PDA

View Full Version : Economics Welfare drug test bill passes NC Senate


3rd&48ers
04-23-2013, 05:41 PM
Welfare drug test bill passes NC Senate


GREENSBORO, NC — Senate Bill 594, which would require applicants for North Carolina’s WorkFirst Program to take and pass a drug test before receiving benefits, passed the state Senate on Monday.
WorkFirst allows adults to get cash benefits for themselves and their children as they look for work. More than 21,000 North Carolinians use the program, and more than 1200 of those are in Guilford County.
Steve Hays, with Guilford County’s Department of Social Services, said current law requires a licensed professional to evaluate applicants. That person can ask for a drug test if he or she feels it’s necessary.
SB 594 would require the testing up front for all potential recipients, and it would require the applicants to pay for that testing. If the applicant passes, according to the bill, the state would reimburse him or her. If he or she fails, there are no benefits and no reimbursement.
A Guilford County senator proposed an amendment requiring all legislators and their staff members to take and pass drug tests, as well, but that amendment failed.
Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it must pass the House and then be signed by Governor Pat McCrory to become a law.

http://myfox8.com/2013/04/23/welfare-drug-test-bill-passes-nc-senate/

chefs fan in omaha
04-23-2013, 05:47 PM
About time

3rd&48ers
04-23-2013, 05:50 PM
About time

Yup, I have to take random drug tests to do my job to get money and benefits .

LiveSteam
04-23-2013, 05:59 PM
Nice

La literatura
04-23-2013, 06:29 PM
I would have supported an incremental effect, which incentivizes good behavior. The unintended consequence in NC now is that the state could have a bunch of people on drugs who, because they can't get food stamps, start stealing from stores.

Drugs are an addiction, so it's important to support a drug addict in ways that would help the person wean off the addiction. If we give him no support, we might see an increase in crime.

LiveSteam
04-23-2013, 06:51 PM
If we give him no support, we might see an increase in crime.

Is buying or purchasing illegal drug's for an addiction not a crime?

La literatura
04-23-2013, 06:53 PM
Is buying or purchasing illegal drug's for an addiction not a crime?

Yes, it is. Is buying illegal drugs plus stealing a loaf of bread an increase in crime from just buying illegal drugs?

LiveSteam
04-23-2013, 06:56 PM
Yes, it is. Is buying illegal drugs plus stealing a loaf of bread an increase in crime from just buying illegal drugs?

Not if its Walmart bread. But hey I love your answer,

FD
04-23-2013, 07:08 PM
If this is being done, it should be across the board for any government benefits; unemployment, social security, medicare, etc.

Claynus
04-23-2013, 07:19 PM
THIS is how you save a little money on the federal budget.

Should be nationwide.

mlyonsd
04-23-2013, 07:51 PM
I have no problem it but this made me laugh.


A Guilford County senator proposed an amendment requiring all legislators and their staff members to take and pass drug tests, as well, but that amendment failed.

Loneiguana
04-23-2013, 08:17 PM
This has been tried and failed. It will fail here as well.

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

"The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0


More info written before the results, but cite earlier studies:

"Several studies, including a 1996 report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have found that there is no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

That happens to be Florida’s experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court."


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/drug-testing-the-poor-bad-policy-even-worse-law/#ixzz2RLJiEGiX


Welfare Drug testing is nothing more than Republicans lying about poor people (again) to increase the size of the government in the private lives of citizens. With the added benefit of spending more money. And maybe it is unconstitutional.

Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Blocked By Federal Judge:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/rick-scott-drug-testing-welfare-florida_n_1029332.html

Loneiguana
04-23-2013, 08:27 PM
More information on the fate of the failed Florida welfare drug testing bill:

Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court
Posted: 02/26/2013 2:38 pm EST

"A federal appeals court upheld a lower court's injunction on Tuesday against Florida's effort to make welfare applicants pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs.

In a strongly-worded opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a lower court's October 2011 finding that Florida failed to demonstrate a special need for drug testing poverty-stricken parents who apply for cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

"The evidence in this record does not suggest that the population of TANF recipients engages in illegal drug use or that they misappropriate government funds for drugs at the expense of their own and their children's basic subsistence," the three-judge panel wrote. "The State has presented no evidence that simply because an applicant for TANF benefits is having financial problems, he is also drug addicted or prone to fraudulent and neglectful behavior.""

Read more Here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/florida-welfare-drug-testing_n_2766479.html

So, my bet is that this bill will be put on hold similar to Georgia's bill. It won't be implemented until Florida's law is completely struck down. I'm glad we'll waste more taxpayer money bringing it to the Supreme Court.. :banghead:

Bump
04-23-2013, 08:34 PM
now they just need to remove weed from these drug tests.

mlyonsd
04-23-2013, 08:38 PM
More information on the fate of the failed Florida welfare drug testing bill:

Florida Welfare Drug Testing Law Gets No Reprieve From Appeals Court
Posted: 02/26/2013 2:38 pm EST

"A federal appeals court upheld a lower court's injunction on Tuesday against Florida's effort to make welfare applicants pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs.

In a strongly-worded opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a lower court's October 2011 finding that Florida failed to demonstrate a special need for drug testing poverty-stricken parents who apply for cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

"The evidence in this record does not suggest that the population of TANF recipients engages in illegal drug use or that they misappropriate government funds for drugs at the expense of their own and their children's basic subsistence," the three-judge panel wrote. "The State has presented no evidence that simply because an applicant for TANF benefits is having financial problems, he is also drug addicted or prone to fraudulent and neglectful behavior.""

Read more Here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/florida-welfare-drug-testing_n_2766479.html

So, my bet is that this bill will be put on hold similar to Georgia's bill. It won't be implemented until Florida's law is completely struck down. I'm glad we'll waste more taxpayer money bringing it to the Supreme Court.. :banghead:So I have to randomly pee into a cup for the right to pay taxes while someone else shouldn't be forced to do the same thing to receive free taxpayer money.

Brilliant fucking plan.

|Zach|
04-23-2013, 11:51 PM
THIS is how you save a little money on the federal budget.

Should be nationwide.

Not really. (edit: someone already beat me to it!)

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy

Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.

The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.

Attorneys for the state immediately appealed the ban, and will face off against the ACLU again at the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta and the U.S. District Court in Orlando in coming months.

The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law.

Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said.

Data about the law’s cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said it won’t play a role in the legal proceedings.

That’s because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches" by the government.

"Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional," Meale said.

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

"That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.

The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.

"It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue," said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. "It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs."

Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work.

"It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs," she said.

Smith said he believes the law helps keep people off drugs and that there’s undocumented savings in the form of less prison costs and fewer broken families.

He sponsored another bill in 2012, recently signed into law by Scott, to allow state agencies to drug test their employees and fire those who test positive.

That law is also expected to cost money and to yield lawsuits.

rabblerouser
04-24-2013, 06:13 AM
I would have supported an incremental effect, which incentivizes good behavior. The unintended consequence in NC now is that the state could have a bunch of people on drugs who, because they can't get food stamps, start stealing from stores.

Drugs are an addiction, so it's important to support a drug addict in ways that would help the person wean off the addiction. If we give him no support, we might see an increase in crime.


And then either he'll get caught and put into the system, thus getting him the 'help' needed...

or he'll try to steal from the wrong person, get shot and hopefully killed, thus eliminating his doping, theiving DNA from the gene pool.

See, these things usually work themselves out.

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 06:14 AM
So I have to randomly pee into a cup for the right to pay taxes while someone else shouldn't be forced to do the same thing to receive free taxpayer money.

Brilliant ****ing plan.

You have to pee in a cup to pay taxes?

So increasing government reach into american citizens private lives and increasing government budgets is the reasonable thing to do because you have to pee in a cup for your job?

/it's called the private workplace. You choose to work there.

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 06:17 AM
And then either he'll get caught and put into the system, thus getting him the 'help' needed...

or he'll try to steal from the wrong person, get shot and hopefully killed, thus eliminating his doping, theiving DNA from the gene pool.

See, these things usually work themselves out.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

La literatura
04-24-2013, 06:17 AM
And then either he'll get caught and put into the system, thus getting him the 'help' needed...

or he'll try to steal from the wrong person, get shot and hopefully killed, thus eliminating his doping, theiving DNA from the gene pool.

See, these things usually work themselves out.

Or he could end up shooting some clerk at a grocery store who tries to fight him.

If he goes to jail, that costs a lot more than getting food stamps. And it's not federal money then. Now you're talking about state/county funds.

I don't know if your idea of "work out" is similar to most peoples.

rabblerouser
04-24-2013, 06:28 AM
Or he could end up shooting some clerk at a grocery store who tries to fight him.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but most every store clerk is instructed not to resist during the commission of a robbery, yes??



If he goes to jail, that costs a lot more than getting food stamps. And it's not federal money then. Now you're talking about state/county funds.

So, you're saying that they're a complete burden, regardless??

O
I don't know if your idea of "work out" is similar to most peoples.

it's not.

We would have a much more logical and efficient world if it were...

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 06:39 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most every store clerk is instructed not to resist during the commission of a robbery, yes??

So, you're saying that they're a complete burden, regardless??

it's not.
We would have a much more logical and efficient world if it were...

I'm trying to figure out why you would be okay with an increase in crime just for the off chance somebody gets killed. Nothing about that makes sense.

La literatura
04-24-2013, 06:43 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most every store clerk is instructed not to resist during the commission of a robbery, yes??


I hope so. Do you think some clerks wouldn't resist if they thought they could? I worked at Hy-Vee, and my manager tackled a thief in the parking lot.

So, you're saying that they're a complete burden, regardless??

No, I'm saying that throwing him in jail would be more of a cost burden than giving him food stamps.

If this is all about saving money, then you need to consider this. If it's about punishing poor drug users, then just say so.

King_Chief_Fan
04-24-2013, 06:58 AM
Welfare drug test bill passes NC Senate


GREENSBORO, NC — Senate Bill 594, which would require applicants for North Carolina’s WorkFirst Program to take and pass a drug test before receiving benefits, passed the state Senate on Monday.
WorkFirst allows adults to get cash benefits for themselves and their children as they look for work. More than 21,000 North Carolinians use the program, and more than 1200 of those are in Guilford County.
Steve Hays, with Guilford County’s Department of Social Services, said current law requires a licensed professional to evaluate applicants. That person can ask for a drug test if he or she feels it’s necessary.
SB 594 would require the testing up front for all potential recipients, and it would require the applicants to pay for that testing. If the applicant passes, according to the bill, the state would reimburse him or her. If he or she fails, there are no benefits and no reimbursement.
A Guilford County senator proposed an amendment requiring all legislators and their staff members to take and pass drug tests, as well, but that amendment failed.
Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it must pass the House and then be signed by Governor Pat McCrory to become a law.

http://myfox8.com/2013/04/23/welfare-drug-test-bill-passes-nc-senate/

double standard?
County, State and Federal employees are paid by the public. They should be required to pass a drug screen as well.

AndChiefs
04-24-2013, 08:44 AM
Not really. (edit: someone already beat me to it!)

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy

Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.

The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.

Attorneys for the state immediately appealed the ban, and will face off against the ACLU again at the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta and the U.S. District Court in Orlando in coming months.

The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law.

Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said.

Data about the law’s cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said it won’t play a role in the legal proceedings.

That’s because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches" by the government.

"Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional," Meale said.

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

"That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.

The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.

"It’s not about money, it’s about the drug issue," said Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, who sponsored the legislation. "It’s about using every tool we have in the toolbox to fight drugs."

Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said the governor agreed: The drug welfare law is about protecting children and getting parents back to work.

"It is important to ensure that people who receive TANF dollars use the cash assistance appropriately and not spend it on illegal drugs," she said.

Smith said he believes the law helps keep people off drugs and that there’s undocumented savings in the form of less prison costs and fewer broken families.

He sponsored another bill in 2012, recently signed into law by Scott, to allow state agencies to drug test their employees and fire those who test positive.

That law is also expected to cost money and to yield lawsuits.

What about the people that never applied because they knew they would fail?

Dave Lane
04-24-2013, 09:02 AM
I approve.

rabblerouser
04-24-2013, 09:12 AM
I'm trying to figure out why you would be okay with an increase in crime just for the off chance somebody gets killed. Nothing about that makes sense.

I'm NOT okay with an increase in crime; I don't know where you drew tha conclusion.

loochy
04-24-2013, 09:30 AM
STUDY: Putting people in jail costs more than letting them roam the streets

KC native
04-24-2013, 10:11 AM
And then either he'll get caught and put into the system, thus getting him the 'help' needed...

or he'll try to steal from the wrong person, get shot and hopefully killed, thus eliminating his doping, theiving DNA from the gene pool.

See, these things usually work themselves out.

Could you be anymore clueless?

Getting put into the system will not get anyone help. For fuck's sake at least have an understanding of how things actually work.

LiveSteam
04-24-2013, 01:49 PM
Could you be anymore clueless?

Getting put into the system will not get anyone help. For fuck's sake at least have an understanding of how things actually work.

Tell us more X-con .

Brock
04-24-2013, 02:05 PM
If this is being done, it should be across the board for any government benefits; unemployment, social security, medicare, etc.

On ss and medicare the govt took that money from the citizen. There should never be conditions on getting paid back.

FD
04-24-2013, 02:22 PM
On ss and medicare the govt took that money from the citizen. There should never be conditions on getting paid back.

You think people on welfare never pay taxes in their lives?

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 02:25 PM
Or he could end up shooting some clerk at a grocery store who tries to fight him.

If he goes to jail, that costs a lot more than getting food stamps. And it's not federal money then. Now you're talking about state/county funds.

I don't know if your idea of "work out" is similar to most peoples.

Bad behavior should never be rewarded, that's why we have so many fucked up kids in the world now

warrior
04-24-2013, 02:28 PM
double standard?
County, State and Federal employees are paid by the public. They should be required to pass a drug screen as well.

I agree

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 02:28 PM
You think people on welfare never pay taxes in their lives?

They may pay some but I bet the majority get most back every year are are not on the + side vs benefits received

The Libturd mind thinks the Gubment is suppose to take care of all their needs, we are suppose to take care of the Government by paying taxes for the infrastructure...

La literatura
04-24-2013, 02:33 PM
Bad behavior should never be rewarded, that's why we have so many ****ed up kids in the world now

I don't think that getting welfare really qualifies as reward.

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 02:40 PM
I don't think that getting welfare really qualifies as reward.

It is for people that abuse the system... I have no problem with the program for the truly needy.

Drug tests are a good idea, I hope it passes the house here and they move to KC o:-)

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 02:46 PM
Bad behavior should never be rewarded, that's why we have so many ****ed up kids in the world now

And taking assistance away from kids because of supposed crimes of their parents will never help that.

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 03:00 PM
And taking assistance away from kids because of supposed crimes of their parents will never help that.

If the parents are on drugs they are probably being abused and the money is not going to them anyways...

If the parents can't pass a drug test they probably are not in safe hands and hopefully DSS will come in and take them until the parents can become clean.

Brock
04-24-2013, 03:10 PM
You think people on welfare never pay taxes in their lives?

You are not promised welfare. Also, let's don't be stupid. Welfare SHOULD be very uncomfortable and yes, even humiliating.

gblowfish
04-24-2013, 03:19 PM
If this gets passed, then any farmer in NC (tobacco, dairy, grain, livestock, etc) that accepts any kind of farm subsidy or crop insurance payment should also have to take a mandatory drug test. Any business that employs people in a TIF zone must submit all employees, including all management, to drug testing. Everyone in the state legislative chain, and justice system that administers this law, must submit to mandatory drug testing. And if anyone fails, they are heavily fined and have to undergo counseling and be tested bi-monthly for three years. Another failed test means mandatory prison time. Of course, all the employees and administration at the prison must pass mandatory drug testing.

jiveturkey
04-24-2013, 03:19 PM
You are not promised welfare. Also, let's don't be stupid. Welfare SHOULD be very uncomfortable and yes, even humiliating.
Agreed. It shouldn't be a "lifestyle" but a shitty bridge to get you somewhere better.

The drug testing thing seems like a waste of time and resources. It's hard to complain about government spending while pushing costly measures like this one.

Are there any numbers on how many people "voluntarily" fall off of welfare once testing starts? I'm sure that there's some savings from that type of situation along with scaring off newcomers that won't pass a test but are they enough to justify the cost of the new program?

RedNeckRaider
04-24-2013, 03:19 PM
You are not promised welfare. Also, let's don't be stupid. Welfare SHOULD be very uncomfortable and yes, even humiliating.

I don't think it should be humiliating, however it should damn sure be humbling. I have personally witnessed people driving fancy vehicles decked out in rims and tires that cost a couple thousand dollars only to whip out their EBT card to pay. Nobody is going to convince me that there is no a huge amount of scam going on when I myself have seen several cases firsthand~

rabblerouser
04-24-2013, 03:21 PM
You are not promised welfare. Also, let's don't be stupid. Welfare SHOULD be very uncomfortable and yes, even humiliating.



No shit - one aisle : beans, rice, and noodles. Beef stock.

That's it.

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 03:41 PM
If the parents are on drugs they are probably being abused and the money is not going to them anyways...

If the parents can't pass a drug test they probably are not in safe hands and hopefully DSS will come in and take them until the parents can become clean.

So you assume, 1)poor people do drugs, 2) that they abuse their kids and 3) that placing a child under state care is perhaps better for the kid than parents (whose only drug may be weed), and that perhaps state care is cheaper than federal assistance to families?

Could you provide any evidence for believing any of those things?

/my wife works for the Green County children's division, so I should get a kick out of the reply
//Green County is the number one county in MO per in capita child abuse. I do not believe the majority of those, in this church on every street corner city, are because of drug use.
///Of course, separate kids from meth users and all that.

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 03:44 PM
What right, do any of you have, to claim another person is abusing drugs? What right does the federal government have to judge a person guilty based on economic status without any type of evidence?

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 03:54 PM
Agreed. It shouldn't be a "lifestyle" but a shitty bridge to get you somewhere better.

The drug testing thing seems like a waste of time and resources. It's hard to complain about government spending while pushing costly measures like this one.

Are there any numbers on how many people "voluntarily" fall off of welfare once testing starts? I'm sure that there's some savings from that type of situation along with scaring off newcomers that won't pass a test but are they enough to justify the cost of the new program?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BF_wn0ECYAATlEf.jpg:large

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 04:01 PM
So you assume, 1)poor people do drugs, 2) that they abuse their kids and 3) that placing a child under state care is perhaps better for the kid than parents (whose only drug may be weed), and that perhaps state care is cheaper than federal assistance to families?

Could you provide any evidence for believing any of those things?

/my wife works for the Green County children's division, so I should get a kick out of the reply
//Green County is the number one county in MO per in capita child abuse. I do not believe the majority of those, in this church on every street corner city, are because of drug use.
///Of course, separate kids from meth users and all that.


No not all poor people do drugs but the ones that do on Welfare are taking money away from the family while receiving taxpayer money as well as wasting the limited funds that truly needy people should get...

Oh and I am getting a kick out of all Libturd replies, not only yours.

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 04:12 PM
No not all poor people do drugs but the ones that do on Welfare are taking money away from the family while receiving taxpayer money as well as wasting the limited funds that truly needy people should get...

Oh and I am getting a kick out of all Libturd replies, not only yours.

What evidence do you have that this is a major problem?

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 04:15 PM
What evidence do you have that this is a major problem?

What evidence do you have it's not?

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 04:20 PM
What evidence do you have it's not?

The fourth amendment implies the burden of proof is upon the government, not those charged. A poor person should not have to prove themselves drug free without prior evidence.

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 04:30 PM
The fourth amendment implies the burden of proof is upon the government, not those charged. A poor person should not have to prove themselves drug free without prior evidence.

They are not forcing them to get a drug test so the constitution probably won't apply , Drug testing is voluntary, you just won't get any benefits if you don't.

RedNeckRaider
04-24-2013, 04:47 PM
The fourth amendment implies the burden of proof is upon the government, not those charged. A poor person should not have to prove themselves drug free without prior evidence.

I will say this if a person in in a situation where us taxpayers need to pay their way they should be very humble and willing to prove they are doing everything they can to improve their situation. The fucking government ain't pay squat we are and people taking the money should be very thankful. From several personal cases I have seen this is not the case. I do agree that from what I have read the cost of testing out weighs the savings. However the long game may end up discouraging people from taking the easy money. This should be a last resort~

Loneiguana
04-24-2013, 05:09 PM
They are not forcing them to get a drug test so the constitution probably won't apply , Drug testing is voluntary, you just won't get any benefits if you don't.


I will say this if a person in in a situation where us taxpayers need to pay their way they should be very humble and willing to prove they are doing everything they can to improve their situation. The ****ing government ain't pay squat we are and people taking the money should be very thankful. From several personal cases I have seen this is not the case. I do agree that from what I have read the cost of testing out weighs the savings. However the long game may end up discouraging people from taking the easy money. This should be a last resort~


The courts, so far, are disagreeing. The federal government should not be able to make anyone prove innocence. If someone is abusing drugs, then use the proper channels to correct the issues. I can supply you with hotline numbers if you want. But, by no means should we make every one prove their innocence without prior evidence.

Also, the majority of entitlement dollars go to people who are attempting to improve their situation, or the elderly and disabled.

From:http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

"Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes

A small number of discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs also provide substantial benefits to individuals, but the lack of full funding for some of these programs means they do not reach all eligible recipients. Indeed, in some cases — such as in low-income rental assistance programs — the vast majority of people who are eligible receive nobenefits because of program funding limits.[4] If we broaden the universe of programs examined to include the principal discretionary programs that provide benefits — low-income housing programs, the WIC nutrition program for low-income women and young children, and low-income energy assistance — the result is essentially unchanged. Some 90 percent of the benefit dollars still go to the elderly, the disabled, and working households.

...

In short, both the current reality and the trends of recent decades contrast sharply with the critics’ assumption that social programs increasingly are supporting people who can work but choose not to do so. In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States substantially reduced assistance to the jobless poor (through legislation such as the 1996 welfare law) while increasing assistance to low-income working families (such as through expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit). The safety net became much more “work-based.” In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities."

3rd&48ers
04-24-2013, 05:15 PM
Unemployment insurance is paid by employers or a big part is and Medicare comes out of your paycheck every week same for Social Security.

You paid for the last 2 and they are not welfare programs...

Look how many people die before they even get a single check

RedNeckRaider
04-24-2013, 05:19 PM
The courts, so far, are disagreeing. The federal government should not be able to make anyone prove innocence. If someone is abusing drugs, then use the proper channels to correct the issues. I can supply you with hotline numbers if you want. But, by no means should we make every one prove their innocence without prior evidence.

Also, the majority of entitlement dollars go to people who are attempting to improve their situation, or the elderly and disabled.

From:http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

"Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes

A small number of discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs also provide substantial benefits to individuals, but the lack of full funding for some of these programs means they do not reach all eligible recipients. Indeed, in some cases — such as in low-income rental assistance programs — the vast majority of people who are eligible receive nobenefits because of program funding limits.[4] If we broaden the universe of programs examined to include the principal discretionary programs that provide benefits — low-income housing programs, the WIC nutrition program for low-income women and young children, and low-income energy assistance — the result is essentially unchanged. Some 90 percent of the benefit dollars still go to the elderly, the disabled, and working households.

...

In short, both the current reality and the trends of recent decades contrast sharply with the critics’ assumption that social programs increasingly are supporting people who can work but choose not to do so. In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States substantially reduced assistance to the jobless poor (through legislation such as the 1996 welfare law) while increasing assistance to low-income working families (such as through expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit). The safety net became much more “work-based.” In addition, the U.S. population is aging, which raises the share of benefits going to seniors and people with disabilities."

That is good to read and I hope the vast majority are those truly in need. However as I have said I personally have witnessed an alarming amount of abuse. My I assumption is that if I by myself have seen this it is not unique or isolated~

mikey23545
04-24-2013, 05:36 PM
Waste Fraud and Abuse Within Specific Reconciliation Categories:

Food Stamps:

The Food Stamp Program paid out $1.9 billion in overpayments in 2009, according to GAO.An April 2012 undercover investigation by a Memphis CBS affiliate recently found food stamps being used rampantly to illegally buy non-food items including condoms.
A March 2012 investigation by a Baltimore ABC affiliate found food stamps being used in local stores to buy beer, cigarettes, and being exchanged for cash in stores.In 2011, a Los Angeles CBS station found recipients selling their food stamps on craigslist for pennies on the dollar.
In Michigan, a woman who won $700,000 in the state lottery in September 2011 was still receiving full food stamp benefits in March 2012.
According to the USDA Inspector General, two Detroit-area brothers convicted of more than $679,000 in food stamp fraud in 2002 were caught illegally buying food stamps at their store again in 2009 after they were re-admitted to the food stamp program.

A 2-year joint criminal investigation led by USDA OIG disclosed that the owner, manager, and employees of two SNAP-authorized retailers in Cincinnati exchanged SNAP benefits for firearms, cash, stolen tobacco products, narcotics, and drug paraphernalia.

According to the a USDA audit, from September 2007 to September 2009, the owner of a Brooklyn food store and her son exchanged SNAP benefits for cash in a series of trafficking transactions that amounted to $1.4 million.

The USDA OIG found in 2011 that the Food and Nutrition Service did not require states to use the management reports provided by their EBT processors. Thus, neither New Jersey nor Florida (the two states audited) was using these reports to identify potentially fraudulent activities by SNAP recipients. The audit identified over 2,600 questionable transactions using these reports, totaling over $181,700 for a 1-month period.

mikey23545
04-24-2013, 05:38 PM
SNAP Categorical Eligibility:

There are generally two ways to qualify for Food Stamps: 1) Meeting federal eligibility requirements, or 2) Being automatically or categorically eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs.

But as GAO, CRS, and even USDA have pointed out, a household can be deemed eligible for food stamps even if they receive no other TANF funded service other than a toll-free telephone number or informational brochure.

In total, 43 jurisdictions (40 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) have implemented broad-based categorical eligibility. These jurisdictions generally make all households with incomes below a state-determined income threshold eligible for SNAP.

In all but three of these jurisdictions, there is no asset test required for SNAP eligibility. Categorically eligible families bypass the regular SNAP asset limits. Therefore, it is possible to be categorically eligible for SNAP but have net income too high to actually receive a benefit.

The Obama administration has encouraged States to take advantage of categorical eligibility. In a September 2009 memo they write: “We encourage you to continue promoting expanded categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP participation and reduce State workloads.” In most states, that means households who receive cash and non-cash benefits under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are automatically eligible for SNAP. If a household is merely given a brochure funded by TANF, they will be automatically eligible for SNAP.
Another memo from the Obama administration explains: “With broad-based categorical eligibility, state agencies can effectively raise the income limit and raise or eliminate the asset test.”
In Ohio, a woman with a $300,000 home, a Mercedes, and $80,000 in savings qualified for SNAP because, under categorical eligibility, these resources are not taken into account.

Brock
04-24-2013, 06:18 PM
The fourth amendment implies the burden of proof is upon the government, not those charged. A poor person should not have to prove themselves drug free without prior evidence.

The government requires drug testing for its employees. This is legal, even if it is wrongheaded.

WhiteWhale
04-24-2013, 07:58 PM
I like the idea, but unsure about how practical the cost actually is. It seems like a bad idea when looking at the big picture.

You're really just busting pot-heads. Most other drugs are out of your system in a few days. Drug tests aren't really that effective against the major drugs.

Bump
04-24-2013, 10:01 PM
So what's going to happen to all these welfare people? I'm pretty sure that drugs and welfare go hand in hand. They just gonna get shut off? Then that just means way more homeless people running around.

|Zach|
04-24-2013, 10:04 PM
I like the idea, but unsure about how practical the cost actually is. It seems like a bad idea when looking at the big picture.

You're really just busting pot-heads. Most other drugs are out of your system in a few days. Drug tests aren't really that effective against the major drugs.

This is well put.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2013, 10:11 PM
The program costs more money than it saves, and it's another pathetic attempt to conflate the poor with the worthless by implying that they are rife with drug addicts who need to be tested.

Only a society as idiotic as our own would treat a recreational pot smoker as a greater leech of government largess than an abusive alcoholic.

rabblerouser
04-25-2013, 02:45 AM
The program costs more money than it saves, and it's another pathetic attempt to conflate the poor with the worthless by implying that they are rife with drug addicts who need to be tested.

Only a society as idiotic as our own would treat a recreational pot smoker as a greater leech of government largess than an abusive alcoholic.

this is true.

3rd&48ers
04-25-2013, 03:22 AM
The program costs more money than it saves, and it's another pathetic attempt to conflate the poor with the worthless by implying that they are rife with drug addicts who need to be tested.

Only a society as idiotic as our own would treat a recreational pot smoker as a greater leech of government largess than an abusive alcoholic.

Yea but what kinda price can you put on getting a parent off drugs so they can help the kid make the right choices in life and not end up on welfare or drugs.

3rd&48ers
04-25-2013, 06:10 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/923362_503190169730522_367086943_n.jpg

theelusiveeightrop
04-25-2013, 06:16 AM
The ACLU will be all over this.

Loneiguana
04-25-2013, 06:33 AM
Waste Fraud and Abuse Within Specific Reconciliation Categories:

Food Stamps:

The Food Stamp Program paid out $1.9 billion in overpayments in 2009, according to GAO.An April 2012 undercover investigation by a Memphis CBS affiliate recently found food stamps being used rampantly to illegally buy non-food items including condoms.
A March 2012 investigation by a Baltimore ABC affiliate found food stamps being used in local stores to buy beer, cigarettes, and being exchanged for cash in stores.In 2011, a Los Angeles CBS station found recipients selling their food stamps on craigslist for pennies on the dollar.
In Michigan, a woman who won $700,000 in the state lottery in September 2011 was still receiving full food stamp benefits in March 2012.
According to the USDA Inspector General, two Detroit-area brothers convicted of more than $679,000 in food stamp fraud in 2002 were caught illegally buying food stamps at their store again in 2009 after they were re-admitted to the food stamp program.

A 2-year joint criminal investigation led by USDA OIG disclosed that the owner, manager, and employees of two SNAP-authorized retailers in Cincinnati exchanged SNAP benefits for firearms, cash, stolen tobacco products, narcotics, and drug paraphernalia.

According to the a USDA audit, from September 2007 to September 2009, the owner of a Brooklyn food store and her son exchanged SNAP benefits for cash in a series of trafficking transactions that amounted to $1.4 million.

The USDA OIG found in 2011 that the Food and Nutrition Service did not require states to use the management reports provided by their EBT processors. Thus, neither New Jersey nor Florida (the two states audited) was using these reports to identify potentially fraudulent activities by SNAP recipients. The audit identified over 2,600 questionable transactions using these reports, totaling over $181,700 for a 1-month period.


Great specific examples. But, you don't at all describe how wide spread the abuse is, which it isn't. What percent is abuse of the overall use? There are millions of food stamp transactions in a month. 2,000 doesn't amount to a large portion.

"According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, there was a payment error rate of 4.36% of food stamps benefits down from 9.86% in 1999.[20] A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant."

In response to your Obama attack:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/why-are-republicans-waging-war-on-food-stamps-now/258794/

"There is no question that the food stamp program is expensive and growing. Enrollment in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as it's officially called, increased 70 percent between 2007 and 2011. Annual spending more than doubled to an all-time-high of $78 billion. It's now the second largest welfare program behind Medicaid, which cost the federal government about $275 billion last year.

But here are a few facts to keep in mind. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the food stamp program's growth "has been driven primarily by the weak economy." About 65 percent of the increased spending was the result of people simply getting poorer. Another 20 percent was due to the stimulus act, which boosted the maximum benefit at a time when the recession was absolutely grinding up vulnerable families. As the CBO notes, there have been no -- I repeat no -- significant legislative changes to who is eligible since Obama took office.

Meanwhile, the average household receiving food stamps has an average income of $731 dollars, including other welfare payments. Around 85 percent of recipients are below the poverty line, which amounts to a measly $18,500 a year for a family of three. The vast majority are elderly, disabled, or have children. Among single, young, and healthy recipients, the average income is $268 a month."

Also:
http://frac.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/moodys_chart_econstim.jpg


/let's ban all guns because someone somewhere misused it
//that makes about as much sense as the argument you are making

Loneiguana
04-25-2013, 06:34 AM
The ACLU will be all over this.

IT already is, taking Florida to court successfully, twice already.

3rd&48ers
04-25-2013, 06:44 AM
You know what, I don't want to see kids suffer, they should give the parent one chance... Force rehab and stay clean or lose benefits...

Hows that for a compassionate conservative?

Loneiguana
04-25-2013, 06:44 AM
I like the idea, but unsure about how practical the cost actually is. It seems like a bad idea when looking at the big picture.

You're really just busting pot-heads. Most other drugs are out of your system in a few days. Drug tests aren't really that effective against the major drugs.

This is true. Meth is out of your system days.

OF course meth is a hell of a drug. my wife (Children's Division) has the power to drug test those whom she was sent to investigate. There are a few cases where the drug test showed they were likely smoking meth on the way to the drug test!! Mainly because it exits the system so quickly, a elevated level means very recent use.

3rd&48ers
04-25-2013, 06:45 AM
Pay them 50% if they are on drugs, 100% if they are drug free

Loneiguana
04-25-2013, 06:45 AM
You know what, I don't want to see kids suffer, they should give the parent one chance... Force rehab and stay clean or lose benefits...

Hows that for a compassionate conservative?

That is how Children Social Services works. You are given chances.

Loneiguana
04-25-2013, 06:52 AM
These are the proper channels; not charging all poor people as guilty of drug use. IF you suspect someone is cheating the system, then report it. Abuse happens in any system. Use the proper channels to fix it.

MO Public Assistance Fraud:

To report suspected fraud, contact the office nearest you by mail, phone, or fax. You can also use e-mail to report your concerns,

http://www.dss.mo.gov/dls/pafraud.htm

MO Child ABuse and Neglect Hotline:
IF a child is living in a poor, drug filled household, report it.

Any person may report, and anonymous reports are accepted from individuals who are not mandated by occupation to report. Effective August 28, 2004, Missouri law requires Mandated Reporters to identify themselves when making a report.

The toll-free number is 1-800-392-3738.

http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/can.htm

WhiteWhale
04-25-2013, 07:20 AM
You know what, I don't want to see kids suffer, they should give the parent one chance... Force rehab and stay clean or lose benefits...

Hows that for a compassionate conservative?

So now I'd be paying for both the drug test AND their rehab?

Anything else you want the taxpayer to fund on top of welfare?

Fuck that. Rehab is expensive and has a relapse rate of around 90%.

Saul Good
04-25-2013, 08:55 AM
The program costs more money than it saves, and it's another pathetic attempt to conflate the poor with the worthless by implying that they are rife with drug addicts who need to be tested.

Only a society as idiotic as our own would treat a recreational pot smoker as a greater leech of government largess than an abusive alcoholic.

I agree on the weed aspect, but I think you have it backwards regarding the poor = drug addicts point. If we test people, we will know that those receiving aid are clean. As it stands, people tend to assume the worst about everyone receiving handouts.

Saul Good
04-25-2013, 08:57 AM
So now I'd be paying for both the drug test AND their rehab?

Anything else you want the taxpayer to fund on top of welfare?

**** that. Rehab is expensive and has a relapse rate of around 90%.

Paying for rehab is exactly what public money should be used for in society. I'd rather pay for rehab than pay for prisons.

3rd&48ers
04-25-2013, 01:56 PM
Paying for rehab is exactly what public money should be used for in society. I'd rather pay for rehab than pay for prisons.

I would too, put them in prison anbd we have to take care of their kids 24/7

beach tribe
04-28-2013, 04:57 PM
I have passes so many drug tests for so many different things having done drugs within 12_24 hrs its not even funny.
People who work the system will have no problem doing the same

WhiteWhale
04-28-2013, 05:29 PM
Paying for rehab is exactly what public money should be used for in society. I'd rather pay for rehab than pay for prisons.

Yeah. If the options for punishing a welfare recipient for a drug test are prison or rehab, I'd go with rehab.

That really doesn't change where I'm standing on it. Good idea in principle, but it's more expensive (by far) than just giving welfare to drug addicts. I mean let's not find ways to make the welfare system more expensive.

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2013, 07:07 PM
*whines about Big Gummint Waste*

*wastes Big Gummint's money on shit that's proven to be nothing but a cash-making scam for drug testing companies connected to government officials*

Ultra Peanut
04-28-2013, 07:08 PM
*whines about Big Gummint Waste*

*wastes Big Gummint's money on shit that's proven to be nothing but a cash-making scam for drug testing companies rich people connected to government officials*Republican Governing dot txt

Starve that beast, you fucking sociopaths.

Easy 6
04-29-2013, 10:57 AM
I like the idea, but unsure about how practical the cost actually is. It seems like a bad idea when looking at the big picture.

You're really just busting pot-heads. Most other drugs are out of your system in a few days. Drug tests aren't really that effective against the major drugs.

This is about where i'm at, i like the idea in principle but i'm not sure the potential costs are worth it to nab just one type of drug user.

loochy
04-29-2013, 01:28 PM
This is about where i'm at, i like the idea in principle but i'm not sure the potential costs are worth it to nab just one type of drug user.

I like it not because it nabs drug users, but because it screws over people that waste their money on dumb stuff like drugs