If you can't see the difference then I can't help you. If you need other people's tax money to survive why shouldn't tax payers be able to put strings attached.

 

I don't need help, but thank you for your concern. :lol2:

 

There is a price to maintain a civilized society, and that price is taking care of (in some cases) or assisting (in most cases) those who need it. I certainly prefer paying that price to living in a society that allows those in need to go hungry, homeless or die. The need for such government programs is exhibited in many discussions on this board. Without taxation and government funded programs that are funded by those taxes, the US would be no better than an aristocracy that the first pilgrims were fleeing.

On the stance of welfare. I believe we should help those who can't help themselves. The young, elderly and handicapped. For able bodied working people government assistance should only be short term. That's the problem with the welfare system. To many people and some in this thread have no problem with generational welfare. There need to be strings attached and time lines put in place. To many people become to comfortable on taxpayer dime.

 

It makes me sick to my stomach that I have to defend why this may bug me. Sorry for having common sense and understanding economics.

I don't need help, but thank you for your concern. :lol2:

 

There is a price to maintain a civilized society, and that price is taking care of (in some cases) or assisting (in most cases) those who need it. I certainly prefer paying that price to living in a society that allows those in need to go hungry, homeless or die. The need for such government programs is exhibited in many discussions on this board. Without taxation and government funded programs that are funded by those taxes, the US would be no better than an aristocracy that the first pilgrims were fleeing.

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Where we are disagreeing is how they should be ran and the need to have restrictions and time lines in place to not allow lifetime welfare usage for able bodied people.

 

We have a social security disability system so run over with fraud and fake claims its a bubble building to burst in the future.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Where we are disagreeing is how they should be ran and the need to have restrictions and time lines in place to not allow lifetime welfare usage for able bodied people.

 

We have a social security disability system so run over with fraud and fake claims its a bubble building to burst in the future.

 

Fair enough. But there is a misconception of where the largest abuse occurs. It's not at the recepient level, it's at the administrative level. And beyond that, the waste at the administrative level need to be addressed. Until those areas of waste and abuse are addressed, and THEN there are overruns, I contend that the mischaracterization of recepients is grossly out of line.

Fair enough. But there is a misconception of where the largest abuse occurs. It's not at the recepient level, it's at the administrative level. And beyond that, the waste at the administrative level need to be addressed. Until those areas of waste and abuse are addressed, and THEN there are overruns, I contend that the mischaracterization of recepients is grossly out of line.

 

I contend it may not be as great as some think but I do think it is greater than you portray. I've lived in to many urban areas and seen it first hand. Newport and Covington in KY, Detroit and Cleveland . I've seen it from family members and childhood friends. It happens and happens a lot .

 

But I also admit plenty of people are on it for the right reason and need help. But the rules and restrictions don't impact people doing things the right way. So to bash them with that in mind just doesn't compute with me.

 

I also agree there is a lot of abuse in the mess we call government at the adminsitration level. That is what happens when you allow these programs to become so bloated with minimal over sight. But anytime oversight or restrictions are called for people are painted as racists .

I have not read this entire thread, so maybe someone has already stated this thought. I am all for the testing, but if it shows that there are not that many drug users, then it has been well worth the money to get the results. Then from here on it could be random testing, just to keep everyone honest.

 

If we could actually show if any and all government programs worked or not, we could save a lot of money.

Maybe, just maybe, if the mantra "it's only % why bother" went away and a zero tolerance policy for abusing the system then those of us who support reforming the system would back off.

 

As far as I'm concerned if even 1 person games the system and gets away with it that's 1 to many.

 

I also don't buy into the belief that some abuse has to be overlooked because if it isn't somwone deserving may be harmed.

I have not read this entire thread, so maybe someone has already stated this thought. I am all for the testing, but if it shows that there are not that many drug users, then it has been well worth the money to get the results. Then from here on it could be random testing, just to keep everyone honest.

 

If we could actually show if any and all government programs worked or not, we could save a lot of money.

 

I do think random surprise testing would work better than testing everyone.

 

Anyone who works in the corporate world realizes not many people fail drug tests anymore. In fact you have to be reckless to fail. If you know it's coming it's hard to fail.

Well, it seems the wrong people are getting uptight about it. A drug screening costs what, about $100?And if you're only busting 40 people out of 16K, well, that's a really stupid waste of money just to test a theory.

 

You can buy drug tests at Walmart for 10 dollars.

I could care less about drug screening, I want a physical done and if they're able, they work. Pick up trash, help out at a school or day care so others can work. Anything, something.

 

This.

 

(with that said, the bull that our government pulls where if you make x amount, then you can't receive any assistance is bogus).

You can buy drug tests at Walmart for 10 dollars.

 

A basic drug screening is what that is.

 

Lab based screenings are around $100 retail. Full drug tests can run into the hundreds of dollars - retail.

I do think random surprise testing would work better than testing everyone.

 

Anyone who works in the corporate world realizes not many people fail drug tests anymore. In fact you have to be reckless to fail. If you know it's coming it's hard to fail.

 

Somewhat of an approach to only randomly violate the people's Constitution by the Government.

Somewhat of an approach to only randomly violate the people's Constitution by the Government.

 

How so? If they know that it is a condition of receiving benefits, they know there is possibility of a drug test.

A basic drug screening is what that is.

 

Lab based screenings are around $100 retail. Full drug tests can run into the hundreds of dollars - retail.

 

Check my post #71. This are clinic tests, sent to the lab. Not an off the shelf from Wal Mart test.

How so? If they know that it is a condition of receiving benefits, they know there is possibility of a drug test.

 

So when receiving financial assistance that comes from government one is expected to surrender their Constitutional protections? What about people who receive government 'financial assistance' in other manners? Like tax breaks. If one takes a certain tax break should they be subject to random drug test?

 

It is very debatable how much or how long the government should provide ongoing financial welfare, just like tax rates are debatable. But people should be very vigilant when Constitutional protection are forced to be surrendered to the government.

 

What happens when the find a positive? Benefits may be denied. But are they charged with a crime? Are they put into a database and tracked. Is the data protected with HIPAA like vigilance?

 

And employers are not the government. They have the ability to do what they wish when it comes to 'at-will' employees. However, the People have a contract with the more powerful government - its called a Constitution.