Urine Test -- This guy has a point!

[jvansande]

Okay Red, here is what I think, the welfare program is horrible. I do think that we do need a welfare program with better policies and oversight. Too many are taking advantage of the system. While in college, I knew a single mother of one who was living in a subsidized apt. getting so much assistance that she had steaks in the freezer and money in the bank. She also had a good family who could have helped her out. She didnt even know who the father was as it could have been one of four guys. She was abusing the system and it was wrong. She knew it, made jokes about it and didnt care. These are the type of people that need to be eliminated from the program. The kicker is her parents paid for her to stay in college.
I have a heart, many people do need help and are very deserving of it. We need the program. All I want is for the program to be revamped and cut out the abusers of the program. That is all

[Star_Cards]

i still don't understand this theory that everybody who gets public assistance sits on their butt, drinks & smokes dope all day...where does that come from?

You guys don't think there should be unemployment payments for people who get laid off? unemployment is based on the amount you make working...the more you earn, the higher your unemployment. You guys are against Food stamps? Poor people shouldn't eat or something? Against WIC checks for infants? Should children be able to see a doctor when they are sick? you against social security payments for disabled people?

i don't care if you're against these ideas, but how is that everybody who receives them has to be a drug addict or something? you have some figures to back up your theory, or just tossing it out there?

Where in the world did you see him say that "everybody who gets public assistance sits on their butt, drinks & smokes dope all day" or that he didn't want the government to offer these programs?

I don't think it's that crazy to think people on welfare should be drug free. Although paying for all of those tests is another story all together.

[jvansande]

Where in the world did you see him say that "everybody who gets public assistance sits on their butt, drinks & smokes dope all day" or that he didn't want the government to offer these programs?

I don't think it's that crazy to think people on welfare should be drug free. Although paying for all of those tests is another story all together.

I work in a prison and the drug tests we have are cheap and effective. THis will never happen anyway, but the cost of the tests would not be a big issue.

[angel0430]

I get WIC because I qualify for it, but I also work. What he means is that a lot of people rely on the governement and that's it. They don't work or anything but they get the check and they spend it however they want to. People have the ruight to eat and stuff but I think that unless you are an elderly or handicapped, the stamps should be for 6 months and then you have to go to work. There are jobs out there, ie fast foods, cleaning houses, etc. but people don't want to do it because some of therm think it is an emabarrasment to work on those places. Believe me, I have 3 kids and a wife and if I loose my job I will happily be weorking in anything.

[ensbergcollector]

redgonewild - I am interested in the passion behind your defense. You are quick to ask us if we think everyone on welfare is a drug addict who sits on their butt (which no one thinks) but do you admit that there are those on welfare that fit that description? All the original poster was saying is that drug tests would wean out those who do. Why is that a problem?
And, another point that I don't think anyone said, is that the test would show disposable income. If someone can afford to by illegal drugs, I they obviously don't need government assistance.

[jaybird_1981]

I get WIC because I qualify for it, but I also work. What he means is that a lot of people rely on the governement and that's it. They don't work or anything but they get the check and they spend it however they want to. People have the ruight to eat and stuff but I think that unless you are an elderly or handicapped, the stamps should be for 6 months and then you have to go to work. There are jobs out there, ie fast foods, cleaning houses, etc. but people don't want to do it because some of therm think it is an emabarrasment to work on those places. Believe me, I have 3 kids and a wife and if I loose my job I will happily be weorking in anything.

People really don't have the right to eat. It is not the federal governments' job to provided for people. That failure rest on the local communities and churches.

[ensbergcollector]

People really don't have the right to eat. It is not the federal governments' job to provided for people. That failure rest on the local communities and churches.

hey just asking, did you mean the responsibilities lies communities and churches or the failure lies with those? I work for a church that does a lot in the community but even we have limits.

[jaybird_1981]

hey just asking, did you mean the responsibilities lies communities and churches or the failure lies with those? I work for a church that does a lot in the community but even we have limits.

I don't think anyone has a responsibility except the individual, however "charity" should come from the local community and not the government.

[Star_Cards]

I work in a prison and the drug tests we have are cheap and effective. THis will never happen anyway, but the cost of the tests would not be a big issue.

good to know. I have no experience with drug testing cost.

Yeah I agree it would never happen.

[RedGoneWILD]

Yes, I can. Michigan and Vermont. Told you that. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/full.pdf

Ok sorry, I didn't realize that I needed to specify a child. Here is an absolute: Anyone not blood related to me doesn't have the right to my monetary assistance. I may give when I want to. Selfish? Not sure, how about that guy who thinks he has a right to my money?

very good information, thanks for providing it! i just got a chance to thumb through it, and there are no time limits in 2 states....michigan and vermont, just as you said

basically it appears that there is a 60 month limit on the states receiving federal funding. states can choose a different time limit or no time limit at all, offer extensions or exemptions, and choose which category of families they apply to. but after 60 months, no more federal funds.

The 60-month time limit on federal assistance applies nationwide, but not all families on welfare are subject to the limit. The survey of states found that about 55 percent of all families currently on welfare are subject to the federal 60-month time limit. Of those not subject to the federal limit, most are “child-only” cases, which now account for about one-third of the national welfare caseload.

so more than half of all cases will end after 5 years, and the rest are mostly to take care of a child. if the states decide to extend or exempt, it comes out of their pocket. most states have found that a very small proportion of people even reach this time limit. exemptions are most often given to people who are incapacitated or victims of domestic violence.