NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[Soggy in NOLA]

How about this. If you want MY money, I have a right to set stipulations on you in order to receive that moniney. Whether in the form of paycheck, or in the form of an EBT card.

It's not your money

It was at some point. A a taxpayer I have an interest in how the money that I pay is spent. Giving to people who ostensibly cannot support themselves without my help but can buy weed doesn't work.

But you're ok with endless bullshit wars. Ok, now we know how you think.

Typical liberal bullshit response.... I'm either for endless welfare or endless war... those are my two choices.

How fucking childish.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

And where are you gonna house all those former welfare receipants when they can't pay their rent?

Your house?

How's about in your ass?

My ass is big, but not that big. Now, got something intelligent to add?

That was sarcasm asshole. Will there be anything else I can help you understand?

You? Hardly.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

where did closed caption run off to when I asked hm/her a question that I can perfectly understand why they didn't want to answer?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

where did closed caption run off to when I asked hm/her a question that I can perfectly understand why they didn't want to answer?

It's what he does.... you ask him to support his position with something other than "I know you are, but what am I" and he vanishes.

What logical argument can possibly be given for supporting healthy, able bodied adults who are doing illicit drugs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not? They're government handouts that only certain people get, and not for doing anything beneficial.

Add child tax credits to that.

Handouts? That only works in world where one assumes the government is entitled to 100% of your income so therefore any $ they don't take is magically given to you.

Only a moron believes this.

The government WAS entitled to that portion of your tax bill until the mortgage deduction was invented.

I don't have a mortgage. I don't get my tax bill reduced. That is by definition a handout for the ones that get it.

And after the deduction they are entitled to less. That is not a handout except in leftwing loony land.

It's a handout when someone lowers your bill. It's money in your pocket for no good reason that others don't get.

Yeah, yeah.. we get it.... you're entitled to 100% of everyone elses money.

The mortgage deduction, and many others, take money from everyone else because the percentage of the tax obligation goes UP for everyone else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only reason to drug test people is to further punish them for not having a job so you have to make sure they know they will be subjected to peeing in containers for their amusement

No it's to punish them for using tax payer money for illegal activities

Why do you want to fund crime?

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

It's getting something compared to a person who WORKED, and made the same amount of money as you,

but didn't get the deductions. Breeders are moochers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

Nobody stole from anyone. I'm just smarter about structuring my tax liability than you.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The only reason to drug test people is to further punish them for not having a job so you have to make sure they know they will be subjected to peeing in containers for their amusement

No it's to punish them for using tax payer money for illegal activities

Why do you want to fund crime?

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

It's getting something compared to a person who WORKED, and made the same amount of money as you,

but didn't get the deductions. Breeders are moochers.

Are you really claiming that welfare recipients earn as much as I do, and pay the same taxes I do? Seriously?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

Nobody stole form anyone.

Then why are you calling welfare stealing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only reason to drug test people is to further punish them for not having a job so you have to make sure they know they will be subjected to peeing in containers for their amusement

No it's to punish them for using tax payer money for illegal activities

Why do you want to fund crime?

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

It's getting something compared to a person who WORKED, and made the same amount of money as you,

but didn't get the deductions. Breeders are moochers.

Are you really claiming that welfare recipients earn as much as I do, and pay the same taxes I do? Seriously?

I'm comparing you to someone who works.

 

[Publius1787]

The state has a compelling interest to prevent drug users from raising children. You disagree?

You right wing nuts. Get that government out of my life. Unless us republicans can use government to fuck with poor people.

Hey let's take away all the kids from alcohol drinkers (drug) let's take the kids away from vicodan addicts (drugs) let's take the kids away from oxytocin users (drugs).

There are all kinds of drug users we can take their kids from them.

How big is your house publish?

You invite government in , you're subject to government rules. I don't think that's too much to ask. evidently you do.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Handouts? That only works in world where one assumes the government is entitled to 100% of your income so therefore any $ they don't take is magically given to you.

Only a moron believes this.

The government WAS entitled to that portion of your tax bill until the mortgage deduction was invented.

I don't have a mortgage. I don't get my tax bill reduced. That is by definition a handout for the ones that get it.

And after the deduction they are entitled to less. That is not a handout except in leftwing loony land.

It's a handout when someone lowers your bill. It's money in your pocket for no good reason that others don't get.

Yeah, yeah.. we get it.... you're entitled to 100% of everyone elses money.

The mortgage deduction, and many others, take money from everyone else because the percentage of the tax obligation goes UP for everyone else.

Uhm, you do realize this thread is about drug testing welfare recipients, right?

 

[Publius1787]

this is what the originating article states:


North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants
[email protected]

State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto. After a year’s delay in implementing the law, the state began requiring the testing in August.

Of 7,600 applicants and recipients, about 2 percent were referred for drug testing. The 21 positive tests represent less than 0.3 percent of the people screened.

Work First is the state welfare program that offers short-term cash benefits, training and support services to families. In about 62 percent of Work First cases, only children get benefits — and no adults fall under the test requirement.

The program starts with screening of applicants and benefit recipients. About 7,600 people were screened in the last five months of 2015, said Wayne Black, director of the Social Services Division at the state Department of Health and Human Services.

Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred.

Benefits for adults are cut off if a test is positive, or a test appointment is missed. Seventy people failed to show up for appointments in the last five months of last year, Black told the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services. The totals for 2015 may be off, he said, because some applications filed in December would not have been processed until January.

Of the 21 positive cases, 12 were approved for a reduced payment because children were involved. In the others, the applications were withdrawn or were disqualified for other reasons, Black said.

that's right, there is a difference between "tested" and "screened"

The ones tested, were part of the entire screened group, that govt workers felt were suspicious... of doing drugs or ex felons that were previously convicted of a drug charge within the previous 3 year period.

the 89 were singled out by our govt in the screening process of the 7600 as high risk drug users...

and of those people our gvt considered to have a high risk of drug use, our govt officials were wrong 75% of the time....

Yeah, they were wrong 99.9% of the time when I was piss tested in the Marines but that didn't stop them from testing. Why do you think that is? And when has the government, particularly a social services department, been good at assessing any situation? I think we should drug test everyone on welfare if nothing more than to get the correct data. What say you? One year of correct data and then we can put this argument behind us? Nope, because you don't want the data. Isn't that right?

How about we test EVERYONE for a year and get ALL the correct data?

That would be cool.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No it's to punish them for using tax payer money for illegal activities

Why do you want to fund crime?

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

It's getting something compared to a person who WORKED, and made the same amount of money as you,

but didn't get the deductions. Breeders are moochers.

Are you really claiming that welfare recipients earn as much as I do, and pay the same taxes I do? Seriously?

I'm comparing you to someone who works.

No, you are comparing me to welfare recipients, I have a job bub.

 

[Publius1787]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

Nobody stole form anyone.

Then why are you calling welfare stealing?

What? Dude.. are you high?

 

[Publius1787]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

Misleading thread title on your part, don't you think?

From your link:

Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred

So we are not dealing with a random sample of welfare recipients only a sample of those suspected of drug use. To look at it another way...2/3 of those suspected of drug use are clean

Addressed already. getting kinda tired of those coming late to the game to make the same debunked argument as their predecessors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

It's getting something compared to a person who WORKED, and made the same amount of money as you,

but didn't get the deductions. Breeders are moochers.

Are you really claiming that welfare recipients earn as much as I do, and pay the same taxes I do? Seriously?

I'm comparing you to someone who works.

No, you are comparing me to welfare recipients, I have a job bub.

Let me tell you exactly the comparison I'm making.

Some years ago where I was working, I helped a woman there do her taxes. She made the same wage I did.

She paid $1000 in federal taxes. I paid $5000.

The difference? All the credit she got for having 2 kids.

Get it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

Nobody stole form anyone.

Then why are you calling welfare stealing?

What? Dude.. are you high?

Welfare and tax breaks are all determined by legislation.