Drug and alcohol testing for corporate welfare cheats makes more sense.

Well it discriminates against the poor an issue IMO. What about testing any and all people that receive government assistance in any way? That's the issue to me. I really don't care either wya but people receive federal $$ in many forms. Drug use goes across all socioeconomics venues, why test welfare only? Test anyone that receives federal money or works for the federal, state or local governement.

Well it discriminates against the poor an issue IMO. What about testing any and all people that receive government assistance in any way? That's the issue to me. I really don't care either wya but people receive federal $$ in many forms. Drug use goes across all socioeconomics venues, why test welfare only? Test anyone that receives federal money or works for the federal, state or local governement.

 

Welfare rewards (some) people for being lazy. If you don't want to go get a job like the rest of us, then you should have to take a drug test to get free food.

Welfare rewards (some) people for being lazy. If you don't want to go get a job like the rest of us, then you should have to take a drug test to get free food.

 

Deuce, you are sounding more conservative than me sometimes, LOL.

 

You're a closet Republican, admit it.

 

For full disclosure, I am not a Republican (independent) but I tend to vote GOP about 70-75% of the time.

I have two problems with drug testing for aid:

 

1) Joe Blow is employed and enjoys recreational drug use. Joe comes into work and is informed he is laid off. Joe comes to the conclusion that he has to give up his drug use in order to receive unemployment till he finds another job. The problem is, some of the drugs in Joe's system will take a while to get out of his system so he and his family are out of luck until his system cleans itself out. Is the drug testing in Utah and Florida able to tell when the last time someone has used a drug? My guess is no.

 

2) While you may not feel much sympathy for Joe, what about Joe Jr. and any other kids? They are innocent of dad's drug use but will suffer. I have heard some suggest if the welfare denied parents cannot take care of them, then they should go to foster care till the parents are welfare eligible or employed. I do not agree with this suggestion.

Deuce, you are sounding more conservative than me sometimes, LOL.

 

You're a closet Republican, admit it.

 

For full disclosure, I am not a Republican (independent) but I tend to vote GOP about 70-75% of the time.

 

:lol2: I am definitely middle of the road. I share views of both parties pretty equally, I think. I'm a registered Dem, but definitely lean right on some issues.

Drug and alcohol testing for corporate welfare cheats makes more sense.

 

Sigh....It is absolutely impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the board anymore when this kind of post pops up in every single thread. :no:

I have two problems with drug testing for aid:

 

1) Joe Blow is employed and enjoys recreational drug use. Joe comes into work and is informed he is laid off. Joe comes to the conclusion that he has to give up his drug use in order to receive unemployment till he finds another job. The problem is, some of the drugs in Joe's system will take a while to get out of his system so he and his family are out of luck until his system cleans itself out. Is the drug testing in Utah and Florida able to tell when the last time someone has used a drug? My guess is no.

 

2) While you may not feel much sympathy for Joe, what about Joe Jr. and any other kids? They are innocent of dad's drug use but will suffer. I have heard some suggest if the welfare denied parents cannot take care of them, then they should go to foster care till the parents are welfare eligible or employed. I do not agree with this suggestion.

 

I've never been a drug user of any kind, so I have little to no sympathy for those that choose to put themselves in Mr. Blow's position. More than likely he is going to have to be clean to get another job anyway, so having to be clean for welfare is a moot point, IMO.

Sigh....It is absolutely impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the board anymore when this kind of post pops up in every single thread. :no:

 

A problem with the ignore feature is that it doesn't work when people reply with quotes. :no:

Sigh....It is absolutely impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the board anymore when this kind of post pops up in every single thread. :no:

 

I had a long bit about corporate welfare but decided that was too much of a thread jack so I will start a seperate thread.

I've never been a drug user of any kind, so I have little to no sympathy for those that choose to put themselves in Mr. Blow's position. More than likely he is going to have to be clean to get another job anyway, so having to be clean for welfare is a moot point, IMO.

 

I have never used any illegal drug also. However, if someone decides to quit in order to be eligible for support, they get a thumbs up from me.

 

You are a cold hearted Rebublican LOL

I have never used any illegal drug also. However, if someone decides to quit in order to be eligible for support, they get a thumbs up from me.

 

You are a cold hearted Rebublican LOL

 

Depending on what drugs they are doing, it wouldn't take that long to get out of your system, assuming they were only required to give a urine sample. Them quitting would definitely be something to admire, but you'd have to make a judgment call in every case when to award benefits and when not to. A lapse in benefits is something they'd have to risk by doing drugs.

 

I just keep it real.

If it saves money and keeps a user from getting a handout, I'm all for it.

 

I would much rather see our government spend money on limiting what you can purchase with the benefits though. 2 red bulls and a snickers bar have no nutritional value and should not be allowed to be purchased with any type of assistance.

Drug and alcohol testing for corporate welfare cheats makes more sense.

 

Corporate welfare is a myth. It would suggest they are getting hand outs. Getting to keep more of your own money isn't welfare, it's call the American way.

 

But at most corporations the higher up the ladder you go the more likely it is you will be tested. I see no reason why people getting hand outs with tax payer money should not be forced to be tested.

Depending on what drugs they are doing, it wouldn't take that long to get out of your system, assuming they were only required to give a urine sample. Them quitting would definitely be something to admire, but you'd have to make a judgment call in every case when to award benefits and when not to. A lapse in benefits is something they'd have to risk by doing drugs.

 

I just keep it real.

 

Absolutely! The condition that returning to drug use would immediately suspend benefits would have to be part of the equation. My big thing is if someone is using and they are paying for it on their own dime, I dont' get too bent up about it. When they are doing it on others taxes, that ticks me off.

 

I guess I just always assumed you leaned similar to Rockmom but oh no, I was wrong. Lol. I fully expect an retort from Rocky soon. Lol