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

a reply to: Aliensun

You see, the goal with such programs, is to not catch people, but to simply dissuade them from using the drugs OR applying if they do use.


In that regard, you can say that this and similar programs absolutely work and not in a harmful way.

You can't say it worked unless you know that if did. What are you basing the effectiveness off of?

originally posted by: onequestion
What are the demographics of welfare recipients in Michigan

What does it matter?

a reply to: veracity

I agree... the system is needed I am not against poor people, but the system as it stands needs fixing...

But it goes deeper, we have a large percentage of the population that seem to think staying on welfare is a good thing, when instead we should be helping to train them, or re-train them so they have better opportunities to improve their lives.

I dont know what the answer is, I was just speculating on a way to satisfy both sides of the argument.

HUH.

In a lot of places there ARE "back to work" assistance programs for people on welfare. Job placement, resume help, and interviews with case workers to SEE if people are TRYING [and have to prove] to get jobs.

It's EASY to bash a system when you haven't worked inside it, or ever used it. It ALSO varies from state to state.

And NO -- I am not a social worker. I do know a few. This reductionist mentality is beyond ABSURD. Details matter, and there is MORE to the story.

The abuse happens, but it is NOT as rampant as FOX would have you think. Many, [most actually] find jobs and go back to work. The system COULD be improved...yes? It's not as bad as everyone is told.

A lot of the time? People are on SNAP and working MORE than 1 job. People ARE working and on welfare.

We have more problems than just the welfare program in this country....

a reply to: Irishhaf

I don't know when you were working at that ghetto do feel that the government was properly addressing the crime situation and doing their best to give industry incentive to provide cost of living based jobs? Or were they getting greedy with taxes or forcing regulations too fast and folding local economies?
Or has the state pretty much ignored trying to elevate the poverty situation and focused on middle class voters?

Like when Rand Paul went to Ferguson and found the local gov targeting areas to use fines to pay a substantial part of cities operating expenses.

He described as you get you car booted, they impound very quickly, you miss work because you can't afford to get your car out or the fines have stacked up etc.

I think the government has substantially created injustice for the working poor living in ghettos. The government fails to provide their kids a relatively good education, they fail to protect peoples private property from damage, they fail to protect their lives from the organized crimes of gangs or simply just brutal drive by shootings.

So what are we talking about here. Who are the real criminals.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually it is really hard to fake a piss test when there is someone watching your genitals while you pee. Want to be a public servant? Prove it.

You think so? You haven't been subjected to as many piss tests while dirty as my friends have I guess.

a reply to: TheBulk

So you're under the impression that POTUS has control over all 50 states, their governments, legislators etc?

That every single decision made at the state level is approved and rubber stamped by Obama and his administration?

That the Executive Branch literally runs the entire country, states, judicial and all?

Lol.

I'm the ignorant one, okay.

~Tenth

I wonder why, primarily self identifying conservatives, don't mine drug testing average individual welfare recipients but they never say a peep about all the corporate welfare recipients? Boggles my mind.

It's okay to give multi millionaires taxpayer money for some reason?

a reply to: chrismarco

Will it be ok when it's legally more available and it get's taxed? Would you begrudge someone on welfare for a case a beer a week? What's the limit?

Coming from a childhood of hunger due to Parental stupid...I would have to say it depends on if the kids were fed BEFORE the beer!

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: chrismarco

Will it be ok when it's legally more available and it get's taxed? Would you begrudge someone on welfare for a case a beer a week? What's the limit?

Coming from a childhood of hunger due to Parental stupid...I would have to say it depends on if the kids were fed BEFORE the beer!

I would agree, but still I would hate to see government money being used to my non essential items, that's what the aid is for.

Not so you can relax on the weekends with your buddies and drink beer. That's what your job is for, that's what your additional income is for.

Too many people abuse the system by using this money to buy nonsense already. Although, would I remove somebody's benefits for that?

No.

I just wouldn't encourage it is all.

~Tenth

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
I've changed my mind. I'm actually happy that he did this. It needed to be done, I guess.

I hope it puts minds to rest, and it will be a valuable tool in the future in refuting such claims.

Agreed. I was always curious as to how these programs would pan out. I never supported them, but I never opposed them.

Now that there's lots of data from these programs, we can objectively reject future programs as a waste of money and possibly focus on more effective ideas to reduce the amount of money needed to fund welfare programs such as encouraging active pursuit of existing opportunities that they might not know exist.

Here's an article citing a larger sample size

A mere 0.17 percent of the 39,121 applicants tested in Tennessee were found to be using illicit drugs

www.aol.com...

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Too many people abuse the system by using this money to buy nonsense already.

It would also be nice if people didn't feel it was ok to bring more children into the world while someone else is paying for the ones they have to eat.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Gee Rick, I guess you were just hating on the poor and disenfranchised..

Curious Tenth?

Feel the same about the background check that 'tests' people to see if they are good?

a reply to: neo96

No, universal background checks for automatic weapons are completely sensible.

My concern is how and by who are they done, that's all. The idea is a good one, the implementation is what causes issues.

(That's the only further 'gun law' I would support anyway, the rest if they were enforced, would be fine.)

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

No, universal background checks for automatic weapons are completely sensible.

Which effect the poor and disenfranchised the MOST.

Tenth.

That is what they call trying to have it both ways.

a reply to: neo96

Not if they were probably done Neo. And besides, poor people can't afford legal guns anyway, they'll just buy them off the street with criminals.

So it doesn't really help does it?

But there's no excuse to not have Universal Background checks. There is literally 0 good reasons. 85% of Americans agree.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

So drugs test= BAD.

Testing the whole country to see if they are good people =GOOD.

Same thing.

Only one is 'wrong' and the other is 'right'.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Really it proves nothing in the real world. Passing a drug test is easy when you know the methods of cleansing your system. The "pot" is the simplest to get around, there is quite the industry built around just that drug and testing for it. As for some other drugs, different things are required in the tests and I imagine in typical gov't fashion the tests are not meant to detect those drugs. Not to mention they would be expensive. Typical drug tests are based on a urine sample and that can be gotten around real simple. Now a follicle test is harder to fool as the traces stay for months. So if they are testing solely on urine samples that figure makes sense, you get what you get with the cheapest method. Now with all that being said I find the idea to drug test welfare recipients with mixed feelings. I do believe in individual choice so do what ever it's your life, on the other hand if as a term of my employment I must submit to a drug test [and most corporate places do] then I feel that somebody receiving gov't benefits for just being poor should have some conditions on how they receive their benefits. But to sit and act as if this proves anything is disingenuous.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: tothetenthpower

So drugs test= BAD.

Testing the whole country to see if they are good people =GOOD.

Same thing.

Only one is 'wrong' and the other is 'right'.

Guns & Welfare are not equatable topics Neo.

Just because I don't support one doesn't mean I absolutely have to not support the other, that argument is ridiculous.

I was against the drug tests because Mr. Rick over there assumes everybody on welfare is a criminal or a delinquent it seems and he was gonna prove that by drug testing them all, that failed.

And if gun control opponents are so certain they are right, why not allow the universal background checks and when the FBI or whoever actually fails to identify anybody then you guys will have ACTUAL PROOF that gun control and universal background checks don't work?

As opposed to having nothing to stand on, like you do now.

~Tenth

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So it is easy? While you have someone watching your genitals to fake the test? I've heard stories about using dildos with a tube for the piss to go thru... But I'm saying walk in with no clothes. I want them going through things they don't want to go through like regular people do.

Also, if you are referring to detoxing... Well I'm not sure how to combat that other than testing for them too.