Florida - Want Welfare? Take a Urinalysis

[WillowTree]

Willow you're coming from a position of supreme ignorance with regards to teh system and how it works.

Taking the children isn't an option. We can't take all the children of all the people who actively ABUSE their children. There's no place to put them. And they DON'T do better when we do take them, they do worse. You would be stunned if you knew how desperate child welfare is for foster parents, and the grade and type of people who sign up to do it. I have seen children left in actively dangerous situations because there was no place to put them, literally.

I don't have a problem with eliminating cash assistance, and if this is about cash assistance only, I could care less. But the SNAP program is what keeps US children from looking like the pathetic waifs in India and Africa. It really does save lives. It also supports farmers and vendors...to make it so only the best of the best can access is a serious mistake, because it's the worst of the worst who must have it. Or you're going to have to start taking the children of addicts into your home on a rotating basis with the rest of your neighbors. I don't think you grasp the numbers, or the depth, of the problem.

Well, I wouldn't say "supreme ignorance". What I am saying is this. and I know you've heard it before... The TAKERS are OUTNUMBERING the givers. It's just that simple. What's really simple is.. "if you care about your children don't take drugs" you now have to decide in the state of Florida,,, drugs or assistance.. and finally what part of "we feed the kids twice a day in school" didn't you hear?

free and reduced price lunches at schools are being cut due to hard times. That should make willow happy.

hard times? vote for obie doodle again,, then you'll think "hard times" DUmmie

 

[Sunshine]

In Nashville, people have been getting evicted from public housing for using drugs for years now. No tests. Just getting caught using or having drugs in the apartment gets you thrown out. Yes, they do routine inspections there just like everywhere. When I was working in the projects I saw many signs on the doors saying 'Drug Eviction.' The person's or family's belongings are taken out and put at the curb where other residents come and pilfer through taking what they want.

See, there's nothing new under the sun. Even in Florida. It seems that the middle class are so far removed from this type of living and environment that all they can really do is speculate about what goes on.

That's good.. if a person isn't too damn poor to buy drugs then he isn't too damn poor to feed himself.

Most of them don't 'buy' drugs per se. They barter generally with sexual favors. The don't live life on a gravy train.

 

[percysunshine]

Most of them don't 'buy' per se. They barter generally with sexual favors. They don't live life on a gravy train.

Hi, my name is Percy. You are not one of my sisters...are you?

 

[Sunshine]

After reading through this thread I regret to inform you all, We are a totally fucked up Nation.
My hats off to all the elected officials who have created this quagmire. They did it and their laughing at us.
So what do we do about it? Keep passing blame, arguing over conservative or Liberal?
I don't have the answer but the conclusion is pretty obvious. We're fucked.

Yeah. They also instituted bussing while sending their own kids to private white flight schools. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Caroljo]

Bottom line -

To qualify for welfare in Fla., you must be clean of illegal drugs.

I fail to see an issue here?

Wrong. You must be clean of illegal drugs long enough to pass a piss test. Which is about a day (with the proper supplements).

except with random testing you smart asses won't know which day will you?

Our company could do random testing, but they haven't yet. You get tested when you're hired, then if you get hurt on the job where you have to go to ER, then you'll be tested again then.

 

[shintao]

Bottom line -

To qualify for welfare in Fla., you must be clean of illegal drugs.

I fail to see an issue here?

And have money.

No issue, she can suck for it.

 

[shintao]

Bottom line -

To qualify for welfare in Fla., you must be clean of illegal drugs.

I fail to see an issue here?

Wrong. You must be clean of illegal drugs long enough to pass a piss test. Which is about a day (with the proper supplements).

except with random testing you smart asses won't know which day will you?

Probably the day she has an appointment for employment.

How you going to feed the children now Willow, since you hair brain idea collapsed like a flat fart on a picnic bench.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can you imagine how much money would be saved if all 50 states enacted this ?

None, perhaps an added expense, given administrative costs and the fact the children will receive benefits via a protective payee if the head of household tests positive. There may be added costs to the taxpayers of Florida should protective services (Child Welfare) remove the children from the home and place them in state custody and foster homes, a very expensive process. The state can’t allow children to remain in the home where the custodial parent is a known drug abuser, which can be construed as neglect.

It would have been cheaper to leave the program alone.

But Scott wasn’t interested in saving money, his only motive was to pander to his TPM base.

 

[WillowTree]

Wrong. You must be clean of illegal drugs long enough to pass a piss test. Which is about a day (with the proper supplements).

except with random testing you smart asses won't know which day will you?

Probably the day she has an appointment for employment.

How you going to feed the children now Willow, since you hair brain idea collapsed like a flat fart on a picnic bench.

Why do I have to feed the children? Isn't that a question you should be asking the drug user who got knocked up?

 

[AmericanFirst]

lol Republicans are such idiots.

Dimwits are much BIGGER IDIOTS!!!

 

[GoneBezerk]

Libs always defend criminals and lazy people.

The Govt can't make sure people aren't breaking the law using WELFARE money to buy ILLEGAL drugs.

Nice logic, dumbfucks.

It is not a right to get welfare, it is something people do for you until we run out of money or goodwill. It i common sense to make sure you are not sitting on your ass and doing drugs with our money when we go to work Monday-Friday.

If you don't like it, eventually we will rise up and eliminate you once the whole system implodes....

 

[flacaltenn]

lol Republicans are such idiots.

You're a dumb motherfucker do you know that??

If I was in your position I would have said: "thats a Fourth Amendment violation" but you're so fucking dumb you have no idea as to what that means.

This is a prime example of why there is no such thing as a UNIVERSAL "social contract".. Because in reality -- it's much more complicated than either partisian side can imagine.

It IS degrading to assume that ALL welfare recipients need to be tested. MIGHT BE a 4th Amendment violation in the interpretation of some.. But I bet even some of my fellow libertarians get caught up in the "economic efficiency" of this edict..

An EFFECTIVE social contract is where you recognize that you are dealing with the "couldbe" functional, the "oncewas" functional, the "nowayinhell" functional and a lot of other unique sets of problems..

And that a contract implies that the reciever is VOLUNTARILY giving up stuff in return..
All that is NOT to be confused with charity, altruism, or good will --- like the left wants to simplistically believe..

 

[Sunshine]

lol Republicans are such idiots.

You're a dumb motherfucker do you know that??

If I was in your position I would have said: "thats a Fourth Amendment violation" but you're so fucking dumb you have no idea as to what that means.

This is a prime example of why there is no such thing as a UNIVERSAL "social contract".. Because in reality -- it's much more complicated than either partisian side can imagine.

It IS degrading to assume that ALL welfare recipients need to be tested. MIGHT BE a 4th Amendment violation in the interpretation of some.. But I bet even some of my fellow libertarians get caught up in the "economic efficiency" of this edict..

An EFFECTIVE social contract is where you recognize that you are dealing with the "couldbe" functional, the "oncewas" functional, the "nowayinhell" functional and a lot of other unique sets of problems..

And that a contract implies that the reciever is VOLUNTARILY giving up stuff in return..
All that is NOT to be confused with charity, altruism, or good will --- like the left wants to simplistically believe..

So is the 'Drug Free Workplace' degrading to some?

 

[AllieBaba]

Can you imagine how much money would be saved if all 50 states enacted this ?

None, perhaps an added expense, given administrative costs and the fact the children will receive benefits via a protective payee if the head of household tests positive. There may be added costs to the taxpayers of Florida should protective services (Child Welfare) remove the children from the home and place them in state custody and foster homes, a very expensive process. The state can’t allow children to remain in the home where the custodial parent is a known drug abuser, which can be construed as neglect.

It would have been cheaper to leave the program alone.

But Scott wasn’t interested in saving money, his only motive was to pander to his TPM base.

Actually, child welfare leaves children with known addicts all the time. They remove them if the parents are NEGLECTFUL addicts, and then spend all sorts of $$$$$ to pay for treatment, counseling, foster care, visitation, mental health counseling and reviews until they can place the children back with the parents.

 

[dblack]

Actually welfare is a violation of the taxpayers right against INVOLUNTARY SLAVERY and their 5th Amendment right not to have the state take money from them - private individuals to give to the parasites , also private individuals.

So you want the privilege? Then waive your rights.

Right. That's pretty much what this all comes down to. Conservatives are opposed to the welfare state, but they don't have the wherewithal to get rid of it - so they resort to this kind of shit. They know that, while they can't get enough consensus to get rid of welfare, they can get plenty of liberals on board when it comes to micromanaging people's lives and telling them how to live. That seems to be the one thing liberals and conservatives agree on.

 

[WillowTree]

Actually welfare is a violation of the taxpayers right against INVOLUNTARY SLAVERY and their 5th Amendment right not to have the state take money from them - private individuals to give to the parasites , also private individuals.

So you want the privilege? Then waive your rights.

Right. That's pretty much what this all comes down to. Conservatives are opposed to the welfare state, but they don't have the wherewithal to get rid of it - so they resort to this kind of shit. They know that, while they can't get enough consensus to get rid of welfare, they can get plenty of liberals on board when it comes to micromanaging people's lives and telling them how to live. That seems to be the one thing liberals and conservatives agree on.

Tell ya what.. you stay the hell outta our wallets and we promise not to tell you how to live..

 

[dblack]

Tell ya what.. you stay the hell outta our wallets and we promise not to tell you how to live..

Thing is, I'm pretty sympathetic to that view. I'm opposed to the welfare state as well. But until we can get rid of it, we should limit the damage. And the damage it does to our social fabric and constitutional protections runs much deeper than 'freeloaders' leaching off taxpayers. Using it as an excuse to start demanding that some of our laws will require that some of us give up our rights is bad mojo. It's essentially conceding the classic authoritarian premise that the state owns the people and not the other way around. That if we receive any benefit from the state, we forfeit our rights. That's bullshit.

If you don't think the benefits should be there - work to remove them. I'll help. But I can't accept the practice of giving up our rights in order to use government services, regardless of whether the person in question has a net balance or a net debit in terms of taxes versus services received. This is a horrible precedent and it will be used against us in other arenas - health care is likely to be next. Just watch...

 

[bucs90]

GREAT job Florida. If cops must take piss tests to get the check they work for, then welfare queens sure as hell should have to take them to get the check they did NOT work for.

Bravo Florida. And in a side-effect, I bet a lot of welfare queens either stop doing drugs, or leave Florida. Double win.

Besides, if a bitch can afford drugs, why she on welfare?????

 

[chanel]

Any parent that would not give up drugs for their kids, isn't fit to be a parent. I believe most of them will. It amazes me that so many of the naysayers don't think so. Why does the left have so little respect for the poor?

 

[bucs90]

I'm shocked at how many liberals are AGAINST making sure our tax money isn't funding drug habits. Actually, wait, is it REALLY that suprising? No. It's not.