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.
There is nothing wrong with trying to discourage people from making those really bad life choices, like not being careful about using birth control and having children out of wedlock, or with an unstable partner or before one is actually able to afford to raise children.
In traditional cultures, it is considered very shameful to need charity or have bastard children. And the upside is that there are much fewer people needing handouts and fewer single mothers. And this use of shaming is also known as peer pressure to keep people doing the right thing, being productive rather than giving up and being slackers. In Denmark, those who are on welfare have to work in the public view as street sweepers. And rather than endure the embarrassment of everyone knowing that they are collecting welfare, the people there chose to make a greater effort to stay employed and being independent.
No one should ever feel good or even proud about collecting welfare, having a Section 8 voucher or accepting food stamps. The use of them should only be a very short term, temporary condition. Especially with unemployment numbers being at an all time low. Life can be tough at times for everyone, but one needs to have grit, persevere and push until one is productive again.
Your post reveals an ignorance without bounds for causes of poverty and the rising numbers of the working poor! Shame on you!
Last edited by corpgypsy; 03-12-2019 at 04:51 PM..
Sure, creating an enforcement system that costs more than the benefits and with minimal return makes a lot of sense. All this over a few dollars a week, don’t they have better things to do like addressing the opioid crisis.
Sure, creating an enforcement system that costs more than the benefits and with minimal return makes a lot of sense. All this over a few dollars a week, don’t they have better things to do like addressing the opioid crisis.
They tried this in Florida where the contract for lab work was awarded to a company owned by a relative of then-governor Rick Scott. They spent more in lab costs than they did "saving" money by denying benefits.
The fiscal argument is a failure.
Still, if it's a moral argument then anyone receiving government funds must be tested, not just the poor. That includes judges, law enforcement, elected officials and entities receiving corporate welfare (looking at you, auto/bank bailouts).
This proposal is just another way to demonize and criminalize poverty and line the pockets of wealthy politicians.
Ah, yes, lived in Florida then. Skeletor Governor also wanted to randomly drug test all state civil servants as well; himself and state legislators excluded. After all, you must be on drugs if you get a paycheck from the state. That went the way of the Dodo Bird.
Florida caught less than 1% on Welfare. Wifey and her drug testing company made a hell of a lot more money than the state saved.
Alabama needs to learn a lesson from it's neighbor.
They tried this in Florida where the contract for lab work was awarded to a company owned by a relative of then-governor Rick Scott. They spent more in lab costs than they did "saving" money by denying benefits.
The fiscal argument is a failure.
Still, if it's a moral argument then anyone receiving government funds must be tested, not just the poor. That includes judges, law enforcement, elected officials and entities receiving corporate welfare (looking at you, auto/bank bailouts).
This proposal is just another way to demonize and criminalize poverty and line the pockets of wealthy politicians.
Works for me, if I have to take a drug test for my income (employment) then they should be required to test for their income. Food stamps, is a form of income.
Works for me, if I have to take a drug test for my income (employment) then they should be required to test for their income. Food stamps, is a form of income.
The constitution bans the government from doing this, not a private employer.
Something like 5K people in Florida took and passed the test, assuming $50 for the test that's $250K for the test. Lets put it at even million, administrative expense etc. There is 1600 people that refused the test in in same time span and about another hundred that failed it. Assuming a conservative $300 in assistance per month they would not receive for 1 year..... that is almost 6 million. Those numebrs are off the top of my head, they may not be 100% accurate but close enough.
Any claim they did not or would not have saved money is absurd especially considering the program was never allowed to mature.
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.
