Florida welfare

[TheDOCTORdre]

Drug test for welfare (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS)

what do you think

[Emerson1]

Yes. Should do drug and alcohol testing. The hard drugs are usually out of your system in a few days, so even if they do start doing this it won't catch everyone.

[Old LB]

I agree there is a lot of abuse of the system out there and this is probably needed. On the other hand, it is tricky because you could say the same test be required for farmers receiving disaster funds and everyone will be in an uproar.

I tend to think we have to overcome these issues as individuals in order to remain a great society.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Old LB
I agree there is a lot of abuse of the system out there and this is probably needed. On the other hand, it is tricky because you could say the same test be required for farmers receiving disaster funds and everyone will be in an uproar.

I tend to think we have to overcome these issues as individuals in order to remain a great society.

We should start with a monthly random testing of all Politicians?

[Ernest T Bass]

I think this will be a huge waste of money. The only thing it will accomplish is it will make Floridians feel better until they realize that now, welfare costs much more than it did before.
Wanna save some money? Require a birth control shot prior to receiving the checks.

[Old LB]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
I think this will be a huge waste of money. The only thing it will accomplish is it will make Floridians feel better until they realize that now, welfare costs much more than it did before.
Wanna save some money? Require a birth control shot prior to receiving the checks.

So should you require college graduates to do the same until all student loans are paid in full? See how this could get out of hand?

[Macarthur]

I'm not opposed to this, but I think it still misses the point.

The point is these people need to do everything in their powers to GET A JOB. I really could care less who is doing drugs. That's not the issue, IMO. If these folks were working, we wouldn't give a crap about the drug use.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by Old LB
So should you require college graduates to do the same until all student loans are paid in full? See how this could get out of hand?

No, b/c you don't get more student loan money for having kids.

[Old LB]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
No, b/c you don't get more student loan money for having kids.

I understand that, just saying if it gets started there is no end to the new regulations they could make up.

I don't disagree with you're point, just not sure this is the proper approach. It is a quick fix that does not address the need. Until you can present a better option like education and opportunity for this element of society then this problem will exist.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by Old LB
I understand that, just saying if it gets started there is no end to the new regulations they could make up.

I don't disagree with you're point, just not sure this is the proper approach. It is a quick fix that does not address the need. Until you can present a better option like education and opportunity for this element of society then this problem will exist.

Well, Im probably a little jaded on this topic, but this element of society isn't interested in "better options". I deal with this element every day. 90% of society has no idea what really goes on with this "element". Infact, I'd venture to guess that what we're calling "welfare" is the least amount of money being delivered to this "element".
I honestly believe that control, regulation, and outright refusal to fund this "element" is the only answer.

[Old LB]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Well, Im probably a little jaded on this topic, but this element of society isn't interested in "better options". I deal with this element every day. 90% of society has no idea what really goes on with this "element". Infact, I'd venture to guess that what we're calling "welfare" is the least amount of money being delivered to this "element".
I honestly believe that control, regulation, and outright refusal to fund this "element" is the only answer.

Once again, I do not disagree with your point. However it stands to reason that if they say these folks have to be on birth control then a student who owes school loans would have a diminished ability to repay said loans due to child birth. You open a whole can of worms with regulations such as this. All the special interest groups will go crazy and then you will start to hear "why aren't the farmers tested, why aren't college students tested as part of the loans process" Just my opinion. :thinking:

[sinfan75]

Originally posted by Emerson1
Yes. Should do drug and alcohol testing. The hard drugs are usually out of your system in a few days, so even if they do start doing this it won't catch everyone. No they're in your system for a while.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by Old LB
Once again, I do not disagree with your point. However it stands to reason that if they say these folks have to be on birth control then a student who owes school loans would have a diminished ability to repay said loans due to child birth. You open a whole can of worms with regulations such as this. All the special interest groups will go crazy and then you will start to hear "why aren't the farmers tested, why aren't college students tested as part of the loans process" Just my opinion. :thinking:

Then start testing everyone on the government dole. If you don't wanna be tested, pay for it yourself. Live under my roof, you follow my rules, right?

[Old LB]

Originally posted by sinfan75
No they're in your system for a while.

I did some reading the other day about this while working on a drug and alcohol program for work and with the current testing methods most all drugs will not show after 2-8 days. A lot depends on the individual and consumption amounts but it is reasonable to say you could beat the system if you knew the test dates.

[44INAROW]

I don't know the answer - but I am sick and tired of paying for other people's mistakes and bad judgement..

[Old LB]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Then start testing everyone on the government dole. If you don't wanna be tested, pay for it yourself. Live under my roof, you follow my rules, right?

Fine by me. :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
Drug test for welfare (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS)

what do you think

Give them an extra 25 bucks a month and make it mandatory that they have to pay for the test themselves and send the results sealed to the social services department(or whoever is in charge of distributing the money). Most of the recipients will be somewhat sober for about a week, at least. If one fails, then that person should be ineligible for welfare for at least six months.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
If one fails, then that person should be ineligible for welfare for at least six months.

Then they'll start stealing. What then?

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Then they'll start stealing. What then?

Is it not stealing if one takes money, does drugs, and never intends to pay it back because they just want to do drugs?:nerd:

[BaseballUmp]

I'll say what I said when Kentucky introduced the same bill a few months ago


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.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Then they'll start stealing. What then?

I thought I was being nice with only a six month rejection of taxpayer benefits.:nerd:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
I'll say what I said when Kentucky introduced the same bill a few months ago

Not at all. The vast majority of those kids get free breakfast/lunch anyway. There are now pushes to make sure those same kids get free breakfast and lunches even during summer.:hand:

[OldBison75]

There are many, many people on welfare of some sort, or unemployment, in Texas that are either under arrest or awaiting trial on drug and other criminal charges. Not to mention the number of people receiving these benefits that are on probation.

Ultimately, the problems with the government assistance programs is much deeper than drug use. When the government is giving people well over a year of unemployment payments with little proof that they are really even seeking employment is one major problem. There are so many on this program that it is impossible to check the requirement for reporting job searches.

I have no problem with drug testing of anyone. If you have nothing to hide it should not bother you. I look at it from the side that if firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and high school athletes can be randomly tested, then those freeloaders on the government payment plan can take the same damn chance that they will be called in anytime.

[BaseballUmp]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Not at all. The vast majority of those kids get free breakfast/lunch anyway. There are now pushes to make sure those same kids get free breakfast and lunches even during summer.:hand:

That's why I said at home lol

Nothing wrong with schools making sure kids get to eat. If my parents were crackheads and I couldn't get any food at home, I would be grateful to know the school district made sure I could eat.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp


Nothing wrong with schools making sure kids get to eat. If my parents were crackheads and I couldn't get any food at home, I would be grateful to know the school district made sure I could eat.

One problem. Are scruels there to "teach or feed"?
Seems like a misuse of public funds.

I have to wonder if locking up said drug addict bum "mommy or daddy"(or both for a couple of weeks) could have positive results for the kids?
How is it the scruels' responsibility to feed our kids for free?:thinking:

I understand your statement about "at home". But ultimately, even this great nation can't care of people who don't want care for their kids.

[BaseballUmp]

Originally posted by SintonFan
One problem. Are scruels there to "teach or feed"?
Seems like a misuse of public funds.

I have to wonder if locking up said drug addict bum "mommy or daddy"(or both for a couple of weeks) could have positive results for the kids?
How is it the scruels' responsibility to feed our kids for free?:thinking:

Positive results for the kids? Absolutely not.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan

How is it the scruels' responsibility to feed our kids for free?:thinking:


Betcha didn't know that those same kids get fed during the summer, too.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
Positive results for the kids? Absolutely not.

I changed it above, btw.

Would CPS coming into the home and removing the kids be better or worse than if they stayed at a drug riddled home?

So, which would it be?

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Betcha didn't know that those same kids get fed during the summer, too.

I suspect, but don't see it locally where I live at Northside ISD. Maybe it does happen here, too?

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
I suspect, but don't see it locally where I live at Northside ISD. Maybe it does happen here, too?

It's statewide. It's like meals on wheels for kids. They get two meals a day, just like during the school year.

[BaseballUmp]

Originally posted by SintonFan
I changed it above, btw.

Would CPS coming into the home and removing the kids be better or worse than if they stayed at a drug riddled home?

So, which would it be?

Either way, you do your child nothing but harm by putting them in that situation.

I've seen it happen tons of times and it's never good. When the kid doesn't know what's going on and why mommy or daddy can't take them home with them when they come over to visit.

Absolutely they should not have to be put in the situation in the first place though and it is obviously the parents fault. It's just a shame that it's the kids that in the end bare the blunt of the pain.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
Either way, you do your child nothing but harm by putting them in that situation.

I've seen it happen tons of times and it's never good. When the kid doesn't know what's going on and why mommy or daddy can't take them home with them when they come over to visit.

Absolutely they should not have to be put in the situation in the first place though and it is obviously the parents fault. It's just a shame that it's the kids that in the end bare the blunt of the pain.

So we should hold the parents responsible?
I guess that means jail time for those who do that to their kids(especially those that receive government funds.

Don't forget, I am not a big fan of CPS, but they should concentrating on horrible parents.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
It's statewide. It's like meals on wheels for kids. They get two meals a day, just like during the school year.

Who pays for that? The schools?:eek:

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Who pays for that? The schools?:eek:

It all comes from the same bucket o' cash known as "General Funds".
Imagine how much easier it would be solve the budget crisis if we stopped worrying about spending for a minute or so, and started worrying about "giving away" instead.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
It all comes from the same bucket o' cash known as "General Funds".
Imagine how much easier it would be solve the budget crisis if we stopped worrying about spending for a minute or so, and started worrying about "giving away" instead.

Does it come from the school fund?

Or.
How about this:

Does the money, that feeds kids during the summer, come from any kind of fund that is supposed to go to education?
What is this summer program called?

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Does it come from the school fund?

Or.
How about this:

Does the money, that feeds kids during the summer, come from any kind of fund that is supposed to go to education?


That's what Im trying to tell you. There's no such thing. That's why the lotto didn't pan out the way most people thought it would. There is no "school fund". Every 2 years, the geniuses we send to Austin just sit around and decide how to spend the money that's available and how to get more over the next 2 years. It's as F'ed up as a soup sandwich. That's why the precident that is being set in Austin right now is so important.
A little organization would probably alleviate a lot of this. But, then they wouldn't have nearly as much freedom.
I don't know the name of the program, during school or summer. But, the money still comes from the same place.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
That's what Im trying to tell you. There's no such thing. That's why the lotto didn't pan out the way most people thought it would. There is no "school fund". Every 2 years, the geniuses we send to Austin just sit around and decide how to spend the money that's available and how to get more over the next 2 years. It's as F'ed up as a soup sandwich. That's why the precident that is being set in Austin right now is so important.
A little organization would probably alleviate a lot of this. But, then they wouldn't have nearly as much freedom.
I don't know the name of the program, during school or summer. But, the money still comes from the same place.

I'll look it up and see if it comes from any kind of funding that is supposed to go to education.

[SintonFan]

Ok, got something here:

National School Lunch Program
The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in more than 9,000 schools across Texas. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 3 million Texas school children each school day. In 1998, Congress expanded the National School Lunch Program to include reimbursement for snacks served to children in after school educational and enrichment programs to include children through 18 years of age.

Nutritional Requirements School lunches must meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommend that no more than 30 percent of calories come from fat and less than 10 percent from saturated fat. Regulations also establish a standard for school lunches to provide one-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowances of protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium and calories. School lunches must meet federal nutrition requirements, but decisions about the specific foods to serve and their preparation are made locally.

Meal Prices A student cannot be charged more than 40 cents for a reduced-price lunch. After school snacks are provided to children on the same income eligibility basis as school meals. However, programs that operate in areas where at least 50 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals serve all snacks free.

Link (http://www.squaremeals.org/fn/render/channel/items/0,1249,2348_2363_0_0,00.html)

[SintonFan]

Seamless or Traditional SFSP? Choose one of these programs to help kids stay nutritionally fit this summer.

Summer nutrition participation data for the month of July 2006 collected and reported by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) indicates that, compared to the 17 million children who received free and reduced-price lunches during the 2006 school year, only 2.9 million participated in the Summer Nutrition Programs. That July in Texas, only 8 of every 100 children who were eligible for free and reduced-price lunches participated in the Summer Nutrition Programs. One of the most disturbing facts of this report is that, among households with children, 15.6 percent were "food insecure"—a condition that affects more people during the summer months. This means children may have limited access to enough food to fully meet their basic needs.

Summer may mean a vacation from classes, but it should not be a break from nutrition. Children still need to be properly nourished to ensure that when school resumes, they are ready to learn. Not only public schools, but also private schools, camps, government units, and nonprofit organizations, can do their part by helping children stay nutritionally fit during the summer break with meals offered in a summer food program. How can we help? What resources are available?

The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) Food and Nutrition Division encourages you to offer the Traditional Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) or the Seamless Summer Program throughout all the summer months.

To help you decide between the two programs, here are some details of both for you to compare:

Traditional Summer Food Service Program
· All children 18 years and younger eat free.
· Permanent agreement requiring annual updates.
· SFSP regulations and requirements are applicable.
· Federal Traditional SFSP reimbursement rates.
· Reimbursement for administrative costs.
· Must attend training.
· Commodities available at .015 cents per child.

Seamless Summer Food Program
· All children 18 years and younger eat free.
· Submit request for participation to TDA.
· Streamlined contract application process by extending National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
agreement.
· Combines features of the NSLP, School Breakfast Program (SBP), and Traditional SFSP with
reduced paperwork.
· Federal NSLP reimbursement at the free rate for all meal types served.
· No reimbursement for administrative costs.
· Training not required.
· Commodities available as part of the PAL entitlement through NSLP.

Link (http://www.squaremeals.org/fn/render/channel/items/0,1249,2348_2367_0_0,00.html)

[SintonFan]

I'm not sure how current these are but I'm sure this program has grown in the last couple of years.

My point:
If the US(and Texas) Department of Agriculture is paying for more and more free meals, then is that not taking away from Teachers' salaries?
Don't you have to buy that food, staff those cafeterias and have them cook the food, pay for janitors and have administrators there to pay for this, not including other costs like electricity and what not? How much of this is going to kids who's parents are illegal aliens?

I am not advocating any child starve, but when did it become the school's responsibility to feed "all kids"? The last two words are not mine.


Traditional Summer Food Service Program
· All children 18 years and younger eat free.

Seems like a use of funds that are now used for something other than education.

:nerd:

But then again, I guess I'm just a "non-intelligent", one-sided, un-thinking dullard.:doh: :doh: :doh:

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
[BI, but when did it become the school's responsibility to feed "all kids"? The last two words are not mine.




But then again, I guess I'm just a "non-intelligent", one-sided, un-thinking dullard.:doh: :doh: :doh: [/B]

Maybe you're last line is right, b/c I agree with that first one 100%! Where did you miss this?

[JustAFan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
My point:
If the US(and Texas) Department of Agriculture is paying for more and more free meals, then is that not taking away from Teachers' salaries?
Don't you have to buy that food, staff those cafeterias and have them cook the food, pay for janitors and have administrators there to pay for this, not including other costs like electricity and what not? How much of this is going to kids who's parents are illegal aliens?


Actually, the money for the School Lunch Program (and other Federal and State free meal programs) is a totally different fund from the school's budget. It is budgeted separately and reported separately. The only time the lunch program (during the year or summer) affects a school district's budget or funds is if the district violates the law and has to repay part of the money. Even if the lunch program disappears, the money will not go in to the school's coffers.

[Pendragon13]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I'm not opposed to this, but I think it still misses the point.

The point is these people need to do everything in their powers to GET A JOB. I really could care less who is doing drugs. That's not the issue, IMO. If these folks were working, we wouldn't give a crap about the drug use. The problem with that is the fact that many jobs require a drug test before hiring...even a lot of white collar jobs.

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
[B

Seems like a use of funds that are now used for something other than education.
[/B]

I don't give a damn what it's used for. Let's address the money that is given away first, and then address the money that is actually spent....at EVERY level of government. Hell, even in socialist countries people have to work for their government dole.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
I don't give a damn what it's used for. Let's address the money that is given away first, and then address the money that is actually spent....at EVERY level of government. Hell, even in socialist countries people have to work for their government dole.

How is this much different? Isn't this money that is pretty much given away?

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
How is this much different? Isn't this money that is pretty much given away?

What money are you talking about?

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
What money are you talking about?

Our Tax money. Isn't that what you are talking about?

[Ernest T Bass]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Our Tax money. Isn't that what you are talking about?

Depends on what you do with it whether or not it's a "give away". It costs money to have a government(and yes, lots of it is guilty of wasteful spending). But anytime you're taking from those that do work to give to those that do not, it's bad.
Even in socialist countries, if you don't work, you dont eat.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Depends on what you do with it whether or not it's a "give away". It costs money to have a government(and yes, lots of it is guilty of wasteful spending). But anytime you're taking from those that do work to give to those that do not, it's bad.
Even in socialist countries, if you don't work, you dont eat.

Geh, we might be on the same page on this.

Why were you arguing with me?:eek: