Urine Test For My Job

Actually, the foodstamp program is a good one. It doesn't cost that much, it helps farmers out, and it is invaluable to a huge portion of the population.

And they get enough that it really doesn't matter what they buy, they will have enough to get through the month. The whole concept of making them purchase crappy food because they're on foodstamps is just segregation, class warfare. You have no idea how difficult it is for some families who can't afford to give their kids a treat once in a while, or buy a store-bought birthday cake if the kid wants one.

I've gotten to the place where I actually would rather make the kids' cakes, though, even though we can get store-bought fancy ones. I just don't LIKE those cakes. And there's the whole process of making the cake, it's always a hoot. And my cakes are sooooooo good. BTW I recommend the Hershey's cocoa chocolate icing on the back label of the can. It's YUMMY and incredibly easy...

ANyway, Shogun..I wouldn't get all het up about dismantling the foodstamp program just yet. It would put people out of work, hurt the ag industry, and people really would starve.

CLASS WARFARE? Tell me, Baba.. what CLASS are we validating to live off of tax money? sorry, i'm just not interested in hearing about how abused food stamps keeps profits at KRAFT higher than normal. When Taxes are the lubrication of a fucked up cycle that perpetuated poverty while pretending that ghettos are not gangland while actking like nbame brands MUST have welfare support to survive You are just going to have to deal with little things like UAs for welfare recipients. Like I said, THIS is coming. You know it as well as I do.
 
CLASS WARFARE? Tell me, Baba.. what CLASS are we validating to live off of tax money? sorry, i'm just not interested in hearing about how abused food stamps keeps profits at KRAFT higher than normal. When Taxes are the lubrication of a fucked up cycle that perpetuated poverty while pretending that ghettos are not gangland while actking like nbame brands MUST have welfare support to survive You are just going to have to deal with little things like UAs for welfare recipients. Like I said, THIS is coming. You know it as well as I do.

Wow, Shogun and i agree on something. Amazing, truly.

I'm not sure much needs to be changed, though. Welfare laws are different state to state, but here anyway there's kind of a tough love checks and balances on getting welfare. I was on public assistance for about 3 months last summer between jobs. First, once you apply for it they tell how much you can take out, so there is a limit (though I'd imagine there's some type of reapplication). You also have to show on a bi-weekly basis that you have been looking for work and often provide names and addresses of where (though in my opinion this was a pretty cheatable system).

So the only thing I would change? Have a drop dead date or money cap that says after this amount time or after this limit is reached you're done, cut off, no more. That will take care of the people that choose to waste it on on unneccessary expenditures of any type. You wanna blow state money on weed? Fine, enjoy it while it lasts cause when it's gone, it's gone.
 
Can you imagine how much money
> the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a
> public assistance check ? > Something has to change in this country -- and soon

your willingness to be treated like animal hardly illustrates why anyone else should be.
 
CLASS WARFARE? Tell me, Baba.. what CLASS are we validating to live off of tax money? sorry, i'm just not interested in hearing about how abused food stamps keeps profits at KRAFT higher than normal. When Taxes are the lubrication of a fucked up cycle that perpetuated poverty while pretending that ghettos are not gangland while actking like nbame brands MUST have welfare support to survive You are just going to have to deal with little things like UAs for welfare recipients. Like I said, THIS is coming. You know it as well as I do.

No, I don't know. It's here to stay, like it or not. Your idiot people are fighting for more money to be spent on medical programs and incentive programs.

The foodstamp program is just a little tiny drop in the bucket. It's the medical that eats money.
 
Wow, Shogun and i agree on something. Amazing, truly.

I'm not sure much needs to be changed, though. Welfare laws are different state to state, but here anyway there's kind of a tough love checks and balances on getting welfare. I was on public assistance for about 3 months last summer between jobs. First, once you apply for it they tell how much you can take out, so there is a limit (though I'd imagine there's some type of reapplication). You also have to show on a bi-weekly basis that you have been looking for work and often provide names and addresses of where (though in my opinion this was a pretty cheatable system).

So the only thing I would change? Have a drop dead date or money cap that says after this amount time or after this limit is reached you're done, cut off, no more. That will take care of the people that choose to waste it on on unneccessary expenditures of any type. You wanna blow state money on weed? Fine, enjoy it while it lasts cause when it's gone, it's gone.

They already do that...well, the drop dead date. For cash assistance. Not for medical or foodstamps.

But as I said, if you insist that welfare cash recipients provide urine tests, you're not only violating their civil rights (because they have no choice. They can't go get welfare somewhere else.) but you're punishing the children who are dependent upon them. Most of the people on welfare have issues....requiring they pass UAs will just see to it that you have a whole new population of kids on the street. And I'm not talking about teen agers. These are little, tiny, babies.
 
No, I don't know. It's here to stay, like it or not. Your idiot people are fighting for more money to be spent on medical programs and incentive programs.

The foodstamp program is just a little tiny drop in the bucket. It's the medical that eats money.

Your opinion is noted and tossed in the wastebasket.
 
They already do that...well, the drop dead date. For cash assistance. Not for medical or foodstamps.

But as I said, if you insist that welfare cash recipients provide urine tests, you're not only violating their civil rights (because they have no choice. They can't go get welfare somewhere else.) but you're punishing the children who are dependent upon them. Most of the people on welfare have issues....requiring they pass UAs will just see to it that you have a whole new population of kids on the street. And I'm not talking about teen agers. These are little, tiny, babies.

NO, there IS a choice. Stop spending your money on a sack of weed if you can't feed your fucking family. don't act like "issues" is any kind of excuse, baba. I've already shown you, THE KIDS ARE ALREADY ON THE FUCKING STREET. Acting like babies are going to be roaming the alleys is nothing more than mellodrama wrapped in a bullshit tortilla.
 
They already do that...well, the drop dead date. For cash assistance. Not for medical or foodstamps.

But as I said, if you insist that welfare cash recipients provide urine tests, you're not only violating their civil rights (because they have no choice. They can't go get welfare somewhere else.) but you're punishing the children who are dependent upon them. Most of the people on welfare have issues....requiring they pass UAs will just see to it that you have a whole new population of kids on the street. And I'm not talking about teen agers. These are little, tiny, babies.

Punishing the children? Did you think about that? Presumabley how it would go down is Joe or Jenny have their urine test, fail, and get kicked of public assistance because of it, to the detriment of their children. You don't think there might be something a bit more detrimental going on in that scenario? I'll give you hint (okay it's not a hint) nevermind the parents not haveing money now, THEY'RE ON FUCKING DRUGS AND 'RAISING' CHILDREN. Try to follow how these scenarios you come up with would realistically play out. If a parent fails a drug test, the children of said parents are seeing any benefit of the money their getting in the first place. Whether the parents keep money from the kids via their drug habits or whether the government cuts off the money from the kids because of the drug habits, either way the kids still aren't seeing any money.
 
THere are people who frequent this room who are on drugs and raising children. You don't get to pick one population of people and target them because they're poor, test them for things you don't test the rest of the population for, then take their children away when they HAVEN'T COMMITTED A CRIME. Getting a dirty UA isn't a crime, unless you're on probation. That's why the assholes who get them in places where work requires them DON'T GET PROSECUTED. So to target poor people, give them UAs, refuse their benefits and then either take their kids away from them or deny their benefits, which results in kids living in the streets, is discrimination.

Just because they're poor, you don't get to use a higher power telescope or apply more strictures to their lives than you do your own.
 
THere are people who frequent this room who are on drugs and raising children. You don't get to pick one population of people and target them because they're poor, test them for things you don't test the rest of the population for, then take their children away when they HAVEN'T COMMITTED A CRIME. Getting a dirty UA isn't a crime, unless you're on probation. That's why the assholes who get them in places where work requires them DON'T GET PROSECUTED. So to target poor people, give them UAs, refuse their benefits and then either take their kids away from them or deny their benefits, which results in kids living in the streets, is discrimination.

Just because they're poor, you don't get to use a higher power telescope or apply more strictures to their lives than you do your own.

Look on my advocating we actually do it, but I do see the argument. They aren't the same as the rest of the population. They are using tax payer money rather than the earned money that everyone else uses to survive. That being the case it stands to reason the tax payer has the right to know whether they are helping someone or paying for their pot. Haven't commited a crime? Ah, HELLO, pot, illegal last I checked.

As far as who gets drug tested it's usually a matter of contract. I got drug tested when I applied for my job. They lay out that these are the conditions of employment and getting drug tested is one of them, if you don't comply you don't get hired. They want to know that they aren't hiring a problem. That's perfectly reasonable IMO. I don't see how that's any different then government saying if you need to live off taxpayer money for a little while we want to see that said money is not being wasted. How in earth is that unreasonable? never mind that so far you don't seem to have one fucking problem with drug addict parents living on taxpayer money.
 
THere are people who frequent this room who are on drugs and raising children. You don't get to pick one population of people and target them because they're poor, test them for things you don't test the rest of the population for, then take their children away when they HAVEN'T COMMITTED A CRIME. Getting a dirty UA isn't a crime, unless you're on probation. That's why the assholes who get them in places where work requires them DON'T GET PROSECUTED. So to target poor people, give them UAs, refuse their benefits and then either take their kids away from them or deny their benefits, which results in kids living in the streets, is discrimination.

Just because they're poor, you don't get to use a higher power telescope or apply more strictures to their lives than you do your own.

I guess that we agree to disagree on this issue. My take on it is still that, since you can’t make it on your own, then you must be doing some things wrong. If you expect my help, then there are some things that will be expected of you – changes – things that have been shown to increase the likelihood of success. One such thing is to give up drugs. Just to be sure that you have given up drugs, testing is called for.
 
You get drug tested for your job, but people in here are advocating requiring drug testing, then REMOVING THE CHILDREN from the families which drug test positive.

It's discrimination. There are jobs which require drug testing because of insurance reasons, or because the workers have to have their faculties about them. If you don't like that, you can get another job.

But this is different. You have provided welfare, but now have decided that you can invade the privacy and violate the human rights of those who dare to receive it...because it isn't really their money.

It's wrong. THe money is meant to provide shelter for children of parents who can't function...for whatever reason. Sometimes it's temporary, sometimes it's not. But if you decide you're now going to require UAs for welfare recipients, you're dooming about half of the kids who have parents on welfare.You open up a whole can a worms that the system isn't set up to deal with. As I said, there aren't foster homes now for the kids who need them, and we don't have poor houses or orphanages or other institutions to stash the tens of thousands of kids Shogun thinks we should stash when their parents have dirty UAs.

His suggestion is that if they apply for welfare and get a dirty UA, you throw the parents in jail for neglect and warehouse the children. It isn't realistic, it isn't right, and it's discriminatory. I'll bet if you got a dirty UA at work, you'd just get fired. Nobody would take your kids from you.
 
You get drug tested for your job, but people in here are advocating requiring drug testing, then REMOVING THE CHILDREN from the families which drug test positive.

It's discrimination. There are jobs which require drug testing because of insurance reasons, or because the workers have to have their faculties about them. If you don't like that, you can get another job.

First look up discrimination in a dictionary before you use a word you apparently don't comprehend. There is absolutely no discrimination in drug testing between an employer or welfar recipient. If you want to keep your job you have to show you're clean. If you want to keep you welfare check then you have to show you're clean. You could make the argument that it is even more important to test welfare recipients than it is to test the average employee. At least the employee is working for the money and I'd be inclined to say as long as it doesn't effect your job, smoke your brains out. Yet you have this ass backwards problem with testing people who we are trying to keep from leeching off the system. You know what? You're right. There is discrimination here alright and you're the one doing it.

But this is different. You have provided welfare, but now have decided that you can invade the privacy and violate the human rights of those who dare to receive it...because it isn't really their money.

And the human rights of the children means what to you, you hypocrit? In most cases being a drug addict parent is grounds for child abuse, regardless of weather you are on welfare or not. What is so fucked about this is that you DON'T advocate that children be removed from the homes of addict parents.


It's wrong. THe money is meant to provide shelter for children of parents who can't function...for whatever reason. Sometimes it's temporary, sometimes it's not. But if you decide you're now going to require UAs for welfare recipients, you're dooming about half of the kids who have parents on welfare.You open up a whole can a worms that the system isn't set up to deal with. As I said, there aren't foster homes now for the kids who need them, and we don't have poor houses or orphanages or other institutions to stash the tens of thousands of kids Shogun thinks we should stash when their parents have dirty UAs.

How exactly does asking a parent to piss in a cup once a week doom children? It only is a problem for the children if the parents get caught using in which case they had problems long before said drug test. Essentially what you are advocating is that people on welfare receive their money no matter what their behavior is or how detrimental it is to there family? Answer an honest question: What is more detrimental to children? Being removed from the custody of addict parents? Or haveing addict parents?

His suggestion is that if they apply for welfare and get a dirty UA, you throw the parents in jail for neglect and warehouse the children. It isn't realistic, it isn't right, and it's discriminatory. I'll bet if you got a dirty UA at work, you'd just get fired. Nobody would take your kids from you.


What is right? Leave the children with their drug addict parents? Cause that's the alternative. And THAT isn't right. YOU ARE PUTTING THE CHILDREN IN DANGER when you leave them with addict parents.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top