States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[alan1]

Oh, and just a comment about 12 step rehab programs. One of the things they espouse is that you have to believe in a "higher power" (god or some such nonsense). So much for that being an effective method for atheists.

 

[Ravi]

Well, MM, I anxiously await your cost benefit analysis. I take it you don't care about American children, but you seem to care about money. Please post the costs of the differing scenarios...welfare vs. orphanages/foster care.

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

 

[alan1]

Well, MM, I anxiously await your cost benefit analysis. I take it you don't care about American children, but you seem to care about money. Please post the costs of the differing scenarios...welfare vs. orphanages/foster care.

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

I suppose you think I'm here to do all your research for you?
News flash for you, I'm not.
I posted facts and backed them up with links for support, feel free to post your own research backed up with links, I don't mind.

 

[Peejay]

Well, MM, I anxiously await your cost benefit analysis. I take it you don't care about American children, but you seem to care about money. Please post the costs of the differing scenarios...welfare vs. orphanages/foster care.

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

The cost for foster care alone would be $97,200 @ $900 per child , per month. It's actually a bit more. The amount paid per child to foster parents is $35 a day, currently in SC. That is just the amount paid to the foster parents. I wouldn't know, and I don't know that there are concrete numbers for what the administrative cost per child is.

 

[alan1]

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

The cost for foster care alone would be $97,200 @ $900 per child , per month. It's actually a bit more. The amount paid per child to foster parents is $35 a day, currently in SC. That is just the amount paid to the foster parents. I wouldn't know, and I don't know that there are concrete numbers for what the administrative cost per child is.

That very well may be true, can you post a link? That's $10,800 per year per child. I know lots of people with 2 kids supporting their family of four on less than $35,000 a year in income, pre-tax.

 

[Ravi]

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

I suppose you think I'm here to do all your research for you?
News flash for you, I'm not.
I posted facts and backed them up with links for support, feel free to post your own research backed up with links, I don't mind.

I simply asked you a question and you seem not to care about the answer...which leads me to believe that you are more concerned with punishing pot heads that you are with the welfare of innocent children. Don't be ashamed to admit it.

A low ball estimate of foster care payments for the care of 9 children comes to over $45,000 per year. This doesn't include the cost of whatever punishment is meted out to the offending parent. So your cost savings is a farce.

 

[Ravi]

I've already posted some numbers and backed them up with links, dispute them and include your links if I am wrong.

Oh, and you can take your snide comment about me "not caring about children" and just dismiss it from your head. It's not a fact, it's you trying to insinuate bullshit to justify your opposing opinion about the discussion. It's weak.

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

The cost for foster care alone would be $97,200 @ $900 per child , per month. It's actually a bit more. The amount paid per child to foster parents is $35 a day, currently in SC. That is just the amount paid to the foster parents. I wouldn't know, and I don't know that there are concrete numbers for what the administrative cost per child is.

Thank you. I found a cost of $14 per day in a different state which is why I called it a lowball estimate.

 

[Peejay]

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

The cost for foster care alone would be $97,200 @ $900 per child , per month. It's actually a bit more. The amount paid per child to foster parents is $35 a day, currently in SC. That is just the amount paid to the foster parents. I wouldn't know, and I don't know that there are concrete numbers for what the administrative cost per child is.

That very well may be true, can you post a link? That's $10,800 per year per child. I know lots of people with 2 kids supporting their family of four on less than $35,000 a year in income, pre-tax.

The amount varies from place to place. Recently in SC, I was solicited as a possible foster for troubled teens. The pay was $35 a day, per child. Some recieve more and some recieve less. One person reports $52 a day.: WikiAnswers - How much do you get paid to keep a foster child

Also, you can get an idea from the current cost of $33 billion spent on foster care for abused and neglected children. I don't know if we can correlate any numbers with accuracy, but suffice to say that if 6% of parents on PA lose there kids, that number will get larger.....much larger. There is also indirect cost of $70 billion attached to these kids that are already taken. Child Abuse and Neglect Cost Nation over $100 Billion per year;

So, when you add it all up, this is a losing proposition. Anyone who has been involved, first hand, with taking kids from their homes will tell you, unless it is absolutely neccesary, you don't let that happen. It cost a shit load of money and nothing screws up a kid, already at high risk, like taking him from his parents.

 

[alan1]

You posted the cost of drug testing and the savings it would generate in food stamp costs if six people were busted. I asked you to show me what it would cost to institutionalize the children. You claimed a yearly savings of $36,000 by not allowing the six families food stamps.

Please post how much it would cost to keep the probable amount of children in foster care...let's use 6 families x 1.5 children for a total of 9 children.

I suppose you think I'm here to do all your research for you?
News flash for you, I'm not.
I posted facts and backed them up with links for support, feel free to post your own research backed up with links, I don't mind.

I simply asked you a question and you seem not to care about the answer...which leads me to believe that you are more concerned with punishing pot heads that you are with the welfare of innocent children. Don't be ashamed to admit it.

A low ball estimate of foster care payments for the care of 9 children comes to over $45,000 per year. This doesn't include the cost of whatever punishment is meted out to the offending parent. So your cost savings is a farce.

And you, as other posters have, only focus on pot.
I think a child has a much better chance of becoming a successful member of society being raised in foster care than if raised by a heroin or crack addict.

 

[Ravi]

I suppose you think I'm here to do all your research for you?
News flash for you, I'm not.
I posted facts and backed them up with links for support, feel free to post your own research backed up with links, I don't mind.

I simply asked you a question and you seem not to care about the answer...which leads me to believe that you are more concerned with punishing pot heads that you are with the welfare of innocent children. Don't be ashamed to admit it.

A low ball estimate of foster care payments for the care of 9 children comes to over $45,000 per year. This doesn't include the cost of whatever punishment is meted out to the offending parent. So your cost savings is a farce.

And you, as other posters have, only focus on pot.
I think a child has a much better chance of becoming a successful member of society being raised in foster care than if raised by a heroin or crack addict.

I doubt that many heroin or crack addicts can be bothered to fill out the proper paperwork.

 

[Ravi]

I just noticed this in the original OP: A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation [to drug testing].

I've got to find out who this idiot is...unemployment insurance is theoretically an employment bennie.This is actually even stupider that testing welfare recipients.

 

[Peejay]

The people who are heroin and crack addicts have a pretty good chance that they have already lost their kids. Refer to the neglect and abuse link I posted. Also, the heroin and crack addicts have most likely been busted by the cops already and not eligible for welfare anyway. We've already banned them. Like I said before, if anyone is any kind of terrible, long term addict of any kind of drug, they have BEEN CAUGHT at one time or another by the cops and aren't in this pool of people we're going after here.

You guys are thinking in extremes. The overwhelming majority of this 6% or so of recipients that will test positive, are not this image of a street wino / addict stumbling around the corner. Most of these people are going to be functioning users, people you would never know are users unless you tested them.

 

[alan1]

I simply asked you a question and you seem not to care about the answer...which leads me to believe that you are more concerned with punishing pot heads that you are with the welfare of innocent children. Don't be ashamed to admit it.

A low ball estimate of foster care payments for the care of 9 children comes to over $45,000 per year. This doesn't include the cost of whatever punishment is meted out to the offending parent. So your cost savings is a farce.

And you, as other posters have, only focus on pot.
I think a child has a much better chance of becoming a successful member of society being raised in foster care than if raised by a heroin or crack addict.

I doubt that many heroin or crack addicts can be bothered to fill out the proper paperwork.

And I think you are wrong.

 

[KittenKoder]

I simply asked you a question and you seem not to care about the answer...which leads me to believe that you are more concerned with punishing pot heads that you are with the welfare of innocent children. Don't be ashamed to admit it.

A low ball estimate of foster care payments for the care of 9 children comes to over $45,000 per year. This doesn't include the cost of whatever punishment is meted out to the offending parent. So your cost savings is a farce.

And you, as other posters have, only focus on pot.
I think a child has a much better chance of becoming a successful member of society being raised in foster care than if raised by a heroin or crack addict.

I doubt that many heroin or crack addicts can be bothered to fill out the proper paperwork.

Hell ... if they are still alive I can introduce you to at least 10 to 20 of them, that's just from one shelter I lived at ...

 

[Care4all]

Care ... what do you mean IF?

We waste millions a year in Seattle for drug programs, which many are forced to go to if they get caught, almost 80% of those who do go right back to their old habits after they finish the program, 10% don't even finish and end up back in jail. Almost all of these "repeat offenders" are on welfare, so it's costing us double. Our city is broke, beyond broke, and you think we need more?

you can't be on welfare anymore without working or being in a work training program Kitten.

Not since the gingrich welfare reform legislation.

we have had a 50% reduction in TANF/Welfare since this legislation passed.

So, perhaps when you were homeless on welfare, things were different....

Care

Less than two years ago. When you are disabled you also get welfare, and my best friend in real life works with them, so I still have access to the info. Plus I get Medicaid, not willing to pay a small fortune for my occasional doctors visits and constant hosipital visits for a medical problem caused by their incompetence.

The only they use are background checks, and they don't have to be on a program unless they have a conviction. But the programs don't work, they FAIL, AA only has a 12% success rate, NA is worse. Drug testing it the only way to prevent them from taking advantage of it, period.

The program WORKED for my sister in law.....for 4 years, before she fell off the wagon again.... it was the best 4 years of our family's lives and hers as well....

they, (the program), after she had completed it, got her a job at JCP in customer service for the catelog center, and she was straight as an arrow those 4 years and made some pretty good money, supported herself, had her own place that she paid for and was the most wholesome, sweet, smart as a whip and responsible and loving individual during those 4 years....I am grateful that we and her teen age boy being reared by his grandmom and grandpa, got the chance to see her as a normal human being during that period, instead of a drugged out coke and alcohol addict.

She now is a streetwalker, to pay for her addiction.

She NEVER QUALIFIED for welfare, because she was an addict and had been arrested for that and for hooking.

I'm sure it is the same for most addicts, they are not eligible for TANF.

Disability IS NOT TANF, is NOT WELFARE....it is another program....

And yes, many disabled vets from vietnam are drug addicts or alcoholics....should we STRIP THEM of the benefits they get? Many from this Iraq war are also disabled and also are now drug addicts....or alcoholics, should we strip them of their benefits?

You guys, are cold as ice, and heartless to the core, as far as i am concerned, regarding this particular topic....and honestly, i find it hard to take....knowing that there are so many of you that have been waxed over cold.

you all are sweet as pie regarding other issues, but on this one topic, i think it will come back and bite ya some day....karma will get ya!!! I hope not....but life can be funny that way....

Where does the constitution give you the power over another human being in the manner you want....invading their privacy?

And what about the 92%-94% of the people receiving welfare that are NOT ON DRUGS, what right do you have to FORCE them to take a drug test?

Are you also up for all getting BAilout money, every employee of these companies being FORCED to take a drug test as well or is it ONLY THE INDIGENT... the POOR, that you want to discriminate against and take their constitutional rights away.

Once someone tests positive, do you then throw them in jail? What is your plans for the ones that test positive, therefore have broken the law? Jail them and spend a fortune doing such?

Welfare, TANF, is good for 2 years, how long do you keep the drug addicts in prison and at what cost to us tax payers?

I mean, they are breaking the law right? So they should be IN PRISON right?

Care

 

[KittenKoder]

you can't be on welfare anymore without working or being in a work training program Kitten.

Not since the gingrich welfare reform legislation.

we have had a 50% reduction in TANF/Welfare since this legislation passed.

So, perhaps when you were homeless on welfare, things were different....

Care

Less than two years ago. When you are disabled you also get welfare, and my best friend in real life works with them, so I still have access to the info. Plus I get Medicaid, not willing to pay a small fortune for my occasional doctors visits and constant hosipital visits for a medical problem caused by their incompetence.

The only they use are background checks, and they don't have to be on a program unless they have a conviction. But the programs don't work, they FAIL, AA only has a 12% success rate, NA is worse. Drug testing it the only way to prevent them from taking advantage of it, period.

The program WORKED for my sister in law.....for 4 years, before she fell off the wagon again.... it was the best 4 years of our family's lives and hers as well....

they, (the program), after she had completed it, got her a job at JCP in customer service for the catelog center, and she was straight as an arrow those 4 years and made some pretty good money, supported herself, had her own place that she paid for and was the most wholesome, sweet, smart as a whip and responsible and loving individual during those 4 years....I am grateful that we and her teen age boy being reared by his grandmom and grandpa, got the chance to see her as a normal human being during that period, instead of a drugged out coke and alcohol addict.

She now is a streetwalker, to pay for her addiction.

She NEVER QUALIFIED for welfare, because she was an addict and had been arrested for that and for hooking.

I'm sure it is the same for most addicts, they are not eligible for TANF.

Disability IS NOT TANF, is NOT WELFARE....it is another program....

And yes, many disabled vets from vietnam are drug addicts or alcoholics....should we STRIP THEM of the benefits they get? Many from this Iraq war are also disabled and also are now drug addicts....or alcoholics, should we strip them of their benefits?

You guys, are cold as ice, and heartless to the core, as far as i am concerned, regarding this particular topic....and honestly, i find it hard to take....knowing that there are so many of you that have been waxed over cold.

you all are sweet as pie regarding other issues, but on this one topic, i think it will come back and bite ya some day....karma will get ya!!! I hope not....but life can be funny that way....

Where does the constitution give you the power over another human being in the manner you want....invading their privacy?

And what about the 92%-94% of the people receiving welfare that are NOT ON DRUGS, what right do you have to FORCE them to take a drug test?

Are you also up for all getting BAilout money, every employee of these companies being FORCED to take a drug test as well or is it ONLY THE INDIGENT... the POOR, that you want to discriminate against and take their constitutional rights away.

Once someone tests positive, do you them throw them in jail? What is your plans for the ones that test positive, therefore have broken the law? Jail them and spend a fortune doing such?

Welfare, TANF, is good for 2 years, how long do you keep the drug addicts in prison and at what cost to us tax payers?

I mean, they are breaking the law right? So they should be IN PRISON right?

Care

Well ... god for your sister at beating the odds. As for 90% not being on drugs ... reality proves that statistic wrong ... again. More than half those I met in the shelters, on welfare, were selling their food stamp card balances for drugs ... which they used an old address to get almost $100 worth each month. Explain those ... then explain how it is that these programs have a huge revolving door policy, telling them they are going to fail just to keep them coming back? Explain how it is that a welfare worker got in trouble for denying a known alcoholic money from GAU, in spite of his many convictions. Explain reality not easily manipulated statistics.

 

[TheNilvarg]

I'll never support welfare, but since our culture is too mindlessly entitlement-loving to ever get rid of it at this point, this is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Care4all]

And you, as other posters have, only focus on pot.
I think a child has a much better chance of becoming a successful member of society being raised in foster care than if raised by a heroin or crack addict.

I doubt that many heroin or crack addicts can be bothered to fill out the proper paperwork.

Hell ... if they are still alive I can introduce you to at least 10 to 20 of them, that's just from one shelter I lived at ...

so those at the shelter were receiving TANF, a welfare check? and they could recive TANF more than 2 years? I'm sorry, but i think you are wrong kitten....you are mixing programs up, perhaps?

 

[Care4all]

Less than two years ago. When you are disabled you also get welfare, and my best friend in real life works with them, so I still have access to the info. Plus I get Medicaid, not willing to pay a small fortune for my occasional doctors visits and constant hosipital visits for a medical problem caused by their incompetence.

The only they use are background checks, and they don't have to be on a program unless they have a conviction. But the programs don't work, they FAIL, AA only has a 12% success rate, NA is worse. Drug testing it the only way to prevent them from taking advantage of it, period.

The program WORKED for my sister in law.....for 4 years, before she fell off the wagon again.... it was the best 4 years of our family's lives and hers as well....

they, (the program), after she had completed it, got her a job at JCP in customer service for the catelog center, and she was straight as an arrow those 4 years and made some pretty good money, supported herself, had her own place that she paid for and was the most wholesome, sweet, smart as a whip and responsible and loving individual during those 4 years....I am grateful that we and her teen age boy being reared by his grandmom and grandpa, got the chance to see her as a normal human being during that period, instead of a drugged out coke and alcohol addict.

She now is a streetwalker, to pay for her addiction.

She NEVER QUALIFIED for welfare, because she was an addict and had been arrested for that and for hooking.

I'm sure it is the same for most addicts, they are not eligible for TANF.

Disability IS NOT TANF, is NOT WELFARE....it is another program....

And yes, many disabled vets from vietnam are drug addicts or alcoholics....should we STRIP THEM of the benefits they get? Many from this Iraq war are also disabled and also are now drug addicts....or alcoholics, should we strip them of their benefits?

You guys, are cold as ice, and heartless to the core, as far as i am concerned, regarding this particular topic....and honestly, i find it hard to take....knowing that there are so many of you that have been waxed over cold.

you all are sweet as pie regarding other issues, but on this one topic, i think it will come back and bite ya some day....karma will get ya!!! I hope not....but life can be funny that way....

Where does the constitution give you the power over another human being in the manner you want....invading their privacy?

And what about the 92%-94% of the people receiving welfare that are NOT ON DRUGS, what right do you have to FORCE them to take a drug test?

Are you also up for all getting BAilout money, every employee of these companies being FORCED to take a drug test as well or is it ONLY THE INDIGENT... the POOR, that you want to discriminate against and take their constitutional rights away.

Once someone tests positive, do you them throw them in jail? What is your plans for the ones that test positive, therefore have broken the law? Jail them and spend a fortune doing such?

Welfare, TANF, is good for 2 years, how long do you keep the drug addicts in prison and at what cost to us tax payers?

I mean, they are breaking the law right? So they should be IN PRISON right?

Care

Well ... god for your sister at beating the odds. As for 90% not being on drugs ... reality proves that statistic wrong ... again. More than half those I met in the shelters, on welfare, were selling their food stamp card balances for drugs ... which they used an old address to get almost $100 worth each month. Explain those ... then explain how it is that these programs have a huge revolving door policy, telling them they are going to fail just to keep them coming back? Explain how it is that a welfare worker got in trouble for denying a known alcoholic money from GAU, in spite of his many convictions. Explain reality not easily manipulated statistics.

FOOD STAMPS is NOT TANF, not a welfare check. Most receiving food stamps are all low end WORKERS....they work for a living.

 

[KittenKoder]

I doubt that many heroin or crack addicts can be bothered to fill out the proper paperwork.

Hell ... if they are still alive I can introduce you to at least 10 to 20 of them, that's just from one shelter I lived at ...

so those at the shelter were receiving TANF, a welfare check? and they could recive TANF more than 2 years? I'm sorry, but i think you are wrong kitten....you are mixing programs up, perhaps?

If you are talking about TANF only, well there's one HUGE flaw with that program ... and now there are two women in the shelter system famous for taking advantage of that flaw, one with 14 kids (who stopped only because the drugs finally caught up with her) and another with 3 and one on the way. ALL in foster care, and the newest one is planning on more just so she can keep getting TANF and WIC. They get their apartments for the two years, still doing th drugs, lose their kids, and go back to the shelters while they get pregnant again.