Guess how many welfare recipients tested positive in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s drug test?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


If you think the POTUS actually runs the WHOLE country and not just the Federal Government, then you have some history and civic lessons to take my friend.

~Tenth

I'm sorry, but you're ignorant as hell. What does POTUS stand for, Professor? The president is head of state and head of government. The POTUS leads the executive branch and is commander in Chief of the armed forces. The POTUs leads the country.

a reply to: TheBulk

"So you're not a Democrat or Republican, you just always bash Republicans and slavishly defend Democrats? Obama is the President. That means what happens under his watch is his responsibility. Just like Bush was to blame for EVERYTHING even after Obama was elected. He's certainly more responsible than Rick Snyder, but you're all butt hurt over him. "



I guess you are not aware of the house, senate, president checks and balance system.

a reply to: eXia7

Unfortunately there aren't enough jobs to hire all the wellfare people. Thats why they want us on benefits. To hide the fact politics and uneven trade tariffs have destroyed the job market. Particularly unskilled and skilled labour.

Throw in illegal immigration with workers who will work without rights.

I don't blame people as much as the political system for creating those people.

originally posted by: eXia7
What they should really be testing all welfare recipients of working age for is work ethic. Then we might see where the real problem is.

Might want to start testing politicians and government employees for work ethic lol.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: TheRedneck

The reality is that welfare is set up to demand that people do nothing to improve themselves. Want to get a degree? Hell no, that would take time away from your part-time minimum-wage dead-end job. Same with learning a new skill.

It's much worse than that. Welfare programs are essentially redistributing wealth to compensate for diminishing employment opportunity in the face of globalization and deindustrialization. On the individual level, people can improve their own employment situations but that's a microeconomic fix that doesn't scale to the level of a macroeconomic solution.

a reply to: TheRedneck
First>>>>

Where was my laziness?

DID I CALL ANYONE LAZY???????

Where was my bad decision?

You answer your own question.

I built a house, bought a car, went into debt, worked diligently at a job I hated, and then the economy went bust.

My wife got us on government assistance.
Was that a bad decision?

Not for you or your wife..... it made your life easier, right?

Now you tell me: where was I lazy?

NO.
YOU tell ME....
Where did I call anyone LAZY????????????????

I see nothing wrong with drug testing. I work and pay for the taxes that help support this program (not in Michigan) so I want to make sure that those that get it, deserve to get it. I also want to see those that are able to, volunteer so many hours a week if they are unable to find a job.

The study shows me that there is not a problem currently but that could change at any time if you were to take it away. You could roll with it for a few years and then at that point if the numbers are still low you do random testing.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

1. Why is it a moral issue to test welfare recipients for drugs?

Note: I don't agree with making drugs illegal and you should do as you like as long as it doesn’t hurt others.

Having said that. Nobody is forcing these people to take the drug test just like nobody is forcing me to take a drug test for my job.

However, If I decide to take the job then I agree to random testing. So I don't see an issue with welfare recipients having the same option as the rest of us. Nobody is forcing them to take the drug test or take the money. Take the money than get tested randomly like the rest of us.

2. found little evidence of high drug use among social program recipients.
So does that mean that the program was a success?

Perhaps the fear of losing their welfare check from the program was a good enough deterrent to keep them from doing drugs?

What drugs did they test for?

How much notice was given for the test to be administered?

What a waste of government time and resources as we as a waste of time for those tested.

This was a pilot program and only looks like 300 bucks was spent on it.

The pilot program ends on Sept. 30 and received $300,000 in state funding, although a spokesperson for the state health department said only $300 had been spent thus far.

Conclusion:

I would like to see additional information on the actual study , Not sure this isn't somewhat a biased I told you so story?

a reply to: butcherguy

So the only bad decision I made was going into debt, right? Going into debt while making enough to easily pay it off?

Do you realize that almost everyone today is in debt? Ironically, I am not. I swore to never play that rigged game again.

I suppose by your worldview, 95% of the entire population is guilty of making a horrible decision that should render them indigent for the rest of their life?

( No, you didn't call anyone lazy. That is just usually the next responce, so I nipped it in the bud.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Well, so far the study shows we are wasting our money on this and personally, I would like it to stop if that is the case.

How can it change? When will it change?

I don't want to pump money into things that clearly are not needed.

If, however, the study shows that a majority of welfare recipients were on drugs, then my views may be different.

Just my personal opinion.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Part two.

I finally collapsed, physically and mentally. I lost the business, my income, and for a while, my sanity. I went into clinical depression for 5 long years. I had no insurance, so I was on my own. The only reason I didn't commit suicide was I was totally convinced I would screw that up too. I jumped every time the phone rang, every knock on the door, every sound. I couldn't sleep, barely ate, spent all my time alone. I say to this day I danced on the edge of Hell and spit in Satan's face. It was the most terrifying years I can even imagine.

What makes you think that someone else hasn't been through that and worse?

It is a sad story and all, but what do I owe you?

I know, I am a terrible human being because I don't care about every person that I don't know. I take care of my own as best I can and I am not ashamed for not worrying about every Tom, Dick and Harriet that I don't know and am not responsible for.

Shenanigans like this are the only things keeping this big fake economy wallowing around like it can actually swim, when it can't swim.

Never mind the precedent being set by forcing these people on benefits to take drug tests to get these benefits.

Rights are being attacked from every direction these days, and you have the ignorant supporting this crap when they are 4 paychecks away from being in the exact same position.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I suppose by your worldview, 95% of the entire population is guilty of making a horrible decision that should render them indigent for the rest of their life?

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

No, I believe that we reap what we sow.
Bad decisions generally turn out to have bad consequences.

Guess what?
Most bad decisions do not entail that the person making them is "indigent for the rest of their lives".

I mentioned earlier that others have had bad times too. I have had them.
I have made bad decisions.
I am living with the results of those bad decisions.
I am not asking others to pay for the results of my bad decisions.
I am not indigent.

a reply to: eXia7


Have you seen the Job listings in Detroit? For the average blue-collar job, are 20 bullet-points of requirements, but only 2 or 3 bullet-points of benefits. (Summarized as: Work like a good slave and we'll compensate you "fairly")

They did this here in Flori-Duh. The folks receiving Welfare had to not only take the drug tests but also pay for them. The results were 3.2% tested positive; "These results aren't right" so a retest was taken. They were correct, the results weren't right, only 2.7% tested positive.
Not only that, but the Gov., the same one that spent $75M USD for a job that pays $237/yr. had a conflict-of-interest because it was His personal business that was undercutting Fl hospitals at an avg. of $116 a test. He owns many of the former "Pill Mills" that He closed and are now Quick-Care Centers. At Fl. hospitals the tests averaged $150.00 at The Gov's place the tests cost $34.00

For those who are calling for the Legislature also taking a drug test. A Miami writer, Carl Hiassen offered to pay for Drug Test for the whole Fl. Legislature and guess what???

a reply to: JimNasium

whatttt??????

a reply to: butcherguy

I think you should read up on John Locke and Roseau and their take on the social contract. It's what our forefathers were inspired by when writing the constitution. Two Treatises of government in particular by Locke was their guiding philosophical work.

If the gov says makes expensive regulations too fast and the industry leaves the state you have macroeconomic problem. Sure some people can solve the situation but statistically speaking you just can't save everyone overnight. With the current job market you literally can't save everyone.

This leaves with if you think it's moral for a society to simply abandon people.

People who may not have families. People who polution may have caused disabilities, job accidents, birth defects, ptsd from abuse or the battlefront etc.

If all people were moral we may have more charity that directly helps people. Since you can't legislate morality you need a safety net.

I think most conservatives think basic income I a better solution. Even Ted Cruz was selling it. It has libertarian free market support as well.

Personally I feel it was a waste of time and resources...

That said... why is it considered ok to drug test people prior to employing them, but considered such a horrible thing to drug test people on welfare?

Honestly curious..

a reply to: Irishhaf

It is not so much ethical in either instance, but a requirement in the agreement you sign to even be considered for employment and/or benefits.

I have gotten to the point of asking to see employment agreements before I even waste my time applying.

But that's a completely different topic....

Or Is It ?....

A lot of people are on welfare for other reasons than laziness.
I agree that there are some that abuse the system and I hate them as much an anybody but not to the detriment of all the others.

Every case is different.

There are just not enough jobs to give to everyone. If there were, that would be good news. So either you'll have to make up jobs or abuse people.
Here in Britain people get abused who are forced to work to stack shelves. They do that by promising that the job 'could' lead to a permanent position, which is NEVER the case.

So they work for slave wages and high hopes, the only one rubbing their hands are the big companies who get free workers [the payment is via welfare, which is well below average income].

I just don't like generalisations. If the welfare people are too stupid or not trained enough, or 'in on it' not to spot a cheat, then THAT is the problem which needs addressing, not the witholding of money or telling people what they can and can't do with their money.

If you want to know what life is like without welfare, read up on poor houses in Victorian times and then check how unsafe the streets became and how disease spread amongst the poorest of the poor and affected anyone.
That should immediately want you to give a few pennies of your income to ensure a certain standard of living.

Not just for the needy, but for yourself and your children too.

Plus [and I always say this], beware what you wish for...because one day it might happen to you.