Drug test for welfare recipients.

[Clyde]

Not intending to tee off on you Clyde, but in general terms: They can get off the weed!! Many companies now require passing a drug test, and if one fails, no job. It surprises me at the incredible stupidity of people smoking weed allowing it to cost them jobs and opportunities and in this case benefits. When we stop making excuses for this and overtolerating this behaviour it may stop. Is it really that important to smoke weed? I am 100% in favor of drug testing to receive government benefits.

 

You didnt address my main question: who feeeds the kids when mom or dad cant get welfare?

 

Heck, who feeds Mom and Dad?

[HammerTime]

You didnt address my main question: who feeeds the kids when mom or dad cant get welfare?

 

Heck, who feeds Mom and Dad?

 

Why is it our job to make sure they have food? No one pays my grocery bill.

[spindoc]

You didnt address my main question: who feeeds the kids when mom or dad cant get welfare?

 

Heck, who feeds Mom and Dad?

Harsh, but if mom (because there often isn't a dad, honestly) and dad if he's around can't make good choices, they sure shouldn't be enabled. And that's exactly what it is.

The kids would become wards of the state, placed in the state's care and if the parents knew that was on the table, then by all means, stop the cycle.

[acemona]

Don't really know how anyone could force you to be an addict.. You are the one that chooses to use an addictive substance so like I said, personal responsibility..

 

Then you don't know much about it.

[acemona]

Harsh, but if mom (because there often isn't a dad, honestly) and dad if he's around can't make good choices, they sure shouldn't be enabled. And that's exactly what it is.

The kids would become wards of the state, placed in the state's care and if the parents knew that was on the table, then by all means, stop the cycle.

 

And where would you "ward" them?

[woodsrider]

Then you don't know much about it.

Whose choice was it to use in the first place? Whose choice was it to not get clean.

[woodsrider]

And where would you "ward" them?

Not sure what you mean.

[acemona]

Not sure what you mean.

 

You said you make kids wards of the state, I am asking where you would "ward" them. There are not enough foster parents as it is, and many of the ones who do foster are really only in it for the money, so you are going to take these kids away from their parents and put them . . . in . . . jail, basically. What a great idea.:irked:

[spindoc]

And where would you "ward" them?

They'd be placed into foster care, they'd be sent through family court. You don't need a tutorial of how that system works I'm fairly certain, so is there something in your question I'm missing?

[woodsrider]

You said you make kids wards of the state, I am asking where you would "ward" them. There are not enough foster parents as it is, and many of the ones who do foster are really only in it for the money, so you are going to take these kids away from their parents and put them . . . in . . . jail, basically. What a great idea.:irked:

Actually I didn't say any of that. But now that you brought it up, what you are saying isn't 100% true. You are also making basically the same generalization you jump on others for. Many of the ones doing it aren't just in it for the money, just like not most people on welfare aren't cheating the system. And before you reply keep in mind my wife is a social worker with the state and she does foster care and adoption. Yes there could be more homes but if you think leaving kids with crack head parents who couldn't care less if the kids starve to death is a better option you are truely clueless.

[acemona]

Whose choice was it to use in the first place? Whose choice was it to not get clean.

 

You obviously don't know much about it.

[woodsrider]

You obviously don't know much about it.

:lol:Whatever you say smart guy.

[75center]

Giving the state custody would swamp the resources available. In addition to foster care there are residential homes all over the state that are no where near capacity, often not even at half capacity. However, they could fill them all up and take advantage of all the foster homes and still not have enough to handle all the kids that would be sent into the system. That and the fact that the state does not have the medicaid money to support doing something like this makes it impossible. It is unfortunate because many children can be helped if they are removed from these types of family environments.

[Zanny]

This is a policy designed to divert federal dollars for cash grants to private industry. It also drums up more business to the private contractor who performs the tests. I believe their governor made millions on government programs (Medicaid and Medicare) prior to his election. A poor person (or a grandmother taking care of grandchildren) has to be tested, at their own expense, before their application is approved. In some areas of the state, like the rural Panhandle, they have to travel several miles, to the contractor's site. The website encourages people to purchase the more expensive battery of tests just in case they get a false positive. The policy does nothing to address the root problems of drug addiction, does not provide for treatment, and sets up another barrier for poor people who don't use drugs. Child protective services are extremely expensive and there are not enough "foster parents" to meet the demand.

[spindoc]

Giving the state custody would swamp the resources available. In addition to foster care there are residential homes all over the state that are no where near capacity, often not even at half capacity. However, they could fill them all up and take advantage of all the foster homes and still not have enough to handle all the kids that would be sent into the system. That and the fact that the state does not have the medicaid money to support doing something like this makes it impossible. It is unfortunate because many children can be helped if they are removed from these types of family environments.

While I agree with you, I also think that the # of those who lost benefits because of this would likely be significantly reduced once they saw that the threat had teeth. And I have some vague dealings with foster situations and while many are significantly overwhelmed, others have kids come and go like a revolving door between the foster parent and the biological parent. So, it isn't necessarily a permanent situation for the kids. And I would assume that it would likely be similar if this deal was put in place.