Kentucky Welfare System

[BaseballUmp]

A bill has been introduced to legislature that would involve random drug testing for those on welfare receiving food stamps and medicaid.

My question is this.
Is it worth it to randomly test people?


Don't get all political. Just state your reasons

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
A bill has been introduced to legislature that would involve random drug testing for those on welfare receiving food stamps and medicaid.

My question is this.
Is it worth it to randomly test people?


Don't get all political. Just state your reasons

No. Make it requisite, not random. Surely someone in need wouldn't be able to afford drugs and would have no problem submitting to a test. Making it required of all prospective recipients would also rule out claims of bias or discrimination in the random selection process.

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
No. Make it requisite, not random. Surely someone in need wouldn't be able to afford drugs and would have no problem submitting to a test. Making it required off all prospective recipients would also rule out claims of bias or discrimination in the random selection process. Right on target!

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
No. Make it requisite, not random. Surely someone in need wouldn't be able to afford drugs and would have no problem submitting to a test. Making it required of all prospective recipients would also rule out claims of bias or discrimination in the random selection process.

took the words right out of my mouth

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
No. Make it requisite, not random. Surely someone in need wouldn't be able to afford drugs and would have no problem submitting to a test. Making it required of all prospective recipients would also rule out claims of bias or discrimination in the random selection process.
That's well and good, but what would this testing add to the cost of the welfare program? :thinking:

[BaseballUmp]

Here is one mans opinion of why this is a bad idea.

http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x54035779/HODGE-Tying-aid-to-drug-testing-is-wrong

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
That's well and good, but what would this testing add to the cost of the welfare program? :thinking:

So we're thinking of the tremendous cost of funding an entitlement program, and cost is the issue? If cost is an issue, it shouldn't be done at all. Its like buying a car but neglecting to pay for gas.

[BaseballUmp]

I have a hard time writing this because it's easy to see the contradiction, but what about the kids. They have no control of their parents that do the drugs. They won't get food at home if they can't get assistance because of what their parents do. Yes I realize that parents should not do drugs especially with kids around. I'm just saying that the kids will be the ones that suffer the most.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
I have a hard time writing this because it's easy to see the contradiction, but what about the kids. They have no control of their parents that do the drugs. They won't get food at home if they can't get assistance because of what their parents do. Yes I realize that parents should not do drugs especially with kids around. I'm just saying that the kids will be the ones that suffer the most.

Agreed. Bringing children into the mix makes things definitely mucks things. And what are the options? Take away the kids if the parents test dirty? That's probably what should happen, but it would be a tough sell and in the end I don't think anyone wants to see a parent lose a child, unless the parent poses a danger of course.

Its a difficult situation, and to this point, the best our society and government has done is try to throw money at the problem. Sooner or later, all parties involved need to take responsibility for their part in the problem.

[DDBooger]

Such a noble endeavor. War on the poor. Who gives a rats ass about people with nothing. Much easier to lump them all together. I propose we ask the same of ALL who take handouts from the Govt (white collars as well). Seems we'll give a billion dollars here and there to a handful of men, but the equivalent to millions in a country is the travesty.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Such a noble endeavor. War on the poor. Who gives a rats ass about people with nothing. Much easier to lump them all together. I propose we ask the same of ALL who take handouts from the Govt (white collars as well). Seems we'll give a billion dollars here and there to a handful of men but the equivalent to millions in a country is the travesty.

Those who were bailed out to the tunes of billions are probably the dirtiest. It is a horrible double-standard. I'd like to think that the two are slightly different as you have a handout on one side, and an I owe you on the other, but it remains to be seen that the U.S. taxpayers will be repaid the billions that were given to Wall Street.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
So we're thinking of the tremendous cost of funding an entitlement program, and cost is the issue? If cost is an issue, it shouldn't be done at all. Its like buying a car but neglecting to pay for gas.
If you think the welfare program should be eliminated altogether, then say so. You have a right to your opinion.

My point is, that if we're going to have such an already expensive program, then we don't need a bunch of vainglorious politicians adding to the cost of it with some over demonstrative, "make it look like you stand for the right thing" nonsense.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
I'd like to think that the two are slightly different as you have a handout on one side, and an I owe you on the other, but it remains to be seen that the U.S. taxpayers will be repaid the billions that were given to Wall Street. It's great that they are given the opportunity to pay it back and not suffer consequences. The millions who have now lost jobs, those who lost all their investments and savings don't have that luxury. BUT, I'm glad they'll have an opportunity to pay it back, that resolves it all. lol :rolleyes:

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
If you think the welfare program should be eliminated altogether, then say so. You have a right to your opinion.

My point is, that if we're going to have such an already expensive program, then we don't need a bunch of vainglorious politicians adding to the cost of it with some over demonstrative, "make it look like you stand for the right thing" nonsense.

I don't think it should be eliminated. However, I don't think the system should continually be exploited. It may be too idealist, but this sort of assistance should be temporary except in the case of the disabled. And think about it; look how much information you had to provide to finance a car or buy a house. Yet some people would take exception for complying with a small requirement to receive a hand-out? Just doesn't register well with me.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by DDBooger
It's great that they are given the opportunity to pay it back and not suffer consequences. The millions who have now lost jobs, those who lost all their investments and savings don't have that luxury. BUT, I'm glad they'll have an opportunity to pay it back, that resolves it all. lol :rolleyes:

Dammit Boog, why do you always have to be right? :D I'm no fan of big-business nor of how our legislators have sold us out to them.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
I don't think it should be eliminated. However, I don't think the system should continually be exploited. It may be too idealist, but this sort of assistance should be temporary except in the case of the disabled. And think about it; look how much information you had to provide to finance a car or buy a house. Yet some people would take exception for complying with a small requirement to receive a hand-out? Just doesn't register well with me.
I agree with most of what you said there, I just don't think that drug testing recipients would be cost effective.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
A bill has been introduced to legislature that would involve random drug testing for those on welfare receiving food stamps and medicaid.

My question is this.
Is it worth it to randomly test people?


Don't get all political. Just state your reasons

Does this include The Wealthy! They Receive Billions of Dollars in Government Subsidies Each Year.


My answer is it would be cheaper to test the wealthy, than the poor.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
So we're thinking of the tremendous cost of funding an entitlement program, and cost is the issue? If cost is an issue, it shouldn't be done at all. Its like buying a car but neglecting to pay for gas.

Are Subsidies the same as entitlements?:D

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
I agree with most of what you said there, I just don't think that drug testing recipients would be cost effective.

It probably wouldn't be. The only way it would be effective is if the majority of welfare recipients were drug users, because then the one-time fee of testing would be much less than the annual handout. But as you mentioned, legalities arise regarding the validity of tests, and then the whole situation just becomes muddled. I think the key to this sort of assistance to implement programs that will be temporary. People receiving handouts should be getting college educations or workforce training so that they can contribute to the system that helped them.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by garciap77
Are Subsidies the same as entitlements?:D

In my eyes, yes. Corporations are required to make a great deal of information on the inner workings of their companies available to the public, but Enron proved even full-disclosure does not prevent fraud.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
It probably wouldn't be. The only way it would be effective is if the majority of welfare recipients were drug users, because then the one-time fee of testing would be much less than the annual handout. But as you mentioned, legalities arise regarding the validity of tests, and then the whole situation just becomes muddled. I think the key to this sort of assistance to implement programs that will be temporary. People receiving handouts should be getting college educations or workforce training so that they can contribute to the system that helped them.
It wasn't me that mentioned legalities but I thought it.:D

Other than that.... :2thumbsup with the education and training.

[PPHSfan]

I say don't test ANYONE. That includes truck drivers, the folks who drive school buses, child care providers, pharmacists, oh I'm sorry. So we SHOULD maybe screen some folks, just not welfare recipients. I almost went out on a rant there. Glad I caught myself.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Such a noble endeavor. War on the poor. y.

So it is a war on the poor to try to decide who REALLY needs help and those mooching off a system?

[poisoned10]

I've seen SEVERAL people who were on welfare and drove brand new Cadillac Escalades that were decked out.

I'm glad there is a system in place to help people out, but drives me crazy to see people take advantage of it like this.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by poisoned10
I've seen SEVERAL people who were on welfare and drove brand new Cadillac Escalades that were decked out.

I'm glad there is a system in place to help people out, but drives me crazy to see people take advantage of it like this.
You know...back in the day, when I was a single parent with a POS ex, I received WIC assistance, partly because of financial need & partly because of anemia with the baby (he's 25-1/2 now). We also qualified for the commodoties (cheese, peanut butter, pwdr milk, rice, flour). That is the ONLY assistance I every accepted. I remember when the time came, I think maybe every 6-months, to requalify. I gave them copies of my paystubs. My son no longer had the health need, and financially, we were struggling, but not having a rough time. I walked out after being denied, because I made too much money (making around $5.25/hr at the time). I watched the ladies/gents get in/out of their brand new Cadillacs/Lincoln Town Cars, with one of the women wearing a FUR coat! :dispntd: :dispntd: :dispntd:

And you know, we ended up being none-the-worse from the denial. It just took some juggling. But, at the time, I would've gladly taken a drug test for the small amount of help that it was!

It seems that those who might be against it, are totally sold on the welfare system and its' "fairness". Sure - I could've continued to qualify if I wanted to have a few more kids with no father in the picture! GMAB!!! I needed ASSISTANCE - NOT a lifetime of free food/money!

I would REALLY, really like to see accurate figures on the actual length of time people are ON any type of so-called "assistance".

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
So it is a war on the poor to try to decide who REALLY needs help and those mooching off a system?

It's easier to wage war on the poor! Welfare for the poor is peanuts compare to Welfare for the rich. I am willing to bet there are more Welfare recipients that don’t scam the system than recipients that do. I have been fortunate not to ever needed the Welfare system, but I have known people who were on it and they really need the assistance. The way the economy is going right now, anyone that is not wealthy could find themselves needing assistance.

[Trashman]

I'm some what split on this issue.....will this mean the children of druggies go hungry? Once we start down this road will we start refusing food stamps and Medicaid to fat people or God forbid people who are not in good physical shape?:thinking:

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Trashman
I'm some what split on this issue.....will this mean the children of druggies go hungry? Once we start down this road will we start refusing food stamps and Medicaid to fat people or God forbid people who are not in good physical shape?:thinking:

Its definitely a slippery slope.

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
Here is one mans opinion of why this is a bad idea.

http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x54035779/HODGE-Tying-aid-to-drug-testing-is-wrong
He has a point with the candy and soda stuff.

But I don't see how it's someones right as an American to expect a free handout with no catch like he wants.

[TheDOCTORdre]

If the Church, as a whole, (and when I say Church, I'm not talking about a particular church, I am referring to the body of Christ, ie born again believers) did as the were commanded, there would be no need for government hand outs.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
If the Church, as a whole, (and when I say Church, I'm not talking about a particular church, I am referring to the body of Christ, ie born again believers) did as the were commanded, there would be no need for government hand outs.

:iagree:

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I say don't test ANYONE. That includes truck drivers, the folks who drive school buses, child care providers, pharmacists, oh I'm sorry. So we SHOULD maybe screen some folks, just not welfare recipients. I almost went out on a rant there. Glad I caught myself.

:clap: :clap:

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I say don't test ANYONE. That includes truck drivers, the folks who drive school buses, child care providers, pharmacists, oh I'm sorry. So we SHOULD maybe screen some folks, just not welfare recipients. I almost went out on a rant there. Glad I caught myself.
The cost of testing every one of the occupations you mentioned, could be added to their license fees, and NOT paid for by us taxpayers.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
at the time, I would've gladly taken a drug test for the small amount of help that it was!

And then you could have said, "Hey, I passed my drug test with flying colors, and all of y'all footed the bill!!".

:rolleyes:

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom


I would REALLY, really like to see accurate figures on the actual length of time people are ON any type of so-called "assistance".
So would I.
I think that a big part of the problem with the system we have now, might be that too many people think that they are "entitled" to get back on the same sized horse as the one they got thrown off of.

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
The cost of testing every one of the occupations you mentioned, could be added to their license fees, and NOT paid for by us taxpayers.

I'm pretty sure my point sailed straight over your head.

[PPHSfan]

Did you know that a box of litmus strips that you dip into a urine sample to test for most illegal drugs can be bought by the gross for about a dollar a strip? Did you know that the average monthly amount given in just food stamps in the state of Texas is quite a bit more than a dollar?

Here is a nice little hypothetical story.

Hi, my name is Bob.
I like to smoke weed.
I also like to work, because I like having money to buy weed.
I can't get a job at 7-11 because I can't pass a drug test.
I would like to have money to buy some weed.
Thank goodness I don't have to pass a drug test to get food stamps.
I can use them to buy Frosted Flakes, because I get hungry when I smoke weed.
I can also use them to buy steaks, that I trade to my pot dealer for weed.
I'm lovin it.

[bigwood33]

I have always thought that there should be limitations on "assistance". Too many people on the public dole that are children and grand children of recipients. I think the thing to do is pretty simple. Anyone who does not have a 40 hour per week job, should supplement their hours with public service. If someone gets 32 hours at a job, they would work 8 hours painting curbs, sweeping streets, pulling weeds, etc to make it to 40. If someone is simply out of work, then they would have to work for the public the hours that they are not actively looking for work. No more just sitting in public housing and drawing a check. If someone works 40 hours or more and still falls below the poverty line, then they would not be required to work for the public. My guess is that when people who are not working and still expect to be taken care of start working in the rain, snow, heat, etc, they MAY get motivated to find better employment.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
And then you could have said, "Hey, I passed my drug test with flying colors, and all of y'all footed the bill!!".

:rolleyes:
Like I said, we managed to work it out. And like I said, had a POS ex, & was a single mom with a 1-year old. The assistance was worth about $20 every 3-months. AND I wasn't driving a freaking Cadillac/Lincoln wearing a fur coat when I went to pick it up!

[Eagle 1]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I say don't test ANYONE. That includes truck drivers, the folks who drive school buses, child care providers, pharmacists, oh I'm sorry. So we SHOULD maybe screen some folks, just not welfare recipients. I almost went out on a rant there. Glad I caught myself.


Originally posted by PPHSfan
I'm pretty sure my point sailed straight over your head.

I am definate it did.
Don't forget to add our service members, law enforcement, fireman, and any other public servants.
I had no problem taking a drug test during the 23 years I served in the military.
If they have to pass a drug test, then why shouldn't those who are receiving assistance?
I agree about the children may go hungry, but think about this.
How many children whose parents are doing drugs go hungry every day anyway?

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
I'm pretty sure my point sailed straight over your head.
Oh, was there a point involved?:D

You mentioned some folks that either had to be tested, or ought to be tested for drugs, and I pointed out that those tests are paid for with private funds, not the taxpayers' money.;)
That was all.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by bigwood33
I have always thought that there should be limitations on "assistance". Too many people on the public dole that are children and grand children of recipients. I think the thing to do is pretty simple. Anyone who does not have a 40 hour per week job, should supplement their hours with public service. If someone gets 32 hours at a job, they would work 8 hours painting curbs, sweeping streets, pulling weeds, etc to make it to 40. If someone is simply out of work, then they would have to work for the public the hours that they are not actively looking for work. No more just sitting in public housing and drawing a check. If someone works 40 hours or more and still falls below the poverty line, then they would not be required to work for the public. My guess is that when people who are not working and still expect to be taken care of start working in the rain, snow, heat, etc, they MAY get motivated to find better employment.

I like this. There are plenty of streets that need to be clean. Plenty of grass that needs to be cut . :thinking: Maybe they can work for the city!:thinking:

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
Did you know that a box of litmus strips that you dip into a urine sample to test for most illegal drugs can be bought by the gross for about a dollar a strip? Did you know that the average monthly amount given in just food stamps in the state of Texas is quite a bit more than a dollar?

Here is a nice little hypothetical story.

Hi, my name is Bob.
I like to smoke weed.
I also like to work, because I like having money to buy weed.
I can't get a job at 7-11 because I can't pass a drug test.
I would like to have money to buy some weed. Thank goodness I don't have to pass a drug test to get food stamps.
I can use them to buy Frosted Flakes, because I get hungry when I smoke weed.
I can also use them to buy steaks, that I trade to my pot dealer for weed.
I'm lovin it.
A Dollar a piece huh? A couple of folks have mentioned always seeing people getting out of Cadillacs to go in and collect their benefits, so that must mean there are a lot of folks there at any given time. What about the cost of added staff and facilities to conduct these tests?

Well, I guess these folks could pee in the cup while they're standing in line, but then again, if they have to catch their sample in mid stream, things could get interesting.:eek:

[lulu]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
You know...back in the day, when I was a single parent with a POS ex, I received WIC assistance, partly because of financial need & partly because of anemia with the baby (he's 25-1/2 now). We also qualified for the commodoties (cheese, peanut butter, pwdr milk, rice, flour). That is the ONLY assistance I every accepted. I remember when the time came, I think maybe every 6-months, to requalify. I gave them copies of my paystubs. My son no longer had the health need, and financially, we were struggling, but not having a rough time. I walked out after being denied, because I made too much money (making around $5.25/hr at the time). I watched the ladies/gents get in/out of their brand new Cadillacs/Lincoln Town Cars, with one of the women wearing a FUR coat! :dispntd: :dispntd: :dispntd:

And you know, we ended up being none-the-worse from the denial. It just took some juggling. But, at the time, I would've gladly taken a drug test for the small amount of help that it was!

It seems that those who might be against it, are totally sold on the welfare system and its' "fairness". Sure - I could've continued to qualify if I wanted to have a few more kids with no father in the picture! GMAB!!! I needed ASSISTANCE - NOT a lifetime of free food/money!

I would REALLY, really like to see accurate figures on the actual length of time people are ON any type of so-called "assistance".
I worked for Tx Dept. of Health in the WIC program in my younger years. I know what you are saying about seeing folks that are obviously lying to get benefits. You can not believe some of the tricks women would pull to get on the program. One woman used her sisters urine for a test so that she would get a + pregnancy test.It was a few months before we figured it out.
It's hard to know what to do about all the lies and tricks used to get benefits that are not really needed.
The programs are very helpful...sometime life saving for the ones who really need it but the freeloaders:mad: God tells us to help but how do we know when there are so many who have no conscience or morals?

If we could figure out an answer the
national debt would be greatly lessened and we would be heroes.

Sad sad:(

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
That's well and good, but what would this testing add to the cost of the welfare program? :thinking: It would save the system money, Help get folks off of drugs. You want help. dont take drugs!!! I think we need rewards for whistle blowers who tell on these cheaters who get assistance and then drive nice cars, expensive cell phones , Tatoos, cigarets ect.... Give rewards to sackers and other folks like that who give info on those they think are cheaters...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by lulu
I worked for Tx Dept. of Health in the WIC program in my younger years. I know what you are saying about seeing folks that are obviously lying to get benefits. You can not believe some of the tricks women would pull to get on the program. One woman used her sisters urine for a test so that she would get a + pregnancy test.It was a few months before we figured it out.
It's hard to know what to do about all the lies and tricks used to get benefits that are not really needed.
The programs are very helpful...sometime life saving for the ones who really need it but the freeloaders:mad: God tells us to help but how do we know when there are so many who have no conscience or morals?

If we could figure out an answer the
national debt would be greatly lessened and we would be heroes.

Sad sad:( You have to Help the people. Right now the precentage of people living under the poverty level is growing. Thats a real thing. The cheaters should be caught no doubt but you cant trash the system because you have some faud. You gotta try harder to stop the fraud but keep helping those who realy need it. I know there are folks out there who need it . Freeloaders make me mad too.... Its a shame that there is a perception by some out there that everyone ( or even most ) getting public assistance are lazy.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You have to Help the people. Right now the precentage of people living under the poverty level is growing. Thats a real thing. The cheaters should be caught no doubt but you cant trash the system because you have some faud. You gotta try harder to stop the fraud but keep helping those who realy need it. I know there are folks out there who need it . Freeloaders make me mad too.... Its a shame that there is a perception by some out there that everyone ( or even most ) getting public assistance are lazy.

We need to stop sending money to other countries as well. I wonder how much money that would save.

[lulu]

Originally posted by garciap77
We need to stop sending money to other countries as well. I wonder how much money that would save. Darn 77 we would be a rich country if we mined our own business and take care of our own first. What a concept........We think alike on that one.

[PPHSfan]

The concept of money is hard for some to grasp. Lol

[garciap77]

Originally posted by lulu
Darn 77 we would be a rich country if we mined our own business and take care of our own first. What a concept........We think alike on that one.

Bring back the troops, secure our border, and fortify our military bases overseas. Put the world on notice "if you attack us we will attack you, no questions asked".

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by garciap77
Bring back the troops, secure our border, and fortify our military bases overseas. Put the world on notice "if you attack us we will attack you, no questions asked". :rolleyes:

[garciap77]

Originally posted by PPHSfan
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[PPHSfan]

Originally posted by garciap77
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh that sounds like paradise!

Living trapped inside the borders of the United States for eternity while pretending that the rest of the planet is full of evil men. Just think, all of our problems would be solved. We wouldn't have a drug problem because of our secure borders. Everyone would drive friendly and love their fellow man.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by garciap77
Bring back the troops, secure our border, and fortify our military bases overseas. Put the world on notice "if you attack us we will attack you, no questions asked".

sounds great, but not doable..just look how events that created WWII happened..We as a country would not step in early enough to stop someone bent on ruiling the world.

[dirtysouth]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
That's well and good, but what would this testing add to the cost of the welfare program? :thinking:

Well with the money you would be saving by not giving it to all the people that fail, I think you would be saving money in the long run.