100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Missouri law requires drug tests for welfare recipients | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
They don't work for that money. My parents didn't get free money to feed Us. I worked at a grocery store in high school. The people that bought the most food always had foodstamps. operative word is 'PARENTS' its a bit less taxing if there are TWO adults with the potential to earn income AND care for the children as opposed to ONE parent expected to do it alone,,,,, since AFDC became TANF, most applicants receiving FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Must be involved in work related activities to be on food stamps(which is no longer in stamp form but food 'credit' on a card), they only have to be below the poverty level and the amount of food permitted is determined by family size,,, Don't pretend to know my family situation. My mom was unable to work due to medical problems since before I was born. If you are parents you have a responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself you shouldn't be having kids. You make saceifices for the family. There were times my family wanted a divorce but stayed together and glad they did. Times i could have turned my father in for abuse but didnt as i knew my mom couldnt support us. Sometimes you just grit your teeth and do whats best for the family. many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, I don't disagree. But why should it be an issue to have to show you are clean? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to take drugs recreationally do it on your own dime. Mooching off the system should have thresholds. I see no problem with requiring a person to meet those, very low, bars. I agree also that politicians should be random drug tested . . . becuase I think many are WAAAAAAAAAY ****ed up. Lots of agreement here. I am sick of being subjected to higher standards than people who do NOT work. I know there are exceptions to every rule and there are good people who are on welfare, etc. I'm not trying to demonize the poor or the single parent (which, by the way - I've been BOTH in my life) but honestly - if you can't pass the same drug screen that I have to pass in order to have a job that SUPPORTS your tax-based income, then you shouldn't get it! I am okay with assistance (to get people on their feet - not as a career) and my tax dollars contribute. Don't screw with me. Don't try to tell me that most welfare recipients never do drugs and are hard-workers who just can't find jobs. This all goes for politicians, too, who I agree "many are WAAAAAAAAAY ****ed up." Geez, people...that you would think this is a bad idea while you have to go pee in a cup to get a job is just ludicrous. jobs provide an INCOME, what welfare recipients get is hardly qualifying as in the same category,,, people who WORK, dont have to report whenever their household changes, or have 'random' inspections of their home there are already enough 'sacrifices' required to receive assistance, this is just another way to look down on and put down the poor by treating them with less respect than anyone else ,,,income or not so people must pee in a cup, SOMETIMES to get a job, as I said that is to protect the employer from lawsuits there is no valid reason for someone who just needs to EAT and provide for their family to be subjected to such a test, except to demonize them there is no reason to spend more money testing (repaying) all the applicants who DONT use than what people are complaining about paying to those who do,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, I don't disagree. But why should it be an issue to have to show you are clean? its not , just another hoop to jump to fufill basic needs because of an economy not built to provide employment for everyone,,, no problem at all,, keep adding to the list,, it makes the publics ego feel better apparently why not prove they are using sexual protection so they dont force us to provide for anymore kids either,,,, or just spay them until they are on their feet ,,,,whatever,, its out of my hands,, let the demonization continue... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, I don't disagree. But why should it be an issue to have to show you are clean? its not , just another hoop to jump to fufill basic needs because of an economy not built to provide employment for everyone,,, no problem at all,, keep adding to the list,, it makes the publics ego feel better apparently why not prove they are using sexual protection so they dont force us to provide for anymore kids either,,,, or just spay them until they are on their feet ,,,,whatever,, its out of my hands,, let the demonization continue... Sarcasm doesn't suit you or make your case stronger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
galendgirl
on
Fri 06/15/12 06:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any other government benefits that we drug test for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Fri 06/15/12 06:51 PM
|
|
Are there any other government benefits that we drug test for? I am a vet and get tested once or twice a year. Most all vets who are participating in Vet Med Care do. Whether they are aware of it or no. I asked my Dr if they test for Illicit drugs. He said that and whatever deficiencies might show up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any other government benefits that we drug test for? I am a vet and get tested once or twice a year. Most all vets who are participating in Vet Med Care do. Whether they are aware of it or no. I asked my Dr if they test for Illicit drugs. He said that and whatever deficiencies might show up. More specifically then. Is there any government program where a person is denied benefits based on drug testing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any other government benefits that we drug test for? I am a vet and get tested once or twice a year. Most all vets who are participating in Vet Med Care do. Whether they are aware of it or no. I asked my Dr if they test for Illicit drugs. He said that and whatever deficiencies might show up. More specifically then. Is there any government program where a person is denied benefits based on drug testing? Same answer. test dirty the first time you are examined and the VA will boot ya' and sometimes the police will arrest you. Why, that throws your argument that no other program is affected by testing? What are you trying to get at? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have given anecdotal evidence. I would like to see documentation of how many vets who have been denied benefits due to a positive drug test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have given anecdotal evidence. I would like to see documentation of how many vets who have been denied benefits due to a positive drug test. I reckon you'll just have to call a VA center to find that out. Public hospitals also check for illicit drugs when blood and urine is drawn. Illegal druggies are turned over to police. Depending on state law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to be drug tested to work for the government. All others who worked with me had to be drug tested. The FBI has to be drug tested. This "rights" nonsense is a crock. If you receive taxpayer money in a way that can be abused, you should be drug tested. It should include all elected officials too. guess why you had to be tested? Because you were working with the public needing assistance is not a JOB,,,, when you have a JOB, the employer becomes responsible for your actions ON THE JOBE people on assistance do not become the RESPONSIBILITY of the state when you have a JOB and you screw up a customers service or product that EMPLOYER can be held LEGALLY accountable for financial damages when you are on assistance and you screw up with someone,,no one is responsible for financial damage but YOU,,,, this is a poor analogy people keep using,, the purpose behind employers spending money on drug tests (another difference, the employer usually pays for this, not the applicant) is so they can potentially avoid EGREGIOUS lawsuits of their own if an employee is found to have made grave error while under the influence,,, They drug tested me because I worked "with the public"? First of all, you don't have a clue what I was doing and the public had nothing to do with it. Secondly, my job held great responsibility and involved the risk of lives. It would have been unwise to have someone like me have any chance of doing drugs. It is unwise to have elected officials doing drugs for the same reason... it is a risk to the taxpayer's money. ANYONE taking taxpayer money instead of paying it should be subject to drug testing or losing the money. Taking money involves a choice and the taxpayer should not be obligated to pay someone who has enough money to do drugs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to be drug tested to work for the government. All others who worked with me had to be drug tested. The FBI has to be drug tested. This "rights" nonsense is a crock. If you receive taxpayer money in a way that can be abused, you should be drug tested. It should include all elected officials too. guess why you had to be tested? Because you were working with the public needing assistance is not a JOB,,,, when you have a JOB, the employer becomes responsible for your actions ON THE JOBE people on assistance do not become the RESPONSIBILITY of the state when you have a JOB and you screw up a customers service or product that EMPLOYER can be held LEGALLY accountable for financial damages when you are on assistance and you screw up with someone,,no one is responsible for financial damage but YOU,,,, this is a poor analogy people keep using,, the purpose behind employers spending money on drug tests (another difference, the employer usually pays for this, not the applicant) is so they can potentially avoid EGREGIOUS lawsuits of their own if an employee is found to have made grave error while under the influence,,, They drug tested me because I worked "with the public"? First of all, you don't have a clue what I was doing and the public had nothing to do with it. Secondly, my job held great responsibility and involved the risk of lives. It would have been unwise to have someone like me have any chance of doing drugs. It is unwise to have elected officials doing drugs for the same reason... it is a risk to the taxpayer's money. ANYONE taking taxpayer money instead of paying it should be subject to drug testing or losing the money. Taking money involves a choice and the taxpayer should not be obligated to pay someone who has enough money to do drugs. Libs have a tough time understand that welfare is not a constitutional right. Something is wrong with their truth processor, I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libs have a tough time understand that welfare is not a constitutional right. Something is wrong with their truth processor, I guess. I was raised in poverty. I'd rather give money to the poor than to any banker. In fact, the damage to the economy is less if the poor get the money, because there's no interest tied to the debt, and this new money circulates among common folk. Give it to a banker, and he lends it out with interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libs have a tough time understand that welfare is not a constitutional right. Something is wrong with their truth processor, I guess. I was raised in poverty. I'd rather give money to the poor than to any banker. In fact, the damage to the economy is less if the poor get the money, because there's no interest tied to the debt, and this new money circulates among common folk. Give it to a banker, and he lends it out with interest. To the poor, si. If they have the money for drugs, they must not be that needy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libs have a tough time understand that welfare is not a constitutional right. Something is wrong with their truth processor, I guess. I was raised in poverty. I'd rather give money to the poor than to any banker. In fact, the damage to the economy is less if the poor get the money, because there's no interest tied to the debt, and this new money circulates among common folk. Give it to a banker, and he lends it out with interest. To the poor, si. If they have the money for drugs, they must not be that needy. The problem with drugs is engineered. The government gives them money and drugs. A person with a real drug problem, uses their body to get them, as has the mother of my child, recently. Instead of seeing these people for what they are, suffering from an illness of the near hopeless variety, we decide that they are criminals. The largest drug traffickers in the world are actually employed by the Federal government. Let me paint you a picture. Where is opium produced? Afghanistan and Iraq Who is in these places? Military and CIA? Who has the most heavily secured Air space in the world? The US. Prior to the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban, you remember those bad boys? They DESTROYED opium production in Afghanistan. Last question. Just who are the bad guys, the Taliban, or US? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, I don't disagree. But why should it be an issue to have to show you are clean? its not , just another hoop to jump to fufill basic needs because of an economy not built to provide employment for everyone,,, no problem at all,, keep adding to the list,, it makes the publics ego feel better apparently why not prove they are using sexual protection so they dont force us to provide for anymore kids either,,,, or just spay them until they are on their feet ,,,,whatever,, its out of my hands,, let the demonization continue... Sarcasm doesn't suit you or make your case stronger. it wasnt sarcasm, it was a legitimate point there are safegaurds already in place to WEED out those who cant or wont work for WHATEVER reason (drugs or laziness included) , further requirements serve no real point,,,,,at this point except to appease the ego of the public which has been dumbed down into thinking the poor are less than they are and must grovel to receive even the most basic needs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to be drug tested to work for the government. All others who worked with me had to be drug tested. The FBI has to be drug tested. This "rights" nonsense is a crock. If you receive taxpayer money in a way that can be abused, you should be drug tested. It should include all elected officials too. guess why you had to be tested? Because you were working with the public needing assistance is not a JOB,,,, when you have a JOB, the employer becomes responsible for your actions ON THE JOBE people on assistance do not become the RESPONSIBILITY of the state when you have a JOB and you screw up a customers service or product that EMPLOYER can be held LEGALLY accountable for financial damages when you are on assistance and you screw up with someone,,no one is responsible for financial damage but YOU,,,, this is a poor analogy people keep using,, the purpose behind employers spending money on drug tests (another difference, the employer usually pays for this, not the applicant) is so they can potentially avoid EGREGIOUS lawsuits of their own if an employee is found to have made grave error while under the influence,,, They drug tested me because I worked "with the public"? First of all, you don't have a clue what I was doing and the public had nothing to do with it. Secondly, my job held great responsibility and involved the risk of lives. It would have been unwise to have someone like me have any chance of doing drugs. It is unwise to have elected officials doing drugs for the same reason... it is a risk to the taxpayer's money. ANYONE taking taxpayer money instead of paying it should be subject to drug testing or losing the money. Taking money involves a choice and the taxpayer should not be obligated to pay someone who has enough money to do drugs. yes, you worked with the public with an EMPLOYER who would be financially responsible for your mishaps on the contrary,, do they call for 'drug testing' to get a license for a business,,,? nope because you have financial responsibility for yourSELF if you screw up at a business you have the rights to,,,,you are taking your own financial risk an employer, takes the financial risk FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES while working the TAXPAYER is a part of a community that pays into a budget that is supposed to be used to support the COUNTRY that includes taxpayer john who may be paying for some things that dont directly come to him,,,but help someone else IN THE COMMUNITY instead... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:56 PM
|
|
I had to be drug tested to work for the government. All others who worked with me had to be drug tested. The FBI has to be drug tested. This "rights" nonsense is a crock. If you receive taxpayer money in a way that can be abused, you should be drug tested. It should include all elected officials too. guess why you had to be tested? Because you were working with the public needing assistance is not a JOB,,,, when you have a JOB, the employer becomes responsible for your actions ON THE JOBE people on assistance do not become the RESPONSIBILITY of the state when you have a JOB and you screw up a customers service or product that EMPLOYER can be held LEGALLY accountable for financial damages when you are on assistance and you screw up with someone,,no one is responsible for financial damage but YOU,,,, this is a poor analogy people keep using,, the purpose behind employers spending money on drug tests (another difference, the employer usually pays for this, not the applicant) is so they can potentially avoid EGREGIOUS lawsuits of their own if an employee is found to have made grave error while under the influence,,, They drug tested me because I worked "with the public"? First of all, you don't have a clue what I was doing and the public had nothing to do with it. Secondly, my job held great responsibility and involved the risk of lives. It would have been unwise to have someone like me have any chance of doing drugs. It is unwise to have elected officials doing drugs for the same reason... it is a risk to the taxpayer's money. ANYONE taking taxpayer money instead of paying it should be subject to drug testing or losing the money. Taking money involves a choice and the taxpayer should not be obligated to pay someone who has enough money to do drugs. Libs have a tough time understand that welfare is not a constitutional right. Something is wrong with their truth processor, I guess. how in a country where taxes are constitutional obligation, is the benefit of those taxes not by nature not a 'right'? maybe non libs have a tough time understanding that having a country isnt about having the world revolve around only what you need or recieve directly,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
