Mandatory Urine Testing for Welfare Recipients:

Adam · March 11, 2009

Forward by email from friend, Mark Zamzow:

JOB - URINE TEST

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their lazy butts, doing drugs, while I work. . .. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree. :thumbsup:

Edited March 11, 2009 by Adam

jjwvette · March 11, 2009

IMADreamer · March 11, 2009

I guess I gotta disagree with this one. How much in tax money would it take to test all the welfare people? That stuff is not free. I would imagine it would be a substantial cost. Seems like a waste in a time where there are people who legitimately need that money that we would be spending to keep the small percentage of deadbeats out.

Then where do we draw the line? Can the welfare people smoke? Drink? have TV? buy books or magazine? I mean the idea is to sort of say if you are spending money on useless things like drugs then you shouldn't get tax dollars. Granted drugs are illegal but I'm just saying it opens up a big can of worms.

Rich · March 11, 2009

I'm for it. Why should I be forced to supply the cash or sellable food stamps so some junkie can go shoot or snort up? Look at how much taxpayers are going to have to pay to raise those 8 babies that the welfare mom just dropped. How convenient that her father, who two weeks ago only had $100 in his savings account, now bought his daughter a half million dollar house! With all of these "monster families" on tv every time you change the channel, and all of the publicity and free stuff they are handed, does anyone besides me see that this could become another trend for people who just don't want to work to get "taken care of" for the rest of their lives and start popping out multiples? Something is going terribly wrong with society's thinking in this country.

FATBOY · March 11, 2009

Forward by email from friend, Mark Zamzow:

JOB - URINE TEST

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their lazy butts, doing drugs, while I work. . .. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

70'sChevyGirl · March 11, 2009

I think this should have been mandatory years ago. :2thumbs:

Adam · March 11, 2009

I guess I gotta disagree with this one. How much in tax money would it take to test all the welfare people? That stuff is not free. I would imagine it would be a substantial cost. Seems like a waste in a time where there are people who legitimately need that money that we would be spending to keep the small percentage of deadbeats out.

Then where do we draw the line? Can the welfare people smoke? Drink? have TV? buy books or magazine? I mean the idea is to sort of say if you are spending money on useless things like drugs then you shouldn't get tax dollars. Granted drugs are illegal but I'm just saying it opens up a big can of worms.

Great points Jason! Make drug testing something that welfare recipients pay for. For instance, to get paid for our jobs, we pay for gas to drive to work. Why should the welfare recipients just get paid with zero costs of getting that payment?

Next, I'd say NO DICE to the following, if the government is paying one's living with our tax dollars:

Absolutely no smoking. Why should taxpayers pay for someone to slowly kill themselves by inhaling carbon monoxide, when they need 110% of their potential to find a job? Not to mention, going on an interview smelling like an ashtray isn't going to help! We won't hire smokers, as the smoke breaks, and tripled health care costs are unacceptable.
Drinking? With your tax dollars? So, taxpayers should pay non-working Americans' bar tab? Why, so the person can be hung over in the morning? How will that help them get a job? Will that advance them at all? No booze should be paid for with our tax dollars.
TV: Absolutely not! Why should anyone be allowed to hang out in front of the tube all day, when he/she should be 1) getting educated, 2) tuning up a resume, 3) going on interviews, or 4)doing whatever possible to achieve work. (Is sitting at home all day watching the news motivating? How about Soap Operas? 99% of all TV is junk, a waste of time, and counter-productive.) I strongly believe that if the taxpayers are paying one's way, that person should a single important effort: Earning a living as soon as possible. TV will ONLY delay that process.
People are miserable when on government assistance. When they are working, they are a contributing member of society, and feel 500% better about themselves. Why give people access to things that will keep them feeling badly about themselves, like smoking, drinking, or watching TV?
Finally, books and magazines can be educational so certainly, education expenses should not be outlawed.

Well, I've been pretty frank here, and won't be accused of beating around the bush!

-Adam:patriot:

Rich · March 11, 2009

Adam, not everyone is miserable when they're on assistance (or at least don't know they are). Too many of them have been on it all of their lives and doing just fine. Some have even figured out that the more kids they have, the more they get. So I'd have to disagree with your statement number 4. And to be honest, there are days when I hear that they keep getting more and more stuff for free, that I've had to work hard and honest to get, that I almost want to chuck it all and be on welfare too. They've got it made for sure. Of course, I have to be able to sleep at night, so that is out of the question. But it is frustrating.

IMADreamer · March 11, 2009

Great points Jason! Make drug testing something that welfare recipients pay for. For instance, to get paid for our jobs, we pay for gas to drive to work. Why should the welfare recipients just get paid with zero costs of getting that payment?

Next, I'd say NO DICE to the following, if the government is paying one's living with our tax dollars:

Absolutely no smoking. Why should taxpayers pay for someone to slowly kill themselves by inhaling carbon monoxide, when they need 110% of their potential to find a job? Not to mention, going on an interview smelling like an ashtray isn't going to help! We won't hire smokers, as the smoke breaks, and tripled health care costs are unacceptable.

Drinking? With your tax dollars? So, taxpayers should pay non-working Americans' bar tab? Why, so the person can be hung over in the morning? How will that help them get a job? Will that advance them at all? No booze should be paid for with our tax dollars.

TV: Absolutely not! Why should anyone be allowed to hang out in front of the tube all day, when he/she should be 1) getting educated, 2) tuning up a resume, 3) going on interviews, or 4)doing whatever possible to achieve work. (Is sitting at home all day watching the news motivating? How about Soap Operas? 99% of all TV is junk, a waste of time, and counter-productive.) I strongly believe that if the taxpayers are paying one's way, that person should a single important effort: Earning a living as soon as possible. TV will ONLY delay that process.

People are miserable when on government assistance. When they are working, they are a contributing member of society, and feel 500% better about themselves. Why give people access to things that will keep them feeling badly about themselves, like smoking, drinking, or watching TV?

Finally, books and magazines can be educational so certainly, education expenses should not be outlawed.

Well, I've been pretty frank here, and won't be accused of beating around the bush!

-Adam:patriot:

Ok, I'm on board with this plan. As long as my tax dollars aren't paying for their drug tests and frivolous crap I'm all for it.

While I'm at it, the thing that drives me nuts the most is Welfare people on cell phones. One time in a moment of extreme jerkdom I sorta confronted a guy at a bar who was on welfare and talking on a cell phone. I meant everything I said to him though.

Marylander · March 11, 2009

The problem is that -- generally speaking, and I know there are exceptions -- the people who work the system have no shame about taking, taking and taking and will always find a away to work around any rules or regulations that make the system more means- or responsibility-based.

It really sucks, but the genie is out of the bottle on this... it's probably next to impossible to weed the abuse out of the system.

estecoca · March 11, 2009

I think Jason makes an excellent argument. However, I have to disagree with him, and agree with this plan. My reason is that even if it costs taxpayers $ to perform the drug tests, it would be worth it based on the principle of the matter. Fundamentally, it is wrong to give aid to someone who does drugs. No one would argue that. Therefore, I would argue that it is worth some amount of $ to protect this principle.

I think too many of our society's issues are based on doing anything to improve the bottom line. We need to get back to principles, and this is one opportunity to do so...

Now, do I think this plan would ever be put in place???? NO....like someone else said, the genie is out of the bottle now...kinda hard to put it back in

bobfred44 · March 11, 2009

Great points Jason! Make drug testing something that welfare recipients pay for. For instance, to get paid for our jobs, we pay for gas to drive to work. Why should the welfare recipients just get paid with zero costs of getting that payment?

Next, I'd say NO DICE to the following, if the government is paying one's living with our tax dollars:

Absolutely no smoking. Why should taxpayers pay for someone to slowly kill themselves by inhaling carbon monoxide, when they need 110% of their potential to find a job? Not to mention, going on an interview smelling like an ashtray isn't going to help! We won't hire smokers, as the smoke breaks, and tripled health care costs are unacceptable.

Drinking? With your tax dollars? So, taxpayers should pay non-working Americans' bar tab? Why, so the person can be hung over in the morning? How will that help them get a job? Will that advance them at all? No booze should be paid for with our tax dollars.

TV: Absolutely not! Why should anyone be allowed to hang out in front of the tube all day, when he/she should be 1) getting educated, 2) tuning up a resume, 3) going on interviews, or 4)doing whatever possible to achieve work. (Is sitting at home all day watching the news motivating? How about Soap Operas? 99% of all TV is junk, a waste of time, and counter-productive.) I strongly believe that if the taxpayers are paying one's way, that person should a single important effort: Earning a living as soon as possible. TV will ONLY delay that process.

People are miserable when on government assistance. When they are working, they are a contributing member of society, and feel 500% better about themselves. Why give people access to things that will keep them feeling badly about themselves, like smoking, drinking, or watching TV?

Finally, books and magazines can be educational so certainly, education expenses should not be outlawed.

Well, I've been pretty frank here, and won't be accused of beating around the bush!

-Adam:patriot:

Adam, I could not have said in any better. Unfortunately, we have lowered the bar in the US when it comes to work ethics. More and more want more but do not want to work hard to get it including many government workers. But, I also will say, no matter how frustrated I get over this situation, there is no way I am going to stop working late nights and weekends. I believe in investing in myself and no government is going to change that life style,,,period. I also feel very proud to say both our kids have instilled that work ethics into their careers.

Rich · March 11, 2009

The problem is that -- generally speaking, and I know there are exceptions -- the people who work the system have no shame about taking, taking and taking and will always find a away to work around any rules or regulations that make the system more means- or responsibility-based.

It really sucks, but the genie is out of the bottle on this... it's probably next to impossible to weed the abuse out of the system.

:iagree:

Adam · March 11, 2009

Adam, not everyone is miserable when they're on assistance (or at least don't know they are). Too many of them have been on it all of their lives and doing just fine. Some have even figured out that the more kids they have, the more they get. So I'd have to disagree with your statement number 4. And to be honest, there are days when I hear that they keep getting more and more stuff for free, that I've had to work hard and honest to get, that I almost want to chuck it all and be on welfare too. They've got it made for sure. Of course, I have to be able to sleep at night, so that is out of the question. But it is frustrating.

Great points Rich! Still, don't you think that people that work for a living should be rewarded, and those who do not, encouraged to work? Have to believe that people on government assistance would feel better, even if a little bit, when earning their own living? Weather they hide it or not, sucking off the system, and not contributing in any way has to mess with a person's self worth.

You also bring up another great point Rich! How about mandatory birth control for welfare recipients? Should tax payers pay for non-tax payers to multiply? It would exponentially more expensive to pay for more children for the recipients than it would birth control.

Call me crazy, but it seems reasonable to expect people to pay into the system, before they bring more people in to take from it?

I started working before I turned 10, so my perspective is clearly skewed. Still, now as an American, it would be great to see our country right itself, especially now, while capsized.

:patriot:

Edited March 11, 2009 by Adam

70'sChevyGirl · March 11, 2009

I also feel very proud to say both our kids have instilled that work ethics into their careers.

Congrats!!! You are very lucky. :cheers:

Have to believe that people on government assistance would feel better, even if a little bit, when earning their own living?

I think that some would feel better but the majority of those people that seek aide from the government really don't care if they work or not. They seem to have lower standards and don't really give a hoot.

Adam · March 11, 2009

I think that some would feel better but the majority of those people that seek aide from the government really don't care if they work or not. They seem to have lower standards and don't really give a hoot.

Suppose I'm overly optimistic Teresa?! I'd still like to see things improve. Don't you believe that those with little or no standards would care more if our system didn't cater to them, and help keep them down and out?

I'll quote on of our incredible founding fathers,

Thomas Jefferson: <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CAdam%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CAdam%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CAdam%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><style>  </style><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

<o:p> </o:p>

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debt as it goes.”

<o:p> </o:p>

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

<o:p> </o:p>

:patriot:

(Thanks to friend, Brad Chang for sending this.)

mikegeaney · March 11, 2009

Holy cow! I generally keep out of political discussions, but this one it getting too good to stand on the side lines. I believe that the spirit of the discussion here is very well intended and even patriotic, to a degree. :patriot:

Various suggested policies, such as forcing contraceptives on certain folks, are a slippery slope if not a bit radical in and of themselves. What's the next step, sterilization? While I certainly agree that there are abuses within the system I believe that the problem is the system itself. We need a system that rehabilitates and educates, not just one that sustains the staus quo for these folks.

We do need to get away from the sense of entitlement and lack of work ethic that permiates this country at all levels of the socio-economic scale, not just those on some type of assistance. We also need to consider that the world needs ditch diggers too...

Marylander · March 11, 2009

Various suggested policies, such as forcing contraceptives on certain folks, are a slippery slope if not a bit radical in and of themselves. What's the next step, sterilization? While I certainly agree that there are abuses within the system I believe that the problem is the system itself. We need a system that rehabilitates and educates, not just one that sustains the staus quo for these folks.

We do need to get away from the sense of entitlement and lack of work ethic that permiates this country at all levels of the socio-economic scale, not just those on some type of assistance. We also need to consider that the world needs ditch diggers too...

:iagree: Well put. And any political debate that references a line from Caddy Shack gets double points in my book. :cheers:

Rich

Chris@Adams · March 11, 2009

I thank God that I wasn't born into a family like that ! Some families can't seem to brake away from that type of lifestyle ! They grow up not knowing any better ! Sad !!

Nitelord · March 11, 2009

I'm all for it. It may have it's bumps, but it would be a step in the right direction.

I for one and tired of paying for someone else to not take a job when it's available. All because they make more on welfare than if they had to earn a pay check.

IMADreamer · March 11, 2009

Adam, I could not have said in any better. Unfortunately, we have lowered the bar in the US when it comes to work ethics. More and more want more but do not want to work hard to get it including many government workers. But, I also will say, no matter how frustrated I get over this situation, there is no way I am going to stop working late nights and weekends. I believe in investing in myself and no government is going to change that life style,,,period. I also feel very proud to say both our kids have instilled that work ethics into their careers.

It's sad that you are so right. I grew up a farm boy so I guess I had hard work drilled into me, I always dreamed of a job where I could work 9-5 and go home and goof off at night. I don't have one yet though. lol This "the govt will do it for me attitude" has to stop in my opinion. I have a confession to make, *sucks in deep breath* I work for the Democratic party. lol It gets harder and harder to support them though. In a twist of irony my job does not provide me with health insurance and I do not make a lot of money. So what did I do? sit around and wait for the govt to provide it? No I got a second job. I do my normal job 5 days a week and then work as a water treatment technician on the weekends. That job has the sole purpose of paying my health insurance. It means alot of sacrifice in my social life but it means I totally support myself and that feels better then going out and partying on weekends anyway. Top that off with still helping on the family farm during harvest and I'm a busy man.

The whole point of this was not to brag on myself though, it brings me to a funny thing my boss of my full time job said to me last year during harvest. She said "I don't know how you do it, working everyday all the time." I kind of laughed at her because honestly she is one of the laziest people I know and works MAYBE 10 hours a week. I simply told her that I just do it, it's the way I was raised.

Sadly many people my age and younger (I'm 28 btw) don't have that work ethic. I see it all the time at my job. We hire people during campaigns to do door to door work and surveys and inevitably they will half *** it as much as they possibly can. I just don't understand that, it seems they work harder at not working then working.

I'm not sure how we do it as a country, but we have to instill some work ethic into people. I know that someday if I'm blessed enough to meet a nice girl and settle down and have kids they will get to spend some quality time with their Grandfather at the farm learning how to put in a good days work.

Bill-V8V · March 11, 2009

it seems they work harder at not working then working.

That sums it up well right there :2thumbs:

And there are plenty of people who have well paying jobs that do that too :mad: :mad: :mad:

I see it every day and it drives me crazy !!!!!

I had someone complain to me that they had to take a 15 minute phone call the other night at 8 PM. Oh my, that must have ruined his whole week.

This guy makes 100K + a year and he couldn't take one phone call without complaining about it!!!!!! And he tells me this two days after I spent 23.5 hours on a single call this weekend :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

There are plenty of people out there right now who would love to have a job and just can't find one. I have no problem with my tax money going to help them feed their families, I am actually glad to be in a position to be able to pay my taxes to help them.

I won't comment on the others who abuse the system, I just don't have enough time or energy to tell my view on that cause I have to have dinner and get my tired a$$ back to work tonight.

Rich · March 12, 2009

Lots of good viewpoints here. This is a good discussion. Does anyone beside me remember back several years ago when the gvt. decided they were going to change the welfare system so that welfare recipients were only going to get $$ for a certain number of months after which they would have to work or get cut off completely? What ever happened to that? There is an awful lot wrong with society in this country. But there is still a lot right. But then again you have people like Bernie Madoff who has all the money in the world, but still had no principles or scruples and robbed so many out of the little they had. There are many, many ways of cheating. Welfare fraud is just one of them.

Marylander · April 1, 2009

Looks like the idea has some traction:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/index.html

Call your elected officials and support them!

Article Details:

(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called http://www.notwithmytaxdollars.com.  art.craig.blair.jpg

Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.

Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

"It seems ironic that welfare and unemployment are both designed to get you back to work and everything, but how is that possible if you're on drugs?" Blair asked.

Lawmakers in 10 states are considering some type of legislation to tie the expansion of safety-net spending to random drug testing. Similar measures in Michigan and Arizona have failed, either struck down by the courts or found to be too expensive.

amFIX: Should people be drug tested before getting benefits?

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project, calls it "typical political theater."

He says the measures will be challenged in court and struck down. Random drug testing is costly, and he called such measures "cruel" during a recession.

"If anything, [you'd think] people would be more compassionate now that people have lost jobs," Boyd said.

But as the recession tightens its grip, momentum is growing in a handful of states to put strings on the vast expansion of safety-net spending.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states (Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, California, Illinois, Iowa, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia and New York) are considering some form of legislation requiring random drug testing for food stamps, jobless checks and other state entitlements.

It could affect millions of Americans who are turning to expanded benefits signed into law as part of the economic stimulus package.

According to the Labor Department, a record 5.6 million people from all walks of life collect jobless checks, and the government says that almost 32 million now use food stamps.

Ron Haskins of the centrist Brookings Institution takes issue with lumping jobless benefits with other state benefits. "Unemployment insurance really is not a welfare program. It's an insurance program, which means that they've paid into the program each month they've had earnings," Haskins said. "Unless we want to cancel insurance policies because someone doesn't pass a drug test, I think that's really quite a mistake."

Watch lawmakers who want government assistance recipients to take random drug tests »

Critics also say that these measures don't address drug treatment, the costs of administering the tests or privacy concerns, and that they could prevent drug users from seeking benefits.

But lawmaker Blair said he has been inundated with support for his bill and says epidemic drug use and a worsening economy means it's time for some "tough love."

It's the intersection of several issues -- drug abuse, the recession and bailout overload -- and has generated passionate debate among CNN viewers.

Angie: "If we're going to drug test American citizens who receive taxpayer-funded services, then I'm assuming these drug tests will be administered to the CEOs of AIG, Citi, Wells Fargo and Bank of America as well. Shouldn't the CEO, who receives trillions of taxpayer dollars, be held to the same standard of accountability as the unemployed?"

Ron: "Monies would be better spent on cutting out the sources. The concerns over Mexico's drug cartels would be better invested than random screening of welfare recipients. ... Address the problems, not the symptoms."

Bob: "I get more than a little disturbed when I read that unemployment benefits are considered by some right-wingers to be 'taxpayer-funded handouts.' Handouts? Really? Hmmmm. Seems to me that most people pay, oh, I don't know, unemployment taxes when they are working so they have a safety net if they lose their jobs."

Albert: "Not unless they intend to offer rehab/recovery/counseling if applicants test positive. Will they be screening for alcoholism or gambling addiction? What about nicotine addiction?"

Tami: "I'm in favor. I've also been drug tested for my job. A stipulation for receiving unemployment benefits is that you are actively seeking employment. A person can't be too serious about their job search if they are high."

But Blair said, "You've got to keep in mind to that there is only a limited supply of money out here, and this is not going to hurt anybody that's not doing illicit or illegal drugs. And the fact is that if we can get this people off of the drugs and make it so they're work-ready, that will help us in West Virginia."

Edited April 1, 2009 by Adam
Plugged in article text. Nice find Rich!

Adam · April 1, 2009

Fantastic! Check out these videos:

Edited April 1, 2009 by Adam

Sign In

Mandatory Urine Testing for Welfare Recipients:

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in