of four with a net income of $1,721/month, which is at the very upper limit of being eligible at all. The average monthly food stamp benefit among actual recipients is about $90 per person. To be eligible to do $160 per week, meanwhile, a family of 5 would have to have zero net income. That would earn a benefit of $643/month. More than likely, the families you saw were doing more than a week's shopping at a time, or they were doing one week on food stamps and the next out of pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
And I could easily tell a Virginia EBT card from any other card. In fact, many other previous cashiers can easily tell an EBT card (of their state) from another.
Oh, I didn't say he couldn't tell what it was. I said assuming that he could. Not many have the experience necessary to fall into the category of instant EBT card recognizers, particularly in a world of special interest credit cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
If the items are marked as "Seasonal candy" instead of "seasonal", it's possible to pay with EBT. Because Seasonal Candy is a food item. And I have rung up people who get large amounts of candy and junk food - and they pay with EBT. I've also rung up people who are buying lobster, filet mignon and other "fancies" who get EBT.
No argument there. What's in and what's out doesn't always seem to make perfect sense, and like items can fall on either side of the line. But alcohol and tobacco are out, and look at how often you see people reporting that they've seen a fifth of Jack Daniels and two cartons of Marlboro's being rung up on their EBT tax dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
I will also point to the sale of a house nearby my father's. About 7 years ago, a guy gave away some of his land to Habitat for Humanity...
Habitat is a private charity. I don't know what criteria or processes they use to determine eligibility. Food stamps are a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
Back to the topic of drug testing. So, we know who's on drugs and who's not. Now what? Do we cancel all benefits until they're clean? Desperate people will do desperate things. Personally, I'd rather let them keep their benefits and hope that their children will (hopefully) learn to not continue down that path. Maybe get these people rehabilitation if they want benefits. Only problem is that once they return from the program back into society, they will get peer pressured into going back to "life as normal".
People demand 100% success rates. 100% of the people can't recite their full names ten times in a row without messing up. To me, the paradigm to work from is harm reduction. Maximize the good we can do while keeping costs within reason. Then reassess what's left over and why. Pulling people's benefits does not contribute to harm reduction at all. Rather it promotes harm, first to the former recipient, and then to the victims he or she is forced to pick out. It's just narrow, perhaps even sadistic, short-term thinking that leads in that direction.
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.
