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.
Just read this news article and wanted to know what people thought. Also wonder what the effects will be on surrounding states.
Here is the article...
Only 49 more states to go! Hooray for Florida !
I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida , because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!
Hooray for Florida ! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free."
Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances, won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years!
Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.
How is this unconstitutional? It's a legal requirement that every person applying for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job, why not those who receive welfare?
Let's get welfare back to the ones who need it, not to those who won't get a job
The "drug war" is another thing. This is simply not funding people's habits with taxpayer money (although, of course, they can still drink). It's not unconstitutional. It is judgmental. However, how are the people going to pay for the tests even if they are reimbursed? Subtracted from the check?
(I've noticed how people who work for a living never refer to "my check," but people on the dole do.
"I've noticed how people who work for a living never refer to "my check," but people on the dole do."
I had a friend that got SSI and alimony at the same time, both were referred to as "my checks", plus she was living with a guy and he paid 80% of the bills...gotta wonder.
As for the testing. I am for it, although, it will be impossible to monitor, if they are given a testing notice, they will just stop until the drug is out of their system, take the test and pass, so
I am not sure what will be accomplished.
This will be a disaster. So, a Mother, tests positive for drugs...will CPS take her kids? After all, a druggie, is now known, and she has small children in her care....so, the state has a problem, either ignore the positive test, or?
Florida passed that law in 2011, and federal judges near about fell over themselves to overturn it. For some reason, it's perfectly okay with the constitution to have to take a drug test for employment, but not for those on the dole.
Alabama just tried to pass a law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants with a history of drug use, but it didn't pass. I guess they realized that Florida's plan cost more than it saved, and in the end got struck down anyway.
I say go for it and to the poor kids whose Mom just lost the welfare because getting high is more important than taking care of her kids, the kids probably already receive free breakfast, lunch and in soem places dinner from the school.
We need ot stop this crutch of welfare. There are way too many people that are on it that shouldn't be and they continue to hobble along. For those that truly need it keep it going to help them.
In MA. we have a huge problem with EBT cards. Money is deposited into these accounts for the holders and there is no accountability for them. It is OK to buy Booze, drugs, get a tattoo, all on the tax payers dime. There is something like 60,000 cards that money gets sent to and the state doesn't know who has those cards and they don't want to crack down on it.
We need to get tough on these programs. America is becoming a country of slobs and low life slackers and they are bankrupting us.
I am not necessarily against it, but hasn't it been proven that it costs the state more money than what it would save by requiring drug tests? I could be wrong, but I thought I had read that some time ago.
Just yersterday,some guy I know on SSI,food stamps,and living in Public housing said to me"Why do you work all those hhours(80) and don't have nothing to show for it?"
It took me awhile to think about it,but he is slightly right.
I don't own a home,and I own some cars,something he doesn't have.
The guy smokes and drinks ALL day everyday.
I say we should test for drugs. If I'm working and can't do drugs,why should they?
Rick Scott gets bashed a lot so this was nothing new but the guy does come out with a good idea every once in awhile.
I'm against the whole welfare system. It has become a way of life for generations of families as if it is their right to get paid for nothing. It is a nationwide problem from the hillbilly backwoods of West Virginia to the inner city.
1. Welfare should have time limits. If you can't get back on your feet in 24-36 months then you will never get on your feet.
2. Section 8 housing program needs to be cancelled. 90% of section 8 is ghetto living anyway so it is not like they want to live there. Real estate is a supply and demand business whether renting or buying. If section 8 evaporates, then prices for ghetto real estate will drop, right now they are being propped up by section 8 rates.
3. Programs that pay more per child need to be flat rated to discourage more children. Current benefits stay frozen as not to penalize existing children but if the program changes the way it is funded then people will eventually realize that more children are not going to be profitable.
4. Drug testing welfare is the right idea, if you don't like the parameters then don't ask for the money.
5. Get caught cheating the system.......banned for life. This should cut down on the debit card spending abuse (yeah welfare debit cards used in strip clubs, liquor stores, cruise ships, for buying lottery tickets).
Of course these beneficiaries of the system are "voters" and as Mitt once so famously said "47% of America won't vote for me" means if any politician openly promotes this then they will get crushed by the media blitz and not get voted in.
I do realize this is a parody but welfare topics always makes me think of this video:
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.
