Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.

[silver hawaiian]

Kilpatrick wasn't a crook until after he was elected. Why call the voters dumb asses, because they didn't predict the future?

99 of every 100 knee jerk opinions in here wouldn't click the wiki link. A name like Kwame is all they need to point a finger at something they want to hate.

I followed Kilpatrick from his first blunders until he fell off the cliff.

But I've also spent a bit of time here attempting to influence at least some perspective and a muslim name and link to formulate ones own context (or not at all) was a moment to open your eyes if you happen to be visceral.

My apologies for calling you a redneck. Do you imagine you would have communicated your perspective with a link to a muslim crook or just a muslim w/o a little of your own, sound response?

I don't know ya that well and the honest truth (your context) wasn't actually apparent. All the drive bys are a bit irritating these days and you were apparently on the up n up.

Kilpatrick is about 1 in 100,000 public servants and possibly 1 in 10,000 political criminals. Bad timing or bad reaction? I'll vote for bad reaction on my part.

I have to say, I'm [pleasantly] surprised that your Muslim comment was intended for me.

That's true that Kilpatrick wasn't a crook (that we knew of) until after he was elected...The first time.

By the time he was up for re-election, the consensus was that he was up to no good, was using the office for personal and political gain, etc..

(To answer your question, that's why I called the voters dumbasses.)

IIRC, the city became the butt of jokes nationwide after he was REelected.

Disco, if you put up with me long enough, you'll see that I rarely bring anything less than substance to the discussion. The correctness of that substance may be debatable, but I'm not the kind of guy to stir up shit for the sake of stirring up shit.

And Disco, I really (honestly) don't know what this means:

Do you imagine you would have communicated your perspective with a link to a muslim crook or just a muslim w/o a little of your own, sound response?

Are you insinuating that I was trying to be inflammatory by pasting a link to Kwame Kilpatrick's Wikipedia entry? (Keep in mind that I have no control over how the URL appears)

Anyway - no, no, no. I just brought up Kwame as he's a political figure with whom I'm fairly familiar. That's all. Y'all were talking about Rick (I did mention Rick Snyder, which is a different conversation entirely), so I thought I'd add my two cents and let all the Floridians know that we've got our own horseshit here too.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Kilpatrick as in the person. As in Kilpatrick is not a muslim he is a Christian.


LOL you googled killpatrick. jeez man

Yeah, it's pretty funny. For a moment. Got an answer to my question? Did you even read the response to your comment I'm referencing? You're a big boy, I'm sure you can handle it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Why did this turn into a points match?

Anybody care to say why they want to wholesale test part of the pic w/o the other?

Whether ya feel it's more, less or break even?

No feelings about margins going to corporate interests instead of non-profit state run facilities?

Is it political? Anything past that initial comment?

Is it worth more tax money to pee test what some suggest as few as 10% will fail?

If it doesn't cost any more, why does Rick say it's to save money?

Is it a corporate vs government preference?

Does it hurt to admit? We're adults, nobody's gonna explode to open up and enlighten a different (I recon) point of view.

 

[Neo 420]

Rick Scott...

He has folks running away from being a republican....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1286340

" Florida Gov. Rick Scott is so unpopular that he has caused the Broward County Police Benevolent Association to leave the Republican Party en mass, and they are encouraging other Floridians to do the same.



"According to the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, what pushed the police association over the edge was Scott’s union due deductions bill, which is a union busting measure in the finest Scott Walker tradition. The Florida measure would allow government agencies to collect union dues if the union is engaged in political activities."


He will not be around next term and hopefully neither will his ill fated policies..

 

[silver hawaiian]

Why did this turn into a points match?

Anybody care to say why they want to wholesale test part of the pic w/o the other?

Whether ya feel it's more, less or break even?

No feelings about margins going to corporate interests instead of non-profit state run facilities?

Is it political? Anything past that initial comment?

Is it worth more tax money to pee test what some suggest as few as 10% will fail?

If it doesn't cost any more, why does Rick say it's to save money?

Is it a corporate vs government preference?

Does it hurt to admit? We're adults, nobody's gonna explode to open up and enlighten a different (I recon) point of view.

That's the biggest issue, to me. Here's what I mean: I, personally, am philosophically opposed to the idea that people receiving assistance using those funds (read: ANY funds they come upon) for what I think we'd all agree are non-essential items.

Philosophically.

Not just buying/using drugs. Or alcohol. Or [insert what you believe to be a non-essential item].

And yes, I do understand that's a very open-ended fill-in-the-blank. That's something that's worth discussing.

At any rate, as Disco pointed out, if the statistics show that it may well COST (and not SAVE) taxpayer dollars to enforce this idea via drug testing, then perhaps testing isn't the most efficient way to enforce this idea.

(Am I the first one in this thread to concede to the other side's points?!)

 

[Neo 420]

That's the biggest issue, to me. Here's what I mean: I, personally, am philosophically opposed to the idea that people receiving assistance using those funds (read: ANY funds they come upon) for what I think we'd all agree are non-essential items.

Philosophically.

Not just buying/using drugs. Or alcohol. Or [insert what you believe to be a non-essential item].

And yes, I do understand that's a very open-ended fill-in-the-blank. That's something that's worth discussing.

At any rate, as Disco pointed out, if the statistics show that it may well COST (and not SAVE) taxpayer dollars to enforce this idea via drug testing, then perhaps testing isn't the most efficient way to enforce this idea.

(Am I the first one in this thread to concede to the other side's points?!)

I appreciate the notion of you at least considering one of "the other sides" viewpoint. Thanks Silver..

Its good that some of us can having opposing viewpoint and still be civil....

 

[silver hawaiian]

I appreciate the notion of you at least considering one of "the other sides" viewpoint. Thanks Silver..

Its good that some of us can having opposing viewpoint and still be civil....

Hey!

We all oughtta just be here for an exchange of ideas.. It's not a contest, it's not a matter of whose idea is better, not shouting contest..

I think a lot of us are too busy shouting to listen..

 

[Cojito]

That's the biggest issue, to me. Here's what I mean: I, personally, am philosophically opposed to the idea that people receiving assistance using those funds (read: ANY funds they come upon) for what I think we'd all agree are non-essential items. Philosophically. Not just buying/using drugs. Or alcohol. Or [insert what you believe to be a non-essential item].

i reckon we all feel like that. government help should be about what's necessary to get a leg up.

At any rate, as Disco pointed out, if the statistics show that it may well COST (and not SAVE) taxpayer dollars to enforce this idea via drug testing, then perhaps testing isn't the most efficient way to enforce this idea.

agreed. but numbers and constitutional arguments aside, the gov is a thief, stands to profit from this, and that ideal (of the poor getting only whats essential to succeed) could never be enforced via drug testing, because drug tests can be beat, and won't catch non-essential items like lottery tickets, jewelry, nail polish, etc.

(Am I the first one in this thread to concede to the other side's points?!)

impressive. i salute you sir.

 

[silver hawaiian]

i reckon we all feel like that. government help should be about what's necessary to get a leg up.



agreed. but numbers and constitutional arguments aside, the gov is a thief, stands to profit from this, and that ideal (of the poor getting only whats essential to succeed) could never be enforced via drug testing, because drug tests can be beat, and won't catch non-essential items like lottery tickets, jewelry, nail polish, etc.



impressive. i salute you sir.

Awwww, shucks. No salutations warranted nor wanted. But thanks!

(I'm glad you used the nail polish example, because I was going to, and then I thought "Well, maybe that might help at a job interview, or to feel good about herself, or for general presentation's sake.." ..That's when I got into the thought of "Jeez, this is a really subjective thing we're trying to contain here..")

Anyway - Anything a government (not just the US government) does is inefficient and wasteful. Nooooo question. But I don't think that means we need to accept the status-quo.

In my mind, it's kind of a two-part deal.. Question one is, "Is there waste, abuse, fraud, could we be doing this better?" Two is, "How?"

UAs are one option.. (And personally, in concept, I don't have an issue with the idea that folks on assistance may be subject to different rules than the rest of us, as is the case for lots of folks in all different segments of society/personal situations) If that's not cost-effective, or not enforceable, or ripe with fraud on the private/public side, .. Then, well, we keep lookin'. But I hardly think it's an absurd, upside-down idea. ..but what's important is the conversation ABOUT the waste and inefficiency..

..Aaaaaaand thanks again for tuning in to another episode of me rambling!

 

[silver hawaiian]

If I had a dollar for every time I left out a single word..

EDIT: Fantastic. Now I entered this in a new post, not in the "Reason for editing" section.

Umm, guys?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[trichrider]

 

[Neo 420]

LOL

 

[dagnabit]

(Am I the first one in this thread to concede to the other side's points?!)

iv'e never refuted the constitutional challenges or the shenanigans of the Governor.
(in fact i suggested indictment)

it all gets lost though when one poster incessantly attempts to elicit emotional responses then attributes imagined(expected?)emotions to your posts when those attempts fail.

my contention is that the fiscal numbers presented(in every case thusfar) only present the cost side of the equation and claim this will be revenue negative.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

let it go
let it go

 

[Neo 420]

WOOOSABI!!!!!!

 

[KonradZuse]

Just adding my 2 cents. I agree that people who get welfare/gov't aid SHOULD NOT be using this for drugs. I PERSONALLY know a bunch of people who do this, and I also know people who break the system. If this costs more money to enact, I think it's bad, but sadly people WILL pay for drugs with their aid money, or alcohol.

The thing that should be done is that there needs to be more jobs and we need to stop the overseas shit. There are people WHO WANT TO WORK, but there are also lazy pieces of shit who are just, getting high, and getting free money for sitting on their asses all day.

 

[hazy]

But ultimately, I'm not sure why the taxpayers should have to foot the bill for what MOST of us would determine "extras" in life.

In reality people on unemployment or some other gov. benefit programs have very few of these "extras" in life. Of course if some guy swings a bit of weed on the side, how is that on the taxpayer's dime?


I think that it is obvious this splits along party/ideologue lines. The folks who are conservative think they have to be in opposition to all liberal/socialist type programs. It's not that they(this site's conservative cannabis users[well, except for shroomDr, who believes if you smoke pot and drive you are a danger]) are opposed people using drugs(at least pot) but to those receiving assistance in general.

As I have defended the rights of those receiving assistance to smoke pot, I get the feeling that I am viewed as a liberal by the conservatives here. But I'm more complicated than that.

See, we moved into a house when I was 13 that had among other political publications, a copy of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. I read it. The experience changed me into a staunch anti-communist. I was opposed to all government assistance programs on these ideological grounds. I became a Republican and voted for Ronald Reagan in the first and second presidential election I voted in. I am still a registered Republican. Until recently I usually voted a straight R ticket.

Over the course of my life I have seen the abuse by many of the 'welfare rolls'. Though welfare is only a shadow of what it used to be. There are many who only get foodstamps and nothing else. There are very few who get it all anymore. People who are on lifelong assistance who are able to work, are the problem and need to be moved from the rolls, but not because they might smoke pot. I have also seen many people who need the assistance they get and to disqualify them because they might use a teeny bit to keep a little weed around is just wrong.

Even though I am generally opposed to taxing me to pay for someone elses needs, I understand that things happen in folk's lives that can force an otherwise proud and productive man to have to swallow pride and sign up for some help.

Now, maybe the guy just needs some unemployment for a while. In this economy, he could easily go a couple years without work. It really troubles me that someone, especially someone who smokes marijuana and knows that it's not a bad thing, would want to disallow the benefits that man is entitled to, that he paid for while he was employed, if that man were to continue to smoke while unemployed. In fact many here would not even let him get a single UE comp check, because he would test + from weed he smoked from money earned while working.

This question was avoided earlier:
Why do some assume because a man smokes pot while unemployed, that he is not looking for work?

After all, the penalties for fraud are steep, they have ways to check for fraud and do verify your job searches.


People on assorted assistance programs for the right reasons do not need to be despised even by us conservatives, and if they sacrifice one thing to afford a little pot, that's no concern of mine or anyone else. They're not spending 'extra' money on weed, just tightening the belt somewhere else.

People on assistance programs for the wrong reasons, well, who cares what they do with their pittance. And remember, when you're in a store and that person in front of you whips out that card with the benes on it, you do not know what they are using. Could be SSI from a disability caused at work. All on the same card, you don't know.

I guess I have softened in my old age. I just have seen and experienced too many hard times to judge anyone as harshly as my conservative peers do anymore. I have also seen a LOT of people who I never thought would leave the rolls of welfare, become productive finally after many years of assistance. Maybe a result of the welfare to work thing from a while back.

And, this is all I have left to say on this subject, All cannabis testing should be opposed. Period.

 

[statefarmguy]

NO TRUER WORDS HAVE BEEN SPOKEN!

NO TRUER WORDS HAVE BEEN SPOKEN!

I wholly believe that if an elected official is behind it...he's going to make a buck off of it. And as much as that is wrong, it is what it is. Gone are the days of Washington & Lincoln. That being said....I work every day in a very high crime, low income area. The people I come in contact with (every day) have no problem getting one by on the ol' system. They buy groceries with ebt and beer, cigarettes, weed, and big ass tv's with cash. The social services division in which I work, pay for "less fortunate" people to have a roof over their head, phone service and cable television. It makes me sick to my stomach. I am all for feeding the hungry, no one should starve in this day & age. The thing is...in my humble 10+ year career...almost all of the younger folks (18-40) who are on welfare don't give a damn that they are abusing the system. The older welfare folks (40-70) honestly cant make it...albeit because when they were younger they too abused the system as well as their bodies and are now sick and in need of care. Most of the people I come in contact with (the younger ones) don't care because it is how they were raised. They see nothing wrong with having multiple children out of wed-lock, having multiple fathers for their children, all the while doing nothing to make the world a better place. Just sucking off the gov't tit and complaining about their lack...and that the gov't should be doing more and more. It's 10,000% insane. It's upside down, backwards and broken.
Let's take this drug testing one step further...let's test the politicians as well! Surprise testing to those bastards as we the employed people who get randomly tested to meet a quota.
If we're going to fix it.....which I believe we will not....let's actually fix it!

UPSIDE DOWN BROKEN AND BACKWARDS IS RIGHT IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL

 

[silver hawaiian]

In reality people on unemployment or some other gov. benefit programs have very few of these "extras" in life. Of course if some guy swings a bit of weed on the side, how is that on the taxpayer's dime?

It's not on the taxpayer's dime, if he's getting cash by slinging some reefer on the side.

But if he's able to sling reefer on the side to make a few bucks, why does he need money from the gubmnet in the first place?