http://www.theroot.com/buzz/98-welfare-applicants-pass-drug-test

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/



My congratulations to the Florida state legislature for spending $178 million to find out that 98% of welfare recipients don't use drugs. How absolutely ****ing embarrassing. Let's see what other lies the Republicans & tea-baggers can spread about the poor. Next.

Vote libertarian, then there won't be any drug testing.

Original article: http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

No, there is not a 98% pass rate. 2% fail and 2% don't complete the application process. The entire cash assistance program costs $178 million - not the drug testing (hence the ability to have a "net savings" of $40,800+).

Fantastic journalism, though.

drug testing was never the issue here.. I have always been a proponent of stricter control. No ebt cash, limits on types of foods to be purchased (similar to WIC) and weekly employment checkups like unemployment. If these conditions are met I will have less of a problem with people leeching my paycheck.

What about the results of the 'Lazy' test? Heh bad joke, good thing some of my real life friends dont know me as Triscuit.

You do realize how easy it is to pass simple urine tests right? The hardest drugs are out of your system in a couple days.

I'm not a proponent of the idea that all welfare-users are abusers, cuz it's patently untrue, but point above needs to be made. Heroine is 24-72 hours, cocaine varies from 24 to 72 hours depending on use, crack cocaine is around 3 days I believe and a bit more depending on the body, and meth is generally 2-3 days. Hair tests would reveal it, but they cost a helluva lot more for the state so they don't use them. There is large incentive structure for drug/urine tests that lead people to harder drugs that are out of your system quicker. Most of the time these drug tests are not random, at all. It's not just welfare recipients that game drug tests, everyone does

I'm sure on aggregate, despite the somewhat awful reporting, this was a good thing though!

I still can't believe you people have any welfare benefits at all.

Because there won't be any welfare.

Should you punish addicts by taking their welfare? I'm no fan of smack addicts, but surely taking their sole means of income will drive them to crime, THEN you're paying for them to be, you know, in prison?

I've never understood this backwards way of regulating welfare. As has already been pointed out, if you simply control what can be purchased with welfare then the "on drugs" issue is kind of a non starter.

take it a step further... limit what can be purchased with food stamps, limit what can be purchased with EBT cash (don't do away with it completely but make it impossible to buy certain items with it and get rid of the ability to get cash back), then use the money saved to launch the drug addicts into space and leave them there

It's been a while since I was really familiar, but I know 8-10 years ago, food stamp cards were limited as far as what type of food you could purchase (prepared deli food was a no-no). That may have changed since then, though. EBT cash...yeah, I'm with you there. You shouldn't be able to get cash back from your EBT card and then go buy lottery tickets and cigarettes.

I know that in Ohio you can use food stamps to buy pretty much anything sold in a grocery store. I once saw a guy using food stamps to buy prime rib and lobster tails.

You can buy anything that's not a prepared item.
Food stamps, it must be remembered, are not a replacement for regular income, they're a suppliment to it. My mother is on disability and is past the retirement age, she has absolutely no income except what she's paid into the state over the years, and she's earned those food stamps.

-Also, you have two totals, your EBT Food (which can only be spent on food) and your EBT Cash (for things like buying batteries, gas, cigarettes, or whatever). Just thought you should know that, if you're going to continue complaining about it.

well, it sounds like you mother is in a rough situation, and that genuinely sucks. you'll have to excuse my ignorance on this, but doesnt she get social security? and how does being past the retirement age factor into this?

also i guess i can start complaining more about EBT Cash and not worry about the food. thanks!

You guys are *******s, some people need Air Jordans and rims ok?

..Those are food, what's your problem?

My problem is that they supposedly need financial assistance and they are using it to buy god damned lobsters!!! It's not that these rare incidences are really that big of a burden, but it is exactly this sort of thing that makes me resent the ENTIRE system. If you are "requiring" assistance and still are able to get lobster maybe you don't need as much assistance. THATS my problem! Now whats yours?

Haha Social Security. If that's your only income, God help you. It's a pittance for most people, and the retirement age rises more and more each year (I think it's, what, 67 now?). You can retire early, if you want a huge cut from the checks.

Also, don't rely on it being there for you when you get to your 60's. IF it is still around, it's even less likely to be something you can live off of. $600/m checks are not uncommon right now.

At the store I work at a 5 oz lobster tail costs 7 bucks on sale. I work at a rather pricier store so you can probably get them for cheaper elsewhere. We're not exactly talking about edible diamonds here. But then I supposed you expect them to live off ramen and potatoes.

Lol, Florida.

This logic is assbackwards and exactly why issues with welfare still exist.

Foodstamps = bread, water, pastas, eggs, dairy, meat. Thats it. You don't get to be picky when you willingly throw yourself to the mercy of free handouts.. well unless you live in America. Honestly, since its MY paycheck, I should have a say in how its spent.. this issue needs to and should be voted on. Forget this drug testing nonsense.

I need to start shopping where you work.

No you shouldn't. Government is elected to choose how to spend your tax dollars. If every government spending policy was decided by popular vote, (1) nothing would get done and (2) why have a government in the first place?

Also (2) was a sort of rhetorical question. You need to be governed because people aren't rational.

Clearly as American government and the current administration have demonstrated, they have no clue how to spend our tax dollars and it would absolutely be better for the people to decide where it should go.

Besides, I don't work 40+ hours a week plus overtime so some girl can take her EBT money, and instead of feed her kid, go buy her weekend club clothes at Rainbow (a girls clothing store who now accepts EBT). Thats straight up bull****. I have no problem with assistance programs for poverty, disability, and the likes, but I'll be damned if I bust my ass so some girl can go out on the town.

You do get to decide how your money is spent. You vote to elect an individual who represents you.

Heh.. not in NY.

Exactly. And if he has a problem who he has representing him, he should his target his anger at the electoral process, not the government itself. He should be mad why stupid people continually get elected into office who do not know how to spend tax dollars. No one is arguing that our gov't doesn't waste money. Welfare is a function of government. The quality of government is a function of it's workers. We elect the workers. The problem lies with workers, not welfare.

Except that the government should, regardless of who has been elected or is in power, have checks and balances or limits and regulations on what kind of shenanigans goes on inside of it.

Example 1 - welfare. Example 2 - War on Terror.

Works for both sides of the political spectrum. Its a government problem when they allow bureaucrats to run wild and **** this country up royally.

If you're so unhappy with it, then get involved in the campaign process and try to actually accomplish something. Don't just sit here and cry about it.

Fair enough.

You don't think checks and balances / limits regulations are used EVERY single day? Why hasn't the President just ****ing acted like a king? Why was healthcare so butchered? Why was the debt ceiling so butchered? Because it is tough to make large changes to our government when the checks and balances ARE so great. The Supreme Court is staring down the barrel of the health mandate right now. The fact that there is a great divide in parties even makes the stagnancy of government more apparent. We should be lucky at how relatively "little" the government actually intrudes on our lives due to checks and balances.

And I think you are kind of agreeing with me. It is a government problem. But the government problem is a function of its workers and its people. Stupid people get stupid government. And ****ty workers make good government run awfully.

Ok, I'm rushing to get to work, so this might not come out quite right, but this *is* important:

You need to realise that you have no reason to be jealous of people on benefits. You think it's a rational response to the outrageous idea that they can spend their welfare money on booze, cigarettes and lobster. Be glad you've got a 40+ hour per week job, because you are one of the lucky ones. You're lucky your life doesn't suck so much by definition the state has to intervene (and God knows how little the US likes to intervene in folks' lives, so their lives must REALLY SUCK).

The image you have of those on benefits sat on their asses lapping up your cash and living a luxurious lifestyle are plain false. They have an appalling existance statically more likely than most to be smattered with drug addiction, crime and misery. You should pity them, not be jealous of them.

As an aside, I too think there should be things off limits to folks on benefits, like booze, but I also don't like to think I have the power to limit another man's freedom. If his life is so hard he wants to blow some cash on booze to take his mind off his misery, maybe you should let him? I dunno, but I know I don't want to have to make that choice, so I elect other people to do it for me.

And now I'm late for work.

Buck, for the first time ever, I wish I could high five you.

Honestly, I think you'd find me more center/left now than you are aware. I don't think I've gotten into too many debates lately around here

Center is about the right place to be, but left of center ain't bad either. I say this being a man who is pretty far left of center. I can admit my flaws.

Agreed.



You point is solid, but I feel that if you surrender yourself to government assistance and a system designed to take from the rich and give to the poor, that you are giving up certain freedoms. When you ask your buddy to borrow his pickup, you don't ask for his wife and a cold 6 pack too, know what I mean? You get what you get, otherwise its also a freedom to get a job and better your situation.

Sorry for making you late.

It's not a freedom to have a job in America. Some people can't get a job. I hate that some people take advantage of welfare, but some people actually need it. I have family members who genuinely need it. My uncle has autism. He can't hold down a normal job. He flips out about all kinds of ****. It is the duty of other Americans to help him out. Ideally, this isn't the kind of country where we look at someone and say "sorry, bud, you were born with a ****ty hand of cards... deal with it."

Clearly I am not targeting recepients like your uncle or Jarl's mom. Nor am I calling for abolishment of the system altogether. Furthermore, I doubt your uncle uses his EBT to buy a case of beer, some lobstertail, and a pack of stogs. As for the job thing, some people may not get ideal jobs, but there's plenty of jobs to go around. Plenty enough to not justify the percentage of those who use and abuse welfare.

I think this:

http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?55308-What-s-with-this-Obama-school-speech-controversy/page3#post1031271

Needs saying again