Drug Test to Receive Welfare?

[cce1302]

I like what Mike said.

We spend less than $100 a week on groceries-family of 5. That includes diapers and baby food and formula for my youngest. She's almost through with formula and baby food, maybe one more month.
Alcohol-Zero
Tobacco-Zero
junk food-very little.

My wife normally tells me what dinner cost (and lunches are free since they are normally leftovers). We often feed the entire family for less than five dollars. Sometimes less than three dollars for an entire meal. I consider the venison as virtually free since the shotgun is more than ten years old, I haven't bought hunting ammo for 3 years, and processing costs less than a dollar a pound.

Concerning drug tests for welfare recipients, absolutely. I have no problem with people ODing on whatever they want to OD on as long as they are taking their idiocy out of the gene pool. What I have a problem with is my tax dollars contributing to their habit. I don't want to enable them. I don't want to condone their behavior. If I had the choice, I wouldn't contribute any welfare dollars to drug addicts.

What I don't get is that I (and everybody in the military) have to undergo mandatory drug testing for the privilege of working my butt off for the chance to die for my country. Why can't welfare recipients take a drug test in order to take on the responsibility of sitting around collecting welfare checks? I guess if I pop on a test, I'll just go straight to the welfare office, pass go, and collect two hundred dollars. Sounds good to me.

 

[ATF Consumer]

**** happens that we have no control of and unemployment insurance was meant for that purpose.

Agreed.

I suppose the only benefit I can see to this is that if my company fails, which it may very well in this economy, I myself would have the unemployment insurance to fall back on.

Would I feel bad for taking this? Absolutely not, as I have paid into this system for 7 continuous year without ever seeing 1 red cent of it.

I suppose I would feel way better about this if the employee made a contribution into the system as well.

 

[SERVED_USMC]

Dont have time to read all 9 pages so....

If a plan does get set into place that would require drug testing for welfare recipients I think it would fail horribly. Yes, the amount of people that get it now would be cut down substantially. Yes, that aspect would save money. You also have to consider though that if this does become common practice the bleeding hearts out there would ask for free rehabilitation programs for people that could not pass the drug tests. Therefore costing more money in the long run for programs that would probably do no good 99% of the time anyways. Thats my only beef, you know something like that would come up.

 

[Gatlin]

Just my two cents.

Welfare should not pay more than minimum wage.

Anyone receiving welfare should be required to pass a drug test and work for the county. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick up trash along the county roads.

There are plenty of jobs - lazy americans just don't want them. If jobs were not available why would illegals be pouring into our country at an alarming rate.

 

[USMC_0311]

Agreed.

I suppose the only benefit I can see to this is that if my company fails, which it may very well in this economy, I myself would have the unemployment insurance to fall back on.

I hope you are on the payroll like your employees. I learned the hard way and paid myself when I could with no deductions taken out. So I couldn't collect unemployment until I got a job, held it for a period of time....then lost said job by no fault of my own to collect it. You can't collect if you have not worked and you can only collect for a certain amount of time. I don't know the details because I have not collected for over 20 years and then only for a few weeks while laid off.

Drug testing for welfare? I don't believe in welfare as the way it is now so the only thing I see testing doing is creating more government bureaucracy. It would be intersting to see how many people got denied.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I hope you are on the payroll like your employees. I learned the hard way and paid myself when I could with no deductions taken out. So I couldn't collect unemployment until I got a job, held it for a period of time....then lost said job by no fault of my own to collect it. You can't collect if you have not worked and you can only collect for a certain amount of time. I don't know the details because I have not collected for over 20 years and then only for a few weeks while laid off.

Drug testing for welfare? I don't believe in welfare as the way it is now so the only thing I see testing doing is creating more government bureaucracy. It would be intersting to see how many people got denied.

Yes, I've been on the payroll for about 6 years...I spent the first year with no pay from the company and worked UPS in the mornings to help cover costs. I now pay myself $26k per year and my wife makes $14k per year.
We do also take draws once in a while, but we live very cheaply, other than our friggin house payment .

I think our total gross income last year was in the low 50's.
Heck, when I did computer consulting in the late 90's, I myself made over 60k.

We are trying a few last step efforts to save our company from failure, but our volume has dropped off to the point that we are not even covering all of the operating costs.
I suppose if it fails, it was meant to fail, as I don't want a bailout like many think they deserve. We have had opportunities to gain additional credit, but at this point, any loan we received from the Small Business Administration would be immediately bought up by the government and then we would have to answer to their additional requirements and restrictions. There is other credit available too, but we have so much debt right now, all I see is us digging a bigger hole to try to climb out of.

Maybe letting my company fail is going to be better off for me...I mean, I work my ass off. I have never worked so hard in 7 years of my life, ever.
So, working only 8 hours a day would be a breeze for me. I usually put in around 12 hours a day and I can't even begin to count the number of all nighters I pulled to get the work out the door.
We are giving our company 1 more quarter to show some progress, if we don't see any hope, we will be pulling the plug and I will be in search of work.
I have heard that entrepreneurs have a "don't give up" attitude, and I believe I fall within that description. So, I can certainly see me trying another business in the future, it certainly wouldn't be in printing, that's for sure. Maybe a gun store would be in order.

 

[public servant]

I have no problem with a welfare system. However....things would be run a little differently.

Your say you're unable to work...physically unable to hold down a regular job? You'll need to go to a doctor to verify this. And it won't be your doctor. It will be one from my chosing. Now....he agrees. Here's your check...along with a list of jobs you CAN do to offset the cost to the taxpayers for footing the bill for you. Be it filing, stuffing envelopes, picking up trash along side of the road, making phone calls....you'll do SOMETHING to earn your keep as long as you're physically disabled. It won't be anything that causes you harm or that you're physically unable to do.

A few more stipulations. No more kids. You will not be given increased payments for more children than you already have. You do however have a couple of options to achieve this goal. You can opt to be sterilized....or you can keep your legs together. And you are correct, baby-daddy is half to blame. We'll find him and he'll either pay his share or he'll do hard labor hooked to a chain gang....for as long as it takes. Remember, no increased payments. Any other children you have will be removed and given to families willing to adopt that can afford them if you stay on the assistance. As long as you're deemed physically unable to work....you'll not starve, nor will those children you had BEFORE applying for the benefits. But remember....you WILL work for it. Any deviation from this plan will cause you to be ineligible for future benefits and any remaining children removed.

Just a few more rules....Mandatory, monthly drug and alcohol testing. Also, no frills. We don't pay for cable or internet. We will assist you with housing, food, heat, electricity and other BASIC necessities. Remember, cell phones are not a necessity. Neither are snack foods, pop, or boxed foods. You'll need to learn how to COOK. There will be monthly, unannounced visits by social workers to assure you're living up to your part of the bargain. No live-ins while you're receiving benefits. You WILL provide a clean, safe household for your children. Any evidence that you are not will lead to them being removed and placed for adoption and the loss of your benefits.

But the doctor says you can work and there is nothing wrong with you???....get the hell out of here and get a job!!

Now, let's say...you're just down and out....need a helping hand? Able to work? Yes? No problem. We will assist you while you're looking for work. All the same benefits and rules as above. But....plan to work off your debt. We will schedule job interviews for you after your working hours for the taxpayer are complete. Oh....and to assist you in being weened off the system....it lasts for 12 months. You can't get anymore weened than that. So I wouldn't waste a lot of time holding out for that management position. Again, you'll need to remain drug and alcohol free during the duration of your benefits. Lost your job 12 months down the road through no fault of your own? Bummer....same rules apply. Not to worry. The labor you do while on assistance will MORE than make up for it. We're not going to work you to death, but you do have a debt to the taxpayer to pay off. Refuse to work and you starve.

Now....one more group. Worked hard all your life, paid taxes all your life but the retirement and social security just won't allow you to make ends meet no matter how hard you try? The small savings you had is almost gone due to the high cost of living? Not a problem. You did work for a living all your life...and you worked hard. You've never asked for anything. You WILL be taken care of. You won't live like kings and queens, but we know that's not what you're looking for. You're only looking for enough help to make ends meet...perhaps assistance with your meds, a few groceries and maybe utility assistance. What's that? You'd like to do something to help pay it back? We knew you would. We'll find you a little something to help. And God bless you for doing so much for so little to help make this country as great as it once was....your breed dwindles a little more each day.

Pretty simple solutions in my eyes...and I'm sure much cheaper.

 

[public servant]

Oh...and one more thing. If at any time while you are receiving benefits your are convicted of a crime, all benefits are immediately cancelled.

 

[public servant]

I was in the Kroger in The Hill the other night and two healthy, young guys...early 20's...were in line in front of me. Each purchased a candy bar and a Mt. Dew and paid for them with their Welfare Platinum cards.... WTF is up with that???

 

[HICKMAN]

Just my two cents.

Welfare should not pay more than minimum wage.

Anyone receiving welfare should be required to pass a drug test and work for the county. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick up trash along the county roads.

There are plenty of jobs - lazy americans just don't want them. If jobs were not available why would illegals be pouring into our country at an alarming rate.

AMEN! and Rep'd!

 

[HICKMAN]

Still ticks me off in Walmart when I see people pulling out these cards spending money on totally useless ****!

I've debated doing a documentary on the wastefulness of all this...

but of course I'd get labeled a racist for profiling people...

 

[Chefcook]

I do not support mandatory drug testing for anyone. It is an invasion of privacy and I believe it is wrong. Many of you have stated that you have to submit to testing to keep your job so therefore its only fair that others have to do the same. I disagree two wrongs do not make a right. This is just another form of one group of people trying to control another. Lending this authority to government only opens the door for future infringement upon our rights in general. As far as any of you that do submit to testing in the work place you have done that by choice. You chose to work there, your personal choices do not give you any right to impose what you have had to endure upon another.

There is a lot said here about welfare. I could wright a book on my ill feelings towards welfare. If welfare be the question its the system of welfare that needs to be addressed. There are I am sure family's that have been on welfare for generations and to them it is a way of life. This never should have been allowed in the first place and should be remedied. Welfare should be a temporary assistance not a permanent solution. However any change should not be at the cost of any constitutional right. A person on welfare or a person not should not be subjected to anything that a person of independent wealth would not be. Everyone's rights should be the same.

 

[Turtle]

I do not support mandatory drug testing for anyone. It is an invasion of privacy and I believe it is wrong. Many of you have stated that you have to submit to testing to keep your job so therefore its only fair that others have to do the same. I disagree two wrongs do not make a right. This is just another form of one group of people trying to control another. Lending this authority to government only opens the door for future infringement upon our rights in general. As far as any of you that do submit to testing in the work place you have done that by choice. You chose to work there, your personal choices do not give you any right to impose what you have had to endure upon another.

There is a lot said here about welfare. I could wright a book on my ill feelings towards welfare. If welfare be the question its the system of welfare that needs to be addressed. There are I am sure family's that have been on welfare for generations and to them it is a way of life. This never should have been allowed in the first place and should be remedied. Welfare should be a temporary assistance not a permanent solution. However any change should not be at the cost of any constitutional right. A person on welfare or a person not should not be subjected to anything that a person of independent wealth would not be. Everyone's rights should be the same.

some one finally gets it! listen and learn from this man!

 

[public servant]

I do not support mandatory drug testing for anyone. It is an invasion of privacy and I believe it is wrong. Many of you have stated that you have to submit to testing to keep your job so therefore its only fair that others have to do the same. I disagree two wrongs do not make a right. This is just another form of one group of people trying to control another. Lending this authority to government only opens the door for future infringement upon our rights in general. As far as any of you that do submit to testing in the work place you have done that by choice. You chose to work there, your personal choices do not give you any right to impose what you have had to endure upon another.

There is a lot said here about welfare. I could wright a book on my ill feelings towards welfare. If welfare be the question its the system of welfare that needs to be addressed. There are I am sure family's that have been on welfare for generations and to them it is a way of life. This never should have been allowed in the first place and should be remedied. Welfare should be a temporary assistance not a permanent solution. However any change should not be at the cost of any constitutional right. A person on welfare or a person not should not be subjected to anything that a person of independent wealth would not be. Everyone's rights should be the same.

Mandatory drug testing by employers has already been deemed Constitutional. As long as the Gov't. pays their assistance, the taxpayer is in essence their employer.

 

[Chefcook]

Have any courts ruled that mandatory urine testing of government
employees is a violation of the Constitution?

Yes. Many state and federal courts have ruled that testing programs
in public workplaces are unconstitutional if they are not based on
some kind of individualized suspicion. Throughout the country, courts
have struck down programs that randomly tested police officers, fire-
fighters, teachers, civilian army employees, prison guards and
employees of many federal agencies. The ACLU and public employee
unions have represented most of these victorious workers. In
Washington, D.C., for example, one federal judge had this to say
about a random drug testing program that would affect thousands of
government employees: "This case presents for judicial consideration
a wholesale deprivation of the most fundamental privacy rights of
thousands upon thousands of loyal, law-abiding citizens...." In
1989, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the
constitutionality of testing government employees not actually
suspected of drug use. In two cases involving U.S. Customs guards and
railroad workers, the majority of the Court held that urine tests are
searches, but that these particular employees could be tested without
being suspected drug users on the grounds that their Fourth Amendment
right to privacy was outweighed by the government's interest in
maintaining a drug-free workplace. Although these decisions represent
a ruling, it does not affect all government workers, and the fight
over the constitutionality of testing is far from over.


If the Constitution can't help them, how can private employees
protect themselves against drug testing?

Court challenges to drug testing programs in private workplaces are
underway throughout the country. These lawsuits involve state
constitutional and statutory laws rather than federal constitutional
law. Some are based on common law actions that charge specific,
intentional injuries; others are breach of contract claims. Some have
been successful, while others have failed. Traditionally, employers
in the private sector have had extremely broad discretion in
personnel matters. In most states, private sector employees have
virtually no protection against drug testing's intrusion on their
privacy, unless they belong to a union that has negotiated the
prohibition or restriction of workplace testing. One exception to
this bleak picture is California, in which the state constitution
specifies a right to privacy that applies, not only to government
action, but to actions by private business as well.

The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone
to find the few who might be guilty of an offense.

In addition to California, seven states have enacted protective
legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and
gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable
testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all
random or drug testing of employees (that is, testing without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and
Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety
sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate
confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality
of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not
perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers'
otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power
to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

 

[public servant]

I stand corrected. There are some states that limit when and how these tests can be administered. Personally...I have no problem with it. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for anyone I'm footing the bill for. Once I stop footing the bill...smoke up, drink up, shoot up. No problem.

And you realize you're quoting the ACLU...right??

 

[hornadylnl]

We need to start purging the disability roles as well. It pays for private insurance to investigate fraudulent disability claims, you know it will do the same for social security disability.

 

[HICKMAN]

I could care less about the testing, I'm for ending welfare...

 

[IUGradStudent]

I only read the first 30 posts or so, but I just wanted to give this to space turtle:

:dumbass:

And this to ATFConsumer:



This is you and me, ATF:

 

[USMC_0311]

Yes, I've been on the payroll for about 6 years...I spent the first year with no pay from the company and worked UPS in the mornings to help cover costs. I now pay myself $26k per year and my wife makes $14k per year.
We do also take draws once in a while, but we live very cheaply, other than our friggin house payment .

I think our total gross income last year was in the low 50's.
Heck, when I did computer consulting in the late 90's, I myself made over 60k.

We are trying a few last step efforts to save our company from failure, but our volume has dropped off to the point that we are not even covering all of the operating costs.
I suppose if it fails, it was meant to fail, as I don't want a bailout like many think they deserve. We have had opportunities to gain additional credit, but at this point, any loan we received from the Small Business Administration would be immediately bought up by the government and then we would have to answer to their additional requirements and restrictions. There is other credit available too, but we have so much debt right now, all I see is us digging a bigger hole to try to climb out of.

Maybe letting my company fail is going to be better off for me...I mean, I work my ass off. I have never worked so hard in 7 years of my life, ever.
So, working only 8 hours a day would be a breeze for me. I usually put in around 12 hours a day and I can't even begin to count the number of all nighters I pulled to get the work out the door.
We are giving our company 1 more quarter to show some progress, if we don't see any hope, we will be pulling the plug and I will be in search of work.
I have heard that entrepreneurs have a "don't give up" attitude, and I believe I fall within that description. So, I can certainly see me trying another business in the future, it certainly wouldn't be in printing, that's for sure. Maybe a gun store would be in order.

When I closed up shop with in 4 weeks my most of my gray hair went a way. They say most millionaires filled bankruptcy at least once. The higher up you go the harder you have work. I hope things turn around for you we need more small business owners like you. I have had 2 business both some what successful for a while. I will try it again with out fear of failure because being your own boss is the best work anyone could have. God Bless