States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Ravi]

Then answer me this....

Were these people working? (Most all people reciving TANF have to be holding a job)

Were these people single mothers with children? (The Majority of TANF recipients are single mothers...they have children)

Were these people in a work training program? (Those not working while receiving TANF must be in a work training program)

Were these people felons from their illegal drug use? (No felon can recive any TANF benefit)



If they were not any of these people above, then i stick by you being wrong or you seeing the extreme exception to the rule, somehow....?

Remember, Food Stamps is a separate and DIFFERENT PROGRAM and is NOT TANF/WELFARE.

Is it possible that she was on food stamps before the laws were changed? I don't understand how anyone living in a shelter ever got food stamps...don't you need a permanent address?

food stamps is NOT a welfare/TANF check...and i do not know much about food stamps, other than i know it is not the same program as WELFARE/TANF....they are two different programs....you do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to qualify for food stamps....you can be a full time worker and still qualify for food stamps....

I realize that, my neighbor tried to get food stamps but she made "too much" money off of her social security check at age 80. Something like 600 a month, which barely covered her property tax bill. I guess it is a blessing she didn't have to pee in a cup.

And, in Florida at least, college students can get food stamps if they work 20 hours a week...even if their parents pay all their expenses.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then answer me this....

Were these people working? (Most all people reciving TANF have to be holding a job)

Were these people single mothers with children? (The Majority of TANF recipients are single mothers...they have children)

Were these people in a work training program? (Those not working while receiving TANF must be in a work training program)

Were these people felons from their illegal drug use? (No felon can recive any TANF benefit)



If they were not any of these people above, then i stick by you being wrong or you seeing the extreme exception to the rule, somehow....?

Remember, Food Stamps is a separate and DIFFERENT PROGRAM and is NOT TANF/WELFARE.

Is it possible that she was on food stamps before the laws were changed? I don't understand how anyone living in a shelter ever got food stamps...don't you need a permanent address?

food stamps is NOT a welfare/TANF check...and i do not know much about food stamps, other than i know it is not the same program as WELFARE/TANF....they are two different programs....you do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to qualify for food stamps....you can be a full time worker and still qualify for food stamps....

Tanf = temporary assistance to needy families, and very few of these families have a worker at the head of it. The income standards are extremely low for this group of people, so if you are making $600 a month, you are overincome for TANF, and if you are working and making just a couple of hundred dollars a month, all that you will get via Tanf is a subsidy to bring you up to the income standard. (If the income standard is $600 and you make $500, you get $100).

Foodstamps has a 185% federal poverty level income standard, which means many, many, MANY people who receive food stamps are working, many full time.

And while it isn't unconstitutional to require pee tests, let's get back to the focus. You are penalizing children if you make it impossible for people who are frequently otherwise unemployable or who have issues which land them in the system in the first place, and the FS program's focus is to HELP those children, specifically.

 

[Peejay]

Drug users shoudn't be supporting their habit at tax payer expense. That's not the point. We agree on that. Like I said before, the only way to settle this will be if testing passes constitutional muster first, then we'll see how cost effective it is.

no that IS the point. if I've got a finite amount of cash and I know that I can spend 40 on a sack because I have at least that much in FS coming then that IS the point.


At Scotus level it would have to be allowed or else pre-emplyment drug tests would hinder the exact same breach of the 4th amendment. And, those are not going anywhere.

Yes, we agree on that point. It shouldn't be happening, but it does. The question is what are you willing to spend to stop it ? Would you spend more than we currently do in order to pull people off assistance ? I mean, your principle is solid, I just don't want to pay for it if it means increased spending. And I think it will. So are you trying to save money or are you trying to spend money in order to prove a point ?

Also, an agreed upon test between two private parties is different than a test issued by the federal government. Different circumstances, different parties. I would think that the issue may make it's wat to the SCOTUS sooner or later.

 

[AllieBaba]

Shog would rather waste money that could be used to feed children in order to ensure that those same children don't get future benefits. He would rather do that because it MIGHT result in some woman he hates not getting her food stamps, because he thinks that woman shouldn't have them as a result of getting knocked up by someone she tricked into having sex with her. He doesn't give a shit about the kids, or the money, because that's not what it's about. It's about PUNISHMENT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it possible that she was on food stamps before the laws were changed? I don't understand how anyone living in a shelter ever got food stamps...don't you need a permanent address?

food stamps is NOT a welfare/TANF check...and i do not know much about food stamps, other than i know it is not the same program as WELFARE/TANF....they are two different programs....you do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to qualify for food stamps....you can be a full time worker and still qualify for food stamps....

Tanf = temporary assistance to needy families, and very few of these families have a worker at the head of it. The income standards are extremely low for this group of people, so if you are making $600 a month, you are overincome for TANF, and if you are working and making just a couple of hundred dollars a month, all that you will get via Tanf is a subsidy to bring you up to the income standard. (If the income standard is $600 and you make $500, you get $100).

Foodstamps has a 185% federal poverty level income standard, which means many, many, MANY people who receive food stamps are working, many full time.

And while it isn't unconstitutional to require pee tests, let's get back to the focus. You are penalizing children if you make it impossible for people who are frequently otherwise unemployable or who have issues which land them in the system in the first place, and the FS program's focus is to HELP those children, specifically.

Not to mention, how helpful are you being and how much good are you accomplishing if you take someone who's trying to get their crap together and the first time they relapse (as many people who are trying to stop taking drugs do), you pounce on them and take away their food stamps so they can't feed their kids? I've known people who were on welfare precisely because they screwed up their lives that way and were now trying to come back from it. It's easy to say, "Well, you need to be perfect!" when you're not the one who has to do it.

Bottom line: welfare is about trying to help people, primarily children. It's not about trying to live people's lives for them, or "get those lousy freeloaders" and make sure they really suffer for their mistakes. We can argue whether or not the federal government has any Constitutional business giving out welfare in the first place, but that's a different thread. If we ARE going to do it, then we need to keep in mind the primary reason.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bingo. THe program is there. If you want a different program, put out a different set of rules. But don't arbitrarily decide the focus is moving away from providing foods to kids.

 

[Peejay]

Let's see if we can make any kind of sense of a cost benefit analysis.

We will work with a group of 100 people recieving food stamps.

The average national food stamp recipient recieves $21 per week, per person.

The average household recieving food stamps is 2.5 persons.

The average household recieving food stamps gets $210 a month.

The average drug test cost $44.

The state bills in question propose an initial test, then at least one re test. $88, at least, before anyone is disqualified.

The time of disqualification is 2 years, in the WV bill.

The positive test average is 6 - 8%. Let's say 7%.

After the first test, you have 60 days to take a second test. I don't know how to figure out how many people would fail the second test. I would guess almost none but how about we split, 50 - 50.

So, 3.5% will fail and be removed from the roles for two years, at $2,520 a year in food stamps.

That equals $17,940 in denied Food Stamps over two years.

It cost $4,708 to test the 100 people.

That leaves $13,232, after drug testing and recovered food stamps.

The average number of children in a food stamp household is 1.5.

Again, let's spit the difference and say that .75 end up in foster care if their mothers can't feed them.

Average foster care cost $900 per month, per child.

So we have 3.75 children in foster care @ $900 a month. That's $3,375.00 a month. $81,000 in two years.

Congratulations, you just spent $67,768 to take Food Stamps away from 3.5 families.

 

[Ravi]

Is it possible that she was on food stamps before the laws were changed? I don't understand how anyone living in a shelter ever got food stamps...don't you need a permanent address?

food stamps is NOT a welfare/TANF check...and i do not know much about food stamps, other than i know it is not the same program as WELFARE/TANF....they are two different programs....you do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to qualify for food stamps....you can be a full time worker and still qualify for food stamps....

Tanf = temporary assistance to needy families, and very few of these families have a worker at the head of it. The income standards are extremely low for this group of people, so if you are making $600 a month, you are overincome for TANF, and if you are working and making just a couple of hundred dollars a month, all that you will get via Tanf is a subsidy to bring you up to the income standard. (If the income standard is $600 and you make $500, you get $100).

Foodstamps has a 185% federal poverty level income standard, which means many, many, MANY people who receive food stamps are working, many full time.

And while it isn't unconstitutional to require pee tests, let's get back to the focus. You are penalizing children if you make it impossible for people who are frequently otherwise unemployable or who have issues which land them in the system in the first place, and the FS program's focus is to HELP those children, specifically.

Maybe we should drug test the kids...it isn't unusual that middle school kids smoke weed on occasion. And eat a steak here and there. Why not just go all the way and penalize everyone for their life choices?

 

[Ravi]

Shog would rather waste money that could be used to feed children in order to ensure that those same children don't get future benefits. He would rather do that because it MIGHT result in some woman he hates not getting her food stamps, because he thinks that woman shouldn't have them as a result of getting knocked up by someone she tricked into having sex with her. He doesn't give a shit about the kids, or the money, because that's not what it's about. It's about PUNISHMENT.

Don't forget the cable bill.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sheesh.

 

[k2skier]

So, some guy who just lost his job smokes a joint and gets denied his unemployment benefits, even though he's a good solid worker, and he's looking for work everyday. Now he can't feed his kids or make his rent payment. Oh well, guess he'll learn. Of course, the guy sitting in the bar, closing it down everynight, and not even trying to find a job, will continue to collect his bennies and continue to drink them away. Alcohol is legal and all, so no biggie.

I think Alcohol should be included in the testing. If you want our money, then you must jump through our hoops.

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

 

[Peejay]

So, some guy who just lost his job smokes a joint and gets denied his unemployment benefits, even though he's a good solid worker, and he's looking for work everyday. Now he can't feed his kids or make his rent payment. Oh well, guess he'll learn. Of course, the guy sitting in the bar, closing it down everynight, and not even trying to find a job, will continue to collect his bennies and continue to drink them away. Alcohol is legal and all, so no biggie.

I think Alcohol should be included in the testing. If you want our money, then you must jump through our hoops.

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

Again, this argument may work for abolishing the assistance all together, but it carries no weight for testing. You are talking about your hard earned money. How much more do you want to spend ?

 

[KittenKoder]

Most ALL people on TANF DO NOT live in homeless shelters Kitten....you lived with the very bottom of the bottom....and more than likely you are also confusing food stamps or other programs with TANF/WELFARE recipients.

Care

You must have a comprehension issue ... I was talking about people who were going to the shelters, getting TANF, moving out, then going right back into the shelters ... So yes, most of them wind up in the shelters over and over again, particularly those who use drugs.

Then answer me this....

Were these people working? (Most all people reciving TANF have to be holding a job)

Were these people single mothers with children? (The Majority of TANF recipients are single mothers...they have children)

Were these people in a work training program? (Those not working while receiving TANF must be in a work training program)

Were these people felons from their illegal drug use? (No felon can recive any TANF benefit)



If they were not any of these people above, then i stick by you being wrong or you seeing the extreme exception to the rule, somehow....?

Remember, Food Stamps is a separate and DIFFERENT PROGRAM and is NOT TANF/WELFARE.

You need to experience life a lot more and get out of your suburban dream sometimes ...

 

[KittenKoder]

I think Alcohol should be included in the testing. If you want our money, then you must jump through our hoops.

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

Again, this argument may work for abolishing the assistance all together, but it carries no weight for testing. You are talking about your hard earned money. How much more do you want to spend ?

In Seattle the average person on welfare gets about $350 cash each month, plus about $50 or more in food stamps. This increases based on what jobs you worked, rightfully, but many who collect have never worked. All you have to do is prove you are actively seeking work (I think it's 3 applications per week), filing for Social Security (which counts as long as you keep trying), or have kids in your care (even if the state has already determine you will lose custody once they reach 1 year old). A drug test ... $50 for all drug and alcohol (within 48 hours of consumption) at Rite Aid ... even testing once a month won't cost much, but would save a fortune. That way the next time I may need it (doubt it) it will still be there.

 

[Peejay]

Yes it should include ALL drugs, and that includes alcohol. I support legalizing marijuana, but if you going to take my hard earned money, then you need to be stone (pun intended) sober.

Again, this argument may work for abolishing the assistance all together, but it carries no weight for testing. You are talking about your hard earned money. How much more do you want to spend ?

In Seattle the average person on welfare gets about $350 cash each month, plus about $50 or more in food stamps. This increases based on what jobs you worked, rightfully, but many who collect have never worked. All you have to do is prove you are actively seeking work (I think it's 3 applications per week), filing for Social Security (which counts as long as you keep trying), or have kids in your care (even if the state has already determine you will lose custody once they reach 1 year old). A drug test ... $50 for all drug and alcohol (within 48 hours of consumption) at Rite Aid ... even testing once a month won't cost much, but would save a fortune. That way the next time I may need it (doubt it) it will still be there.

Ummm.....wow....way to go off the rails.

What is paid in Seattle is only part of the national average. Obviously some places get much less.

All I can say is that you should go back and check out the cost analysis. It won't save money. It iwll cost money, overall. Even in Seattle. You have around $67,000 per hundred recipients to justify. I don't think your increase will cover it.

Also, are we to believe that welfare, food stamps and unemployment are going to share the same drug test results ? Wrong answer. This is the government we're dealing with. The FBI and CIA can't even commincate effectively when terrorist are about to crash a bunch of planes but you think these agencies are going to share drug test ? That's a negative. For every program you bring in, set aside another $5,000 per hundred to test.

Again, I agree with your emotional pleas. I have seen abuse too. However, I have seen manifold the number of honest, unfortunate folks that use these services out of absolute desperation. You invite me to Seattle, I invite you to any of the many dead mill towns in SC. We have tons and tons of old folks that worked their entore lives in the mills.....and then the mills were gone. They have nowhere to go, no other marketable skills and no textile jobs. I see them tossed out of their homes on a regular basis.

Now, I can see where you are coming from. Been there. I've traveled the entire country as a musician. I don't know if I've seen it all, but pretty damn near. Your view, while relevant, is narrow. There are many, many more rural towns where the circumstances are very different. And that's where the majority of your recipients are. You're personal stories are fine but they aren't representative of the whole.

Still, none of that is the point.

MAke your own cost analysist, be sure to take into account the cost of the test, reasonable care for the helpless children that will be affected and let's see if you can make this seem cost efficient.

I did my homework. Now do yours.

 

[KittenKoder]

Again, this argument may work for abolishing the assistance all together, but it carries no weight for testing. You are talking about your hard earned money. How much more do you want to spend ?

In Seattle the average person on welfare gets about $350 cash each month, plus about $50 or more in food stamps. This increases based on what jobs you worked, rightfully, but many who collect have never worked. All you have to do is prove you are actively seeking work (I think it's 3 applications per week), filing for Social Security (which counts as long as you keep trying), or have kids in your care (even if the state has already determine you will lose custody once they reach 1 year old). A drug test ... $50 for all drug and alcohol (within 48 hours of consumption) at Rite Aid ... even testing once a month won't cost much, but would save a fortune. That way the next time I may need it (doubt it) it will still be there.

Ummm.....wow....way to go off the rails.

What is paid in Seattle is only part of the national average. Obviously some places get much less.

All I can say is that you should go back and check out the cost analysis. It won't save money. It iwll cost money, overall. Even in Seattle. You have around $67,000 per hundred recipients to justify. I don't think your increase will cover it.

Also, are we to believe that welfare, food stamps and unemployment are going to share the same drug test results ? Wrong answer. This is the government we're dealing with. The FBI and CIA can't even commincate effectively when terrorist are about to crash a bunch of planes but you think these agencies are going to share drug test ? That's a negative. For every program you bring in, set aside another $5,000 per hundred to test.

Again, I agree with your emotional pleas. I have seen abuse too. However, I have seen manifold the number of honest, unfortunate folks that use these services out of absolute desperation. You invite me to Seattle, I invite you to any of the many dead mill towns in SC. We have tons and tons of old folks that worked their entore lives in the mills.....and then the mills were gone. They have nowhere to go, no other marketable skills and no textile jobs. I see them tossed out of their homes on a regular basis.

Now, I can see where you are coming from. Been there. I've traveled the entire country as a musician. I don't know if I've seen it all, but pretty damn near. Your view, while relevant, is narrow. There are many, many more rural towns where the circumstances are very different. And that's where the majority of your recipients are. You're personal stories are fine but they aren't representative of the whole.

Still, none of that is the point.

MAke your own cost analysist, be sure to take into account the cost of the test, reasonable care for the helpless children that will be affected and let's see if you can make this seem cost efficient.

I did my homework. Now do yours.

No, what I did was take what I know as fact instead of listening to someone shove easily falsified statistics down my throat. It's easy, try using logic instead of taking some nutjobs words for it.

 

[Peejay]

In Seattle the average person on welfare gets about $350 cash each month, plus about $50 or more in food stamps. This increases based on what jobs you worked, rightfully, but many who collect have never worked. All you have to do is prove you are actively seeking work (I think it's 3 applications per week), filing for Social Security (which counts as long as you keep trying), or have kids in your care (even if the state has already determine you will lose custody once they reach 1 year old). A drug test ... $50 for all drug and alcohol (within 48 hours of consumption) at Rite Aid ... even testing once a month won't cost much, but would save a fortune. That way the next time I may need it (doubt it) it will still be there.

Ummm.....wow....way to go off the rails.

What is paid in Seattle is only part of the national average. Obviously some places get much less.

All I can say is that you should go back and check out the cost analysis. It won't save money. It iwll cost money, overall. Even in Seattle. You have around $67,000 per hundred recipients to justify. I don't think your increase will cover it.

Also, are we to believe that welfare, food stamps and unemployment are going to share the same drug test results ? Wrong answer. This is the government we're dealing with. The FBI and CIA can't even commincate effectively when terrorist are about to crash a bunch of planes but you think these agencies are going to share drug test ? That's a negative. For every program you bring in, set aside another $5,000 per hundred to test.

Again, I agree with your emotional pleas. I have seen abuse too. However, I have seen manifold the number of honest, unfortunate folks that use these services out of absolute desperation. You invite me to Seattle, I invite you to any of the many dead mill towns in SC. We have tons and tons of old folks that worked their entore lives in the mills.....and then the mills were gone. They have nowhere to go, no other marketable skills and no textile jobs. I see them tossed out of their homes on a regular basis.

Now, I can see where you are coming from. Been there. I've traveled the entire country as a musician. I don't know if I've seen it all, but pretty damn near. Your view, while relevant, is narrow. There are many, many more rural towns where the circumstances are very different. And that's where the majority of your recipients are. You're personal stories are fine but they aren't representative of the whole.

Still, none of that is the point.

MAke your own cost analysist, be sure to take into account the cost of the test, reasonable care for the helpless children that will be affected and let's see if you can make this seem cost efficient.

I did my homework. Now do yours.

No, what I did was take what I know as fact instead of listening to someone shove easily falsified statistics down my throat. It's easy, try using logic instead of taking some nutjobs words for it.

Like I said, put your facts together and make a cost analysis. All of my averages came from government web sites, although they do rise and fall by a bit. Take the low end, take your own facts, make an argument besides....."un uh...no it's not". That's just not convincing. It bears out that you aren't making an informed argument, just taking away the sad facts from a bad personal experience.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ummm.....wow....way to go off the rails.

What is paid in Seattle is only part of the national average. Obviously some places get much less.

All I can say is that you should go back and check out the cost analysis. It won't save money. It iwll cost money, overall. Even in Seattle. You have around $67,000 per hundred recipients to justify. I don't think your increase will cover it.

Also, are we to believe that welfare, food stamps and unemployment are going to share the same drug test results ? Wrong answer. This is the government we're dealing with. The FBI and CIA can't even commincate effectively when terrorist are about to crash a bunch of planes but you think these agencies are going to share drug test ? That's a negative. For every program you bring in, set aside another $5,000 per hundred to test.

Again, I agree with your emotional pleas. I have seen abuse too. However, I have seen manifold the number of honest, unfortunate folks that use these services out of absolute desperation. You invite me to Seattle, I invite you to any of the many dead mill towns in SC. We have tons and tons of old folks that worked their entore lives in the mills.....and then the mills were gone. They have nowhere to go, no other marketable skills and no textile jobs. I see them tossed out of their homes on a regular basis.

Now, I can see where you are coming from. Been there. I've traveled the entire country as a musician. I don't know if I've seen it all, but pretty damn near. Your view, while relevant, is narrow. There are many, many more rural towns where the circumstances are very different. And that's where the majority of your recipients are. You're personal stories are fine but they aren't representative of the whole.

Still, none of that is the point.

MAke your own cost analysist, be sure to take into account the cost of the test, reasonable care for the helpless children that will be affected and let's see if you can make this seem cost efficient.

I did my homework. Now do yours.

No, what I did was take what I know as fact instead of listening to someone shove easily falsified statistics down my throat. It's easy, try using logic instead of taking some nutjobs words for it.

Like I said, put your facts together and make a cost analysis. All of my averages came from government web sites, although they do rise and fall by a bit. Take the low end, take your own facts, make an argument besides....."un uh...no it's not". That's just not convincing. It bears out that you aren't making an informed argument, just taking away the sad facts from a bad personal experience.

Seriously? How can drug costing be as expensive as people want you to think? You can buy the cheap-o tests for $25 bucks, and the 7 day drug tests for no more than $50 ... how does that come out to more than $400 a month? $400 is the lower average to, many get more ... explain that ...

 

[Peejay]

No, what I did was take what I know as fact instead of listening to someone shove easily falsified statistics down my throat. It's easy, try using logic instead of taking some nutjobs words for it.

Like I said, put your facts together and make a cost analysis. All of my averages came from government web sites, although they do rise and fall by a bit. Take the low end, take your own facts, make an argument besides....."un uh...no it's not". That's just not convincing. It bears out that you aren't making an informed argument, just taking away the sad facts from a bad personal experience.

Seriously? How can drug costing be as expensive as people want you to think? You can buy the cheap-o tests for $25 bucks, and the 7 day drug tests for no more than $50 ... how does that come out to more than $400 a month? $400 is the lower average to, many get more ... explain that ...

It's spelled out for you above.

Again, you aren't looking at the whole picture. One test = one benefit denial is not a realistic scenario. You will only get about 3 benefit denials per 100 test, if that. You will pay for 100 test to catch 3 users. Or are you just going to test the users.....oh shit....we don't know who they are. That's why we test.

Jesus christ. You have to be smarter than this.

 

[Shogun]

Drug users shoudn't be supporting their habit at tax payer expense. That's not the point. We agree on that. Like I said before, the only way to settle this will be if testing passes constitutional muster first, then we'll see how cost effective it is.

no that IS the point. if I've got a finite amount of cash and I know that I can spend 40 on a sack because I have at least that much in FS coming then that IS the point.


At Scotus level it would have to be allowed or else pre-emplyment drug tests would hinder the exact same breach of the 4th amendment. And, those are not going anywhere.

Can the government, the law, force you to take a sobriety test if pulled over, or do you have a choice? (you have the choice)

Employment drug tests with private or public companies/employers, are your choice in employment.

If the employer wants to make certain they do not have any drug users WORKING for them, then they can stipulate a drug test is required...this is an employment safety measure and the SC has stood by it, from what i have gathered.

No, you really don't have a choice. Refuse to blow in the breathalizer and you AUTOMATICALLY lose your license. You know.. ANOTHER privilege that is not your right..

I'll see your choice in employment and raise you the CHOICE to apply for FS.