Georgia to Require Drug Tests for Welfare

[blueballs]

What has been overlooked here is the fact that if you can pass a piss test to get welfare you should be able to pass a piss test to get a job.

I would imagine the welfare recipients who are able to pass a piss test become employed and cycle off welfare faster than what we saw before. If that is the case, and common sense indicates it should be, then the program is effective for reasons other than strict principle.

Agree but, it's still targeting the poor.

If you're going to do this, piss test everyone who gets a welfare check and piss test all governement workers. (I noticed your governor backed off on that part of it, the coward) Lotta drunks and RX drug addicts making big decisions with our lives.

No argument here...

[D1B]

Agree but, it's still targeting the poor.

If you're going to do this, piss test everyone who gets a welfare check and piss test all governement workers. (I noticed your governor backed off on that part of it, the coward) Lotta drunks and RX drug addicts making big decisions with our lives. I could care less about TANF recipents.

You know this is nothing but a move to satiate the cynical thirst in most conks and tea bagger low lifes for villifying the poor.

So to be clear, you're just SURE that the poor welfare recipients aren't abusing drugs but you're just CERTAIN there's a "lotta drunks and RX addicts" in the government.

They're both abusing drugs. IMO, for the poor, it's less that what you think, and for the government workers, is more than you think.

Why does one group get the bad rap? I think you'll agree that lazy motherfucking unionized government workers are more of a threat to the nation that a poor woman with 2 kids who was abandoned by a fuckwad.

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck about TANF recipents?

You're too smart to fall victim to this obvious sham.

[AZGrizFan]

Agree but, it's still targeting the poor.

If you're going to do this, piss test everyone who gets a welfare check and piss test all governement workers. (I noticed your governor backed off on that part of it, the coward) Lotta drunks and RX drug addicts making big decisions with our lives.

No argument here...

Military is already piss tested on a regular basis, with a zero tolerance policy in place.

[D1B]

No argument here...

Military is already piss tested on a regular basis, with a zero tolerance policy in place.

The military is full of drunks and they escape accountabiliy.

I'm not worried much about the military, at least the bottom ranks, after all they're just bodies the conks callously send, ill-prepared and ill-equiped, to wars over oil and to secure elections.

Anyone working for the taxpayers should be drug tested, if you're going to test welfare recipients.

[DJH]

What has been overlooked here is the fact that if you can pass a piss test to get welfare you should be able to pass a piss test to get a job.

I would imagine the welfare recipients who are able to pass a piss test become employed and cycle off welfare faster than what we saw before. If that is the case, and common sense indicates it should be, then the program is effective for reasons other than strict principle.

Agree but, it's still targeting the poor.

If you're going to do this, piss test everyone who gets a welfare check and piss test all governement workers. (I noticed your governor backed off on that part of it, the coward) Lotta drunks and RX drug addicts making big decisions with our lives. I could care less about TANF recipents.

You know this is nothing but a move to satiate the cynical thirst in most conks and tea bagger low lifes for villifying the poor.

Yes, I guess it technically is "targeting" the poor. The poor are the one's typically (always) receiving welfare checks. But so what? I don't think its too much to ask that you are not blowing cash on illegal drugs before you get a government handout that is supposed to be used for your personal and family well-being.

Test all government workers? I'm completely fine with that too. But, the point is that they are not the one's costing this country (you know, that incredibly massive debt?) money by receiving welfare checks.

Money needs to be spent on preventative, education, and rehabilitative measures that aim to fix problems rather than continually putting an expensive band-aid on it such as welfare checks, which IMO, simply too often encourage people to be all too dependent on the governmental support rather than finding a way to make it on there own.

[Baldy]

Military is already piss tested on a regular basis, with a zero tolerance policy in place.

The military is full of drunks and they escape accountabiliy.

I'm not worried much about the military, at least the bottom ranks, after all they're just bodies the conks callously send, ill-prepared and ill-equiped, to wars over oil and to secure elections.

Anyone working for the taxpayers should be drug tested, if you're going to test welfare recipients.

Since this thread is about Georgia, state of Georgia employees are subject to random drug screens. Not all, but many state departments do require drug testing as a part of the pre-employment screening process.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

You cant target the wealthy with piss tests......that places an unfair burden on them........

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[D1B]

Agree but, it's still targeting the poor.

If you're going to do this, piss test everyone who gets a welfare check and piss test all governement workers. (I noticed your governor backed off on that part of it, the coward) Lotta drunks and RX drug addicts making big decisions with our lives. I could care less about TANF recipents.

You know this is nothing but a move to satiate the cynical thirst in most conks and tea bagger low lifes for villifying the poor.

Yes, I guess it technically is "targeting" the poor. The poor are the one's typically (always) receiving welfare checks. But so what? I don't think its too much to ask that you are not blowing cash on illegal drugs before you get a government handout that is supposed to be used for your personal and family well-being.

Test all government workers? I'm completely fine with that too. But, the point is that they are not the one's costing this country (you know, that incredibly massive debt?) money by receiving welfare checks.

Money needs to be spent on preventative, education, and rehabilitative measures that aim to fix problems rather than continually putting an expensive band-aid on it such as welfare checks, which IMO, simply too often encourage people to be all too dependent on the governmental support rather than finding a way to make it on there own.

You're a moron.

[Skjellyfetti]

I know it goes against y'all's half-witted stereotypes... but, the vast majority of welfare recipients aren't on drugs.

Really? How would you know?

Because Florida enacted similar legislation and found that 2% of everyone receiving welfare tested positive for drugs. 2% refused the tests.

96% passed.

It's just one state... but, I don't think you'd see enough variation state by state to make my statement false. Again, I know this flies in the face of your half-witted stereotypes of both race and class... so, I know it's probably hard for you to accept.

But, I'd be willing to wager that Georgia's results will show that the vast majority (we can say over 90%) of welfare recipients aren't on drugs. Care to take me up on it?

[JohnStOnge]

If it were up to me drugs would be legal and there would be no welfare. But the bottom line is that if someone is going to give you something they have a right to establish whatever conditions they want to establish in giving it. If they want to tell you you have to pull your pants down and whistle Dixie they have a right to do that. And if you don't want to you can just opt not to accept what they're offering to give you with that condition.

If you don't want to be drug tested in order to receive welfare just don't ask for welfare.

[ODUsmitty]

If getting drug tested is a condition of most folks' ability to support themsleves and their families, then getting drug tested should be an absolute necessity for those receiving the fruits of our labor that for whatever reason cannot support themselves or their families.

ANd pertaining to the cost of testing, particularly for government employees, I have a simple answer: have less government employees. In the eutopic Smittystan, no benefits for the poor or unemployed would be provided by the very limited government, there would be no forced Social Security, and medical services are not required to be provided to anyone that stumbles through an emergency room doorway. Such a simple parasigm shift would do wonders for the current entitlement issues we face and actually encourage those who are underachieving to get a job and delay spreading their legs in hopes of an 18-year government check.

You tree-huggers in Libtardia can subsidize away everyone's freedom - we'll see who lasts longer.

[89Hen]

Because Florida enacted similar legislation and found that 2% of everyone receiving welfare tested positive for drugs. 2% refused the tests.

96% passed.

It's just one state... but, I don't think you'd see enough variation state by state to make my statement false. Again, I know this flies in the face of your half-witted stereotypes of both race and class... so, I know it's probably hard for you to accept.

But, I'd be willing to wager that Georgia's results will show that the vast majority (we can say over 90%) of welfare recipients aren't on drugs. Care to take me up on it?

I'm not sure about your numbers...

Nearly 1,600 welfare applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test, and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2 ... alted.html

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests, 108 people failed their tests, a fail rate of 2.6 percent, according to DCF. About 1 percent of applicants, or 42, scheduled tests but canceled them.

About 96.3 percent of applicants passed the screenings. The high pass rate means the state paid out more than $100,000 in reimbursements to applicants who passed over the four-month period.

Who started their application but didn’t take the test: Kreegel said 800 or so people walked away before taking the drug test. The department reported a number nearly three times as high -- 2,306.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... ng-becaus/

If that's correct, 18-36% refused to take the test. I would concede that it's not fair to assume that all of those were because they feared they would fail, but you would have to concede that 2% is not accurate either.

In either case, I can't imagine Georgia's law will make it much further than Florida's.

[kalm]

If getting drug tested is a condition of most folks' ability to support themsleves and their families, then getting drug tested should be an absolute necessity for those receiving the fruits of our labor that for whatever reason cannot support themselves or their families.

ANd pertaining to the cost of testing, particularly for government employees, I have a simple answer: have less government employees. In the eutopic Smittystan, no benefits for the poor or unemployed would be provided by the very limited government, there would be no forced Social Security, and medical services are not required to be provided to anyone that stumbles through an emergency room doorway. Such a simple parasigm shift would do wonders for the current entitlement issues we face and actually encourage those who are underachieving to get a job and delay spreading their legs in hopes of an 18-year government check.

You tree-huggers in Libtardia can subsidize away everyone's freedom - we'll see who lasts longer.

Sweden vs. Somalia.

[Skjellyfetti]

I was just basing my numbers on this

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CAA Flagship]

[AZGrizFan]

Military is already piss tested on a regular basis, with a zero tolerance policy in place.

The military is full of drunks and they escape accountabiliy.

I'm not worried much about the military, at least the bottom ranks, after all they're just bodies the conks callously send, ill-prepared and ill-equiped, to wars over oil and to secure elections.

Anyone working for the taxpayers should be drug tested, if you're going to test welfare recipients.

D, I know you hate the military, white collar workers and all government employees, but lets keep things real. The U.S. spends roughly $900 billion on defense costs. We all agree that's WAY too much. But we also spend over $679 BILLION on various welfare and means test programs. This isn't penny-ante bullshit that's dwarfed by your despised white-collar wall street criminals. It's $679 Billion each and every year, in perpetuity. It's real money--OUR money--spent in ways that we should hold the government accountable for. Your casual dismissal of these numbers speaks to the very problem most conservatives have with liberals in general...

So, for those not keeping score, according to D:

1) The federal payroll is full of drunks and RX abusers
2) The military is full of drunks that escape accountability
3) The welfare recipients are just poor, misunderstood single moms trying to get a leg up in life who go to church every day and never used an illegal substance in their life.



Oh, and if you think politicians use the military as pawns to win elections, what in the FUCK do you think they develop/maintain/expand entitlement programs for?



That's 20 million more dependent donk voters right there. Wouldn't want to vote for the evil conservative who might cut off my gravy train now would I?

[blueballs]

Aren't government employees on the federal and state level- especially the federal level- overwhelmingly unionized? And don't those union members vote democratic about 90% of the time? Talk about a self sustaining gravy train... and one that will never allow drug testing on itself.

[89Hen]

I was just basing my numbers on this

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's fine, but if I were going to throw out "Again, I know this flies in the face of your half-witted stereotypes of both race and class... so, I know it's probably hard for you to accept." I'd want to make sure I had accurate figures.

[D1B]

The military is full of drunks and they escape accountabiliy.

I'm not worried much about the military, at least the bottom ranks, after all they're just bodies the conks callously send, ill-prepared and ill-equiped, to wars over oil and to secure elections.

Anyone working for the taxpayers should be drug tested, if you're going to test welfare recipients.

D, I know you hate the military, white collar workers and all government employees, but lets keep things real. The U.S. spends roughly $900 billion on defense costs. We all agree that's WAY too much. But we also spend over $679 BILLION on various welfare and means test programs. This isn't penny-ante bullshit that's dwarfed by your despised white-collar wall street criminals. It's $679 Billion each and every year, in perpetuity. It's real money--OUR money--spent in ways that we should hold the government accountable for. Your casual dismissal of these numbers speaks to the very problem most conservatives have with liberals in general...

So, for those not keeping score, according to D:

1) The federal payroll is full of drunks and RX abusers
2) The military is full of drunks that escape accountability
3) The welfare recipients are just poor, misunderstood single moms trying to get a leg up in life who go to church every day and never used an illegal substance in their life.



Oh, and if you think politicians use the military as pawns to win elections, what in the FUCK do you think they develop/maintain/expand entitlement programs for?



That's 20 million more dependent donk voters right there. Wouldn't want to vote for the evil conservative who might cut off my gravy train now would I?

God you're dumb. Look at the blast off point - 2008. You bet they're probably donk voters, they're victims of conk fucks like you who ruined the world's economy.

Z, post all the graphs you want, but you don't know poverty. You don't know that poverty equals suffering and the vast majority of people avoid welfare like the plague.

As Cap'n said, do some serious research, and discover the true face of poverty - Women with children who have been abandoned by irresponsible men. Bleating Baldyisms or parroting Jaybilasassfucksgiraffes is beneath you.

We're all aware you don't give a shit about the poor, so move on.

[D1B]

Aren't government employees on the federal and state level- especially the federal level- overwhelmingly unionized? And don't those union members vote democratic about 90% of the time? Talk about a self sustaining gravy train... and one that will never allow drug testing on itself.

Totally agree. Governement employees can go fuck themselves.

Press on Walker!

[DJH]

God you're dumb. Look at the blast off point - 2008. You bet they're probably donk voters, they're victims of conk fucks like you who ruined the world's economy.

Z, post all the graphs you want, but you don't know poverty. You don't know that poverty equals suffering and the vast majority of people avoid welfare like the plague.

As Cap'n said, do some serious research, and discover the true face of poverty - Women with children who have been abandoned by irresponsible men. Bleating Baldyisms or parroting Jaybilasassfucksgiraffes is beneath you.

We're all aware you don't give a shit about the poor, so move on.

I would love to read your dissertation on this, since you have done so much "serious research" on this topic. Please, enlighten us all.

[D1B]

God you're dumb. Look at the blast off point - 2008. You bet they're probably donk voters, they're victims of conk fucks like you who ruined the world's economy.

Z, post all the graphs you want, but you don't know poverty. You don't know that poverty equals suffering and the vast majority of people avoid welfare like the plague.

As Cap'n said, do some serious research, and discover the true face of poverty - Women with children who have been abandoned by irresponsible men. Bleating Baldyisms or parroting Jaybilasassfucksgiraffes is beneath you.

We're all aware you don't give a shit about the poor, so move on.

I would love to read your dissertation on this, since you have done so much "serious research" on this topic. Please, enlighten us all.

As soon as your mother is done clipping my toenails, I'll have her type up a copy for you.

[D1B]

God you're dumb. Look at the blast off point - 2008. You bet they're probably donk voters, they're victims of conk fucks like you who ruined the world's economy.

Z, post all the graphs you want, but you don't know poverty. You don't know that poverty equals suffering and the vast majority of people avoid welfare like the plague.

As Cap'n said, do some serious research, and discover the true face of poverty - Women with children who have been abandoned by irresponsible men. Bleating Baldyisms or parroting Jaybilasassfucksgiraffes is beneath you.

We're all aware you don't give a shit about the poor, so move on.

I would love to read your dissertation on this, since you have done so much "serious research" on this topic. Please, enlighten us all.

Here's a decent article:

Here is a reality check. Despite well-meaning discussions on racial disparities in America, most poor kids are not who you may think.

Absorb these nuggets from the National Center for Children in Poverty:

"About 60 percent of black and Latino children and 57 percent of American Indian children live in low-income families, compared to about 26 percent of white children and 30 percent of Asian children. At the same time, however, whites comprise the largest group of low-income children: 11 million white children live in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty line."

The center has calculated that 42 percent of children should be considered low-income. The center uses the term "low-income" for families with incomes below twice the official poverty level.

Consider those figures: More than two out of five of the nation's children are growing up in struggling families -- and as the Great Recession lingers, their situations aren't likely to improve anytime soon.

If this is news to you, don't feel bad; many members of Congress are without a clue as well.

By the time you read this, Democrats and Republicans might have reached some sort of compromise to raise the debt ceiling. And to do the deal they will almost certainly have turned a cold shoulder to the needs of low-income children -- that is, to kids whose future labor and taxpaying productivity will one day determine the prosperity or the poverty of the nation as a whole. Few in Congress even seem aware that this should be a concern.

Yet these millions of poor children will grow up. And if they never get educated to the extent of their abilities, they'll never be employed to their full capacities, and then the conditions that have emerged in our current recession will be the new normal. And many Americans will continue to view the problem of poverty solely through the prism of race.

Dismissive attitudes toward the poor have been on shameful display during the debt-ceiling talks. Note how the earned income tax credit, Pell grants that make college accessible for low-income children, and child care subsidies -- so many uplifting measures for working poor families -- were discussed as arbitrary and expendable in the so-called "belt tightening."

I believe this negligent attitude is easier when we discuss poverty in terms of racial disparities. Wealth and education gaps between the races do deserve attention -- after all, they highlight lasting legacies of policies and laws that unfairly affected minorities (and laws that continue to do so). And yet, when the good folks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus and the Asian Pacific American Caucus reach for the same old arguments, as they did during the debt talks, it makes it easy to draw the battle lines according to the same old tribal allegiances. It's simply too convenient for some to think "low-income equals minority people." And then put concern on the back burner.

If it takes reminding some in Washington that a lot of white folks are suffering, too, to get the nation on the right track in regard to poor children, then I'm all for emphasizing the point.

I'll tell you what the true face of poverty is: It is a child.

A shamefully large number of those children are growing up in economically unstable homes. In this seemingly unending recession, the hardest hit have been those who don't have college educations. Families that were subsisting one or two paychecks away from disaster have hit the wall. Every month more join their ranks. That does not bode well for their ability to afford a college education for their children -- or in a lot of cases just to provide the stability it takes to graduate from high school.

Just who does Congress think America can count on to rebuild its economy and thrive in the future?

Too many Americans like to think the poor are "not our problem." They are dead wrong. They are our future.

Reread the last sentence again, you evil fuck.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a decent article:

A shamefully large number of those children are growing up in economically unstable homes. In this seemingly unending recession, the hardest hit have been those who don't have college educations. Families that were subsisting one or two paychecks away from disaster have hit the wall. Every month more join their ranks. That does not bode well for their ability to afford a college education for their children -- or in a lot of cases just to provide the stability it takes to graduate from high school.

Just who does Congress think America can count on to rebuild its economy and thrive in the future?
Too many Americans like to think the poor are "not our problem." They are dead wrong. They are our future.

Reread the last sentence again, you evil fuck.

THey will not be doing any rebuilding or thriving as long as they're enabled and kept on the government (read: OUR) teet and counted on for democratic votes. Trust me, D...the democrats couldn't care less about these people. They just want their vote. If they TRULY cared, they teach them self-sufficiency rather than dependency.

[DJH]

Here's a decent article:
...

Seriously, wtf does that article prove? (and do you have a link, or did you get that from a random fucking blog as usual) Was anybody denying that there are poor people in this country, or that it is a problem??? Yeah, we get that there are poor people, and it is a big problem...

The discussion is about welfare and drug testing. If you think its unfair for those people receiving money from the government to be drug tested, then you truly are a retard. If they are being given money to support themselves, then they should have some personal accountability. I don't think its should be up to the government to subsidize their fucking drug habit. Is that really a crazy idea??

I personally believe that continual spending on welfare just contributes to future governmental dependency, and does not do much to foster development of those individuals to better themselves. Its a temporary reactive fix that does nothing for their futures. IMO, we need to spend more money on education and other developmental programs to help kids, better educate them, and give them some direction so that they can do something with their lives in the future.