Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.

[silver hawaiian]

Because we see it differently, and we personally know of people milking the system, we are hate/fear pandering.

Welfare existed before Governments.
It's called Church!
But the church is going to hold you more accountable for their assistance than the Government is.

My, how times have changed, .. Those same churches now don't put a cent into the coffers, from which the welfare folk are paid.

The universe is officially upside down!

 

[medicalgreen]

Because we see it differently, and we personally know of people milking the system, we are hate/fear pandering.

Welfare existed before Governments.
It's called Church!
But the church is going to hold you more accountable for their assistance than the Government is.

'xactly!

You cannot hate something that is intangible, like you can hate a group pf people predisposed to a situation. Nobody's hatin' on poor people or colored people or any group of people that exist by virtue of their birth. These are LEECHES, pure and simple.

And I agree, Church has been LEECHIN for centuries. and it's another institution that would not exist were it not for the slavish obedience of it's followers, who have literally "invested" themselves into it.

 

[Rednick]

My point with a Good church, is that they are there for their members.
Just like family/friends is there for theirs.
When you don't have either, all that is left is big brother or strangers.
Big brother pays better and easier to obtain funds. People who WON'T work, is different from those who CAN'T work.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I don't see the issue. Are you telling me that we *shouldn't* have strings attached to the money we're giving away?

That's part of the pander to infer we're giving it away. Another part of the pander is to suggest we turn a blind eye toward fraud.

We certainly have rules and enforcement. But to lump assistance recipients into fraud and abuse (which actually makes up a fraction of expenditures is pandering to subjective fears.

Wouldn't be surprised if half of the anti-assistance folks in this thread have indeed received assistance between jobs through no fault of their own. They also know their taxes finance assistance programs.

Doesn't mean your taxes support a freeloader. Your taxes beget the financing that supports assistance recipients, not the few thousand you (might) be paying into the system.

Those that have realize the don't qualify w/o paying into the system. They also know that assistance generally equals 60% of the income they earned in the previous fiscal year. No way anybody wants to take an economic shot like that and decide that fraud is just as economically viable. But they did get to put some food on the table and exist before they find another job.

Those who have benefited from assistance through no fault of their own KNOW they can't quit their job and qualify for assistance. If you've been fired for transgressions you know that doesn't qualify either.

If you've received assistance, you know that you have to follow protocol (look for work and prove it) in order to continue assistance.

Not to mention that economics proves that assistance returns more money to coffers in the form of economic activity [that] assistance generates. Every dollar that goes toward food stamps returns $1.68 to the economy, nationally.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's not hate pandering DiscoBiscuit, at least not in my opinion.
It's public tar and feathering. Back in the old days, there used to be town squares. At these locations, people could post notes to the public about people to shame them. If the people caught people in their town doing shameful things, then they might be tarred and feathered as well. That way, people didn't do things that shamed the town.

If everyone on welfare had their names posted in the town square, the town just might tar and feather them, and they would never accept those government handouts. They become traitors to their own people, and that should not be forgiven or forgotten.

It's a class of people that should not exist. So to lay harsh words at a class of people that should not exist to begin with, then if there are none of them, there will be no harsh words to lay against anyone.

Even the scarlet letter applied to the person that transgressed.

I respect your right to your opinion but you oversimplify that assistance recipients are on "welfare" where welfare is the word used to suggest they're all career fraudsters when you don't offer a statistical point of view. It's all subjective reasoning.

I felt a little bad to suggest hate until you lump assistance recipients into traitors, then suggest they shouldn't exist. Is that a "final" solution suggested? (You really don't have to answer that.)

 

[paladin420]

This is ludicrous and clearly short sighted.

Air traffic controllers, heavy machinery workers, chemical engineers, there are a million jobs that need completely clear headed individuals.

Landscapers, bar tenders, store clerks, there are a million jobs that it is completely unnecessary too.

Call me crazy, but im glad they drug test people whos careers directly involve the safety of many others.

Has drug testin in these areas stopped drug use? Hav air traffic controllers stopped fallin asleep at the switch. They hav a piss test for stupid yet..
My body! My fuckin business what I did to it. Not yours!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

My point with a Good church, is that they are there for their members.
Just like family/friends is there for theirs.
When you don't have either, all that is left is big brother or strangers.
Big brother pays better and easier to obtain funds. People who WON'T work, is different from those who CAN'T work.

No churches support their members between jobs in a way that's sustainable. There's no church with 310 million congregants.

"WON'T" is pandering an entire demographic with a fraction of fraud.


Forget assistance for a moment.


As a human, have you ever made the wrong call? What you're suggesting isn't unlike you never getting another opportunity to prove you didn't err intentionally nor did you intend to err for income sake.

 

[medicalgreen]

Even the scarlet letter applied to the person that transgressed.

I respect your right to your opinion but you oversimplify that assistance recipients are on "welfare" where welfare is the word used to suggest they're all career fraudsters when you don't offer a statistical point of view. It's all subjective reasoning.

I felt a little bad to suggest hate until you lump assistance recipients into traitors, then suggest they shouldn't exist. Is that a "final" solution suggested? (You really don't have to answer that.)

Maybe I should apply to the government for some "assistance" in my endeavor to have 7 children and support them without working.

When I aim that flamethrower mouth of mine at the welfare crowd, I am surely not including the ones who are disabled, handicapped, receiving SSI or the mentally ill.

 

[Cojito]

I don't see the issue. Are you telling me that we *shouldn't* have strings attached to the money we're giving away?

no. clearly we should investigate and punish fraudulent behavior wherever it is found. but we're pot smokers. most of us don't want to be tested, stigmatized and/or jailed any more than we already are.

and the gov "gives away" a lot of money. why start with the poor? public schools for example. lets drug test all those lazy freeloading students - their parents too. lets drug test all those out of work geezers collecting SSI (man should be productive till death), subsidized farmers, tax exempt churches, flood and tornado victims - lets test them all. everyone on Medicare, disability etc., really, anyone who's down and out should be kicked, blamed and denied help. and if we're successful maybe we can give the rich another big-ass tax cut - or god willing, start another war.

drug testing is just another way to distract from real problems and demonize the poor. remember, no matter how strong, smart, successful, or hard working you are, it can all be taken from you overnight. we get sick. we get old. how many have lost their savings and homes when an insurance co. refused to cover the cost of a life saving operation? hell, even Ayn Rand swallowed her pride and cued up for a gov check. if we start testing everyone the gov helps then none of us (cannabis smokers) will get help (if) we ever need it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Speaking of fraud, how come none of you anti-assistance folks acknowledge that the single, biggest fraudster (not in the state of Florida, not in the southeast) in the history of the national, Medicare program is taking benefits from legit participants for smoking a joint? Not to mention after he already stole money in systemic proportions. Even the fraction of fraud (within that, the fraction of organized fraud) looks moral and ethical propped up beside Scott's crimes.

How come no anti-assistance peeps lump Rick Scott into the morass of "welfare" pandering?

I recon it's because he actually plead guilty to crime and that's all part of getting back on the straight and narrow? Jeebus Christ.

It's none of the above. Just the idea of welfare queens bilking the taxpayer and little to no thought after that oversimplification.

We even have a member in here suggesting getting rid of whatever spook exists... in his mind. That's why there's nothing beyond the impulse to post.

 

[dagnabit]

anti assistance
or
pro nanny stater


pandering to the base need to label?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

apparently you do, dag. "pro nanny" - nice labeling. do you see this coming before the fact?

what pc name do you suggest for folks that are anti-assistance? you don't want climate change deniers reflected in their demographic either.

did you debate in school? each side of an issue is identified for the benefit of anybody trying to make sense of the "sides" of the respective issues.

would you prefer just another gray area where recipients are all the same fraud? What makes Scott's fraud unmentionable in your posts? political stripe?

sounds like a perfect way to stifle conversation that recognizes demographic differences.



I can see calling deniers a pejorative would be rude but "deniers" simply means the demographic "denies" that AGW is happening.


This is getting close to running out of argument to suggest we don't identify and understand the opposing sides of an issue.


You've cracked the idea of pc hell. One might think you'd prefer typing a paragraph to denote opposing views. You're just fine with equating science with "religion" and assistance recipients with freeloaders. Lets have some bi-directional reasoning for a change, it's not a one-way street, bro.

 

[Cojito]

It's a class of people that should not exist. So to lay harsh words at a class of people that should not exist to begin with, then if there are none of them, there will be no harsh words to lay against anyone.

wow, there's some logic. so have you worked up some kind of final solution for this vexing problem?

 

[medicalgreen]

wow, there's some logic. so have you worked up some kind of final solution for this vexing problem?

YES, I DO!!!

Let's force all the people on welfare to relocate to Florida.

Then, we can implement the next phase of my "final solution".

Which would be to kick Florida out of the Union completely!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That's right, get something away from you that you neither understand nor comprehend.

 

[medicalgreen]

That's right, get something away from you that you neither understand nor comprehend.

I lived there. I understand it well. I understand I wish Florida would be excommunicated from the USA.

Any state where the people and the Manatees are often confused for each other, is a state that should be underwater to begin with.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Oh yeah, forget that 99.9 percent of Floridians that don't fall into your oversimplifications, lol. That's better than the other solution that only targets only freeloaders.

You might have lived in FL but you picked up little there... and since.

 

[dagnabit]

apparently you do, dag. "pro nanny" - nice labeling. do you see this coming before the fact?

what pc name do you suggest for folks that are anti-assistance? you don't want climate change deniers reflected in their demographic either.

did you debate in school? each side of an issue is identified for the benefit of anybody trying to make sense of the "sides" of the respective issues.

would you prefer just another gray area where recipients are all the same fraud? What makes Scott's fraud unmentionable in your posts? political stripe?

sounds like a perfect way to stifle conversation that recognizes demographic differences.



I can see calling deniers a pejorative would be rude but "deniers" simply means the demographic "denies" that AGW is happening.


This is getting close to running out of argument to suggest we don't identify and understand the opposing sides of an issue.


You've cracked the idea of pc hell. One might think you'd prefer typing a paragraph to denote opposing views. You're just fine with equating science with "religion" and assistance recipients with freeloaders. Lets have some bi-directional reasoning for a change, it's not a one-way street, bro.

sorry...
im still on the topic of drug testing....
the reason the republikunt Gov. don't get a mention in my posts is i m looking at the merits of the drug testing.
im not a "denier" of anything you mentioned.
i just think there should be some strings attached.

remember how vehemently the anti 19 folks bucked against the label "prohibitionist"

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Then you're denying the fact that there are strings attached.

If one wishes to make pejorative out of labels you'd have a point.

Whose changing the subject now? Nobody. We're just giving examples of reasoning or lack of.

 

[silver hawaiian]

Doesn't mean your taxes support a freeloader. Your taxes beget the financing that supports assistance recipients, not the few thousand you (might) be paying into the system.

No, it does mean that our taxes support freeloaders. ..Which is not to presume that ALL welfare recipients are freeloaders. To presume, however, that all welfare recipients are playing "within the rules" (that is, are seeking employment, or are legitimately unABLE - not unWILLING - to work), is a pipe dream.

The bottom line is that when a guy can sit at home and NOT work, and have as comfortable (relative term) a lifestyle as a guy who goes and mops floors for 8 or 10 hours a day, then the system is broken.

If you've received assistance, you know that you have to follow protocol (look for work and prove it) in order to continue assistance.

Again, I think you're making a serious stretch to infer that every last person on welfare is in fact playing by those rules you mentioned above. Really?

Add to it the fact that we have a system that essentially rewards folks ALREADY ON ASSISTANCE for having MORE children (reward = higher government dole), .. To surmise that the system works perfectly and needs no improvement is, .. Optimistic.

Not to mention that economics proves that assistance returns more money to coffers in the form of economic activity [that] assistance generates. Every dollar that goes toward food stamps returns $1.68 to the economy, nationally.

I'd like to understand this math. If this is the case, then why don't we just put MORE folks on assistance? That is, if we can make $68 for every $100 we invest, that is a serious moneymaking proposition.

I hope I'm not coming across as confrontational - but for anyone to imply (or flat out state) that the welfare system is hunky dory the way it is, .. Well, just seems a bit unrealistic to me.

(And back on topic, quickly. If the idea of welfare is to float some poor, hapless, down-on-his-luck unfortunate soul get back on his feet 'til he finds GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, how are we increasing their odds of finding a job when we're permissive to let folks use drugs, which may very well result in making that person UNemployable?! e.g. drug testing)