|
Post by M~ on Feb 20, 2016 18:33:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Feb 20, 2016 18:48:09 GMT
Monumental waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Feb 20, 2016 18:53:33 GMT
Drug testing those that passed this legislation would probably yield actual results.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Feb 20, 2016 19:19:36 GMT
I don't feel that everyone needs or should be drug tested, but if there is a suspicion of drug use, then they should have to take a test. Many jobs require the employee to sign a paper saying they will agree to drug testing, so why not people receiving government help?
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Feb 20, 2016 19:22:33 GMT
I don't feel that everyone needs or should be drug tested, but if there is a suspicion of drug use, then they should have to take a test. Many jobs require the employee to sign a paper saying they will agree to drug testing, so why not people receiving government help? Do you really think it's a wise economic decision to spend $336,000 to identify 48 drug users?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 20, 2016 19:48:38 GMT
What a waste - but the idiots who think this is a great idea will feel great about THAT wasted money, all the while bitching and moaning about the money that TANF recipients use to actually feed themselves and their children. They are much happier spending money to make people feel like criminals for accepting welfare than they are spending money to feed the poor. I'm sure that was Christ's message to the world...
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Feb 20, 2016 21:11:46 GMT
I don't feel that everyone needs or should be drug tested, but if there is a suspicion of drug use, then they should have to take a test. Many jobs require the employee to sign a paper saying they will agree to drug testing, so why not people receiving government help? Do you really think it's a wise economic decision to spend $336,000 to identify 48 drug users? It is for the private company that has the contract to do the testing. Cough.
|
|
Peamac
Pearl Clutcher
Refupea # 418
Posts: 4,218
Jun 26, 2014 0:09:18 GMT
|
Post by Peamac on Feb 20, 2016 21:24:34 GMT
Are there similar results when testing SNAP recipients?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 20, 2016 21:28:13 GMT
Are there similar results when testing SNAP recipients? In Florida, it was both SNAP and TANF included in the results. Technically, TANF is designed to cover what SNAP benefits do not (papergoods, personal hygiene products, etc.) The amounts are fairly small, and have a life time limit for adults (less than five years.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 4:14:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 21:39:18 GMT
I don't feel that everyone needs or should be drug tested, but if there is a suspicion of drug use, then they should have to take a test. Many jobs require the employee to sign a paper saying they will agree to drug testing, so why not people receiving government help? Do you really think it's a wise economic decision to spend $336,000 to identify 48 drug users? If everyone isn't being tested it won't cost $336,000 to test the 48 (or so) drug users.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 4:14:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 21:40:45 GMT
I don't feel that everyone needs or should be drug tested, but if there is a suspicion of drug use, then they should have to take a test. Many jobs require the employee to sign a paper saying they will agree to drug testing, so why not people receiving government help? I agree with this, it seems very reasonable. This is one of those subjects where the Peas have actually changed my original firm stance on the subject. I have heard many statistics and opinions that I hadn't heard before.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Feb 20, 2016 21:44:06 GMT
Do you really think it's a wise economic decision to spend $336,000 to identify 48 drug users? If everyone isn't being tested it won't cost $336,000 to test the 48 (or so) drug users. The money has already been spent, so it's water under the bridge. And that didn't count the $1.3 million to set up the program for the first three years.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Feb 20, 2016 21:51:46 GMT
Do you really think it's a wise economic decision to spend $336,000 to identify 48 drug users? It is for the private company that has the contract to do the testing. Cough. ...and that company has connections to someone in the legislature...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 4:14:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 21:54:33 GMT
If everyone isn't being tested it won't cost $336,000 to test the 48 (or so) drug users. The money has already been spent, so it's water under the bridge. And that didn't count the $1.3 million to set up the program for the first three years. If they make cuts in the amount of testing as smalltowngirlie suggested, that money will go a lot farther than just 3 years, so it won't be $336,000 for 48 drug users.
|
|
|
Post by Basket1lady on Feb 20, 2016 21:54:43 GMT
In theory, it sounds good. Don't give the drug uses aid. But really, aren't they the ones who need it the most? What is the alternative?
I'm not a fan of drug use or supporting another's use of drugs. But I can't support letting someone starve or live in the streets, either.
It would be nice to say that if someone tests positive, they go to treatment. But that's often not available. I'd really like to know what the options are that those who test positive would be offered. Someone addicted to drugs is going to chose the drugs over food or shelter. That's the trouble with addiction.
|
|
|
Post by carly on Feb 20, 2016 22:15:40 GMT
What a waste - but the idiots who think this is a great idea will feel great about THAT wasted money, all the while bitching and moaning about the money that TANF recipients use to actually feed themselves and their children. They are much happier spending money to make people feel like criminals for accepting welfare than they are spending money to feed the poor. I'm sure that was Christ's message to the world... What's your point of your jab with "Christ message"? Here is something just as relevant "what would your Muslim friends do to your gay friends? Cut their head off!" I am am just as offended by your off hand comment.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Feb 20, 2016 22:30:38 GMT
What a waste - but the idiots who think this is a great idea will feel great about THAT wasted money, all the while bitching and moaning about the money that TANF recipients use to actually feed themselves and their children. They are much happier spending money to make people feel like criminals for accepting welfare than they are spending money to feed the poor. I'm sure that was Christ's message to the world... What's your point of your jab with "Christ message"? Here is something just as relevant "what would your Muslim friends do to your gay friends? Cut their head off!" I am am just as offended by your off hand comment. You are working very hard to be offended.
|
|
|
Post by carly on Feb 20, 2016 22:37:50 GMT
What's your point of your jab with "Christ message"? Here is something just as relevant "what would your Muslim friends do to your gay friends? Cut their head off!" I am am just as offended by your off hand comment. You are working very hard to be offended. Maybe to you, but do you realize to lots of people Christ is the most important thing in their lives.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Feb 20, 2016 22:43:20 GMT
It seems to me that the point is that if one (not you personally, but many politicians) is so adamant about touting Christian values, cutting services to the poorest among us does not seem to go along with the teachings of Jesus. It appears very hypocritical to many of us.
There is no politician in the USA, that I am aware of, trading on his or her strong Muslim faith.
|
|
|
Post by AussieMeg on Feb 20, 2016 22:44:31 GMT
What a waste - but the idiots who think this is a great idea will feel great about THAT wasted money, all the while bitching and moaning about the money that TANF recipients use to actually feed themselves and their children. They are much happier spending money to make people feel like criminals for accepting welfare than they are spending money to feed the poor. I'm sure that was Christ's message to the world... What's your point of your jab with "Christ message"? Here is something just as relevant "what would your Muslim friends do to your gay friends? Cut their head off!" I am am just as offended by your off hand comment. What the heck? I don't want to speak for Elaine, but I'm pretty sure she was making a point about how Christ helped everyone, even criminals and murderers, and that he wouldn't have demanded a drug test before helping them. How on earth did you read anything offensive into her comment?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 20, 2016 22:58:33 GMT
It seems to me that the point is that if one (not you personally, but many politicians) is so adamant about touting Christian values, cutting services to the poorest among us does not seem to go along with the teachings of Jesus. It appears very hypocritical to many of us. There is no politician in the USA, that I am aware of, trading on his or her strong Muslim faith. What the heck? I don't want to speak for Elaine, but I'm pretty sure she was making a point about how Christ helped everyone, even criminals and murderers, and that he wouldn't have demanded a drug test before helping them. How on earth did you read anything offensive into her comment? To both posts quoted. Nursery and Meg, thank you for further explaining what I was saying. I thought that, given the climate of today's US politics, the meaning was clear, but apparently not. THANKS again!
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 20, 2016 23:12:21 GMT
I think the whole push for testing is predicated on the preconceived idea that everyone who is receiving any kind of public assistance is lazy, doing drugs and not working on purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 4:14:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 23:32:25 GMT
I think the whole push for testing is predicated on the preconceived idea that everyone who is receiving any kind of public assistance is lazy, doing drugs and not working on purpose. I disagree. I believe the thought is that every dollar that goes to someone who could provide for themselves but isn't, is one dollar less that could be used somewhere it's truly needed.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 21, 2016 0:03:43 GMT
I think the whole push for testing is predicated on the preconceived idea that everyone who is receiving any kind of public assistance is lazy, doing drugs and not working on purpose. I disagree. I believe the thought is that every dollar that goes to someone who could provide for themselves but isn't, is one dollar less that could be used somewhere it's truly needed. But...not to be disagreeable, you just proved my point. It is the idea that people who are receiving public assistance are making the choice not to work. For a good majority of people who are receiving food stamps, they are (or a member of their household) IS working. Not to mention that people who are receiving TANF are not only subject to lifetime limits, they are also (if an adult and have no barriers) required to provide 40 hours per week of a work component-be it education, actual employment or work preparation/search.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 4:14:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 0:14:55 GMT
I disagree. I believe the thought is that every dollar that goes to someone who could provide for themselves but isn't, is one dollar less that could be used somewhere it's truly needed. But...not to be disagreeable, you just proved my point. It is the idea that people who are receiving public assistance are making the choice not to work. For a good majority of people who are receiving food stamps, they are (or a member of their household) IS working. Not to mention that people who are receiving TANF are not only subject to lifetime limits, they are also (if an adult and have no barriers) required to provide 40 hours per week of a work component-be it education, actual employment or work preparation/search. No, not really. My point was not that ALL are making the choice not to work, but that any that are would be taking money from those that truly need it.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 21, 2016 0:23:51 GMT
But...not to be disagreeable, you just proved my point. It is the idea that people who are receiving public assistance are making the choice not to work. For a good majority of people who are receiving food stamps, they are (or a member of their household) IS working. Not to mention that people who are receiving TANF are not only subject to lifetime limits, they are also (if an adult and have no barriers) required to provide 40 hours per week of a work component-be it education, actual employment or work preparation/search. No, not really. My point was not that ALL are making the choice not to work, but that any that are would be taking money from those that truly need it. I don't disagree in that money squandered could be better spent, but I suspect where we will never agree is the numbers of those people. I don't think the numbers are as high as some would like us to believe that they are.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 21, 2016 0:41:39 GMT
Well, one could make the argument that huge amounts of money are being squandered on pointless drug testing. I, personally, would rather that money were "squandered" on feeding people living in poverty for whatever reason than on drug testing a population that apparently abuses drugs LESS than the general population.
Why isn't the conservative media - FOX news, for example - throwing temper tantrums about this obvious waste of money?
|
|
|
Post by carly on Feb 21, 2016 1:08:01 GMT
It seems to me that the point is that if one (not you personally, but many politicians) is so adamant about touting Christian values, cutting services to the poorest among us does not seem to go along with the teachings of Jesus. It appears very hypocritical to many of us. There is no politician in the USA, that I am aware of, trading on his or her strong Muslim faith. What the heck? I don't want to speak for Elaine, but I'm pretty sure she was making a point about how Christ helped everyone, even criminals and murderers, and that he wouldn't have demanded a drug test before helping them. How on earth did you read anything offensive into her comment? To both posts quoted. Nursery and Meg, thank you for further explaining what I was saying. I thought that, given the climate of today's US politics, the meaning was clear, but apparently not. THANKS again! I know exactly what her comment was about. I have read enough to know how she feels about Christians. If you are not into religion why bring it up then? You and I both know you meant it as a kick in the nuts.
|
|
|
Post by carly on Feb 21, 2016 1:09:19 GMT
Well, one could make the argument that huge amounts of money are being squandered on pointless drug testing. I, personally, would rather that money were "squandered" on feeding people living in poverty for whatever reason than on drug testing a population that apparently abuses drugs LESS than the general population. Why isn't the conservative media - FOX news, for example - throwing temper tantrums about this obvious waste of money? Maybe because Nancy Pelosi says we don't have a spending problem.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 21, 2016 1:20:17 GMT
To both posts quoted. Nursery and Meg, thank you for further explaining what I was saying. I thought that, given the climate of today's US politics, the meaning was clear, but apparently not. THANKS again! I know exactly what her comment was about. I have read enough to know how she feels about Christians. If you are not into religion why bring it up then? You and I both know you meant it as a kick in the nuts. WTF? That is way, way out of line. I've never seen Elaine say a single anti-Christian thing, and I believe she's married to a Christian. My husband was Christian, as well, before you start attacking me, too. Unless you're one of those people who think all Jews are anti-Christian?
|
|