While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!

[AmyNation]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

That worked so well in Florida 2.6% tested positive and most of those were marijuana, the costs of the tests far outweighed the results. I bet if you drug tested the bozos in government wanting the tests would be a higher % of positive tests. I find it strange how the right wing wants to fuel hatred toward the poor, many of which have health issues lately. they seem so consumed with hate about so many things its kind of sad and they also like to ignore facts, must be why Fox is where they get most of their info.

Those stats are from the first month of the program.
Anything more recent?

The newest articles I have found are from the end of April. They say the same thing though.... Costs a lot, saves nothing, welfare recipients have the same level of drug use as the general public.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I've got a great idea that neither the dems nor the reps will go for. Let's make it so you can only vote if you've served your country.

How very Heinlein of you. Actually not a bad idea, though. Of course, you might differentiate service under arms as opposed to other, non-military service. That would offer a choice for those not inclined to take up arms to serve their fellow citizens.

 

[hortysir]

That worked so well in Florida 2.6% tested positive and most of those were marijuana, the costs of the tests far outweighed the results. I bet if you drug tested the bozos in government wanting the tests would be a higher % of positive tests. I find it strange how the right wing wants to fuel hatred toward the poor, many of which have health issues lately. they seem so consumed with hate about so many things its kind of sad and they also like to ignore facts, must be why Fox is where they get most of their info.

Those stats are from the first month of the program.
Anything more recent?

The newest articles I have found are from the end of April. They say the same thing though.... Costs a lot, saves nothing, welfare recipients have the same level of drug use as the general public.

This was one of those programs that sounded great on the surface, but really isn't working out as planned.
I was all for it when we implemented it, but I'm not seeing the cost savings.
I know there are those gaming the system. I know a couple people, personally. I just don't think there's enough to justify the pain in the ass to the rest

 

[AmyNation]

Those stats are from the first month of the program.
Anything more recent?

The newest articles I have found are from the end of April. They say the same thing though.... Costs a lot, saves nothing, welfare recipients have the same level of drug use as the general public.

This was one of those programs that sounded great on the surface, but really isn't working out as planned.
I was all for it when we implemented it, but I'm not seeing the cost savings.
I know there are those gaming the system. I know a couple people, personally. I just don't think there's enough to justify the pain in the ass to the rest

Yup. It sounded reasonable to me too, and while I still say druggies shouldn't benefit from assistance, I'm more concerned with the cost.

 

[kiwiman127]

As this thread for the most part targets the poor, how about the millionaires who suck $30 billion annually out of the government?

Subsides of the Rich and Famous by Senator Tom Coburn R-OK.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm suggesting class warfare.

Cut that off too. And see who's bitching in the end. It won't be the millionaires and billionaires that would succeed whatever their tax rates. It will be you OWS parasites. You are a plague on humanity.

What a brilliant answer! "It will be you OWS parasites." Now what makes you think I'm part of OWS! Is it because I oppose plutocracy? Anyone who loved their country would be opposed to plutocracy. Plutocracy would/will destroy the very foundation that was designed by our Founding Fathers and that's a country "by the people and for the people".
Also I was for the welfare reform that took place in 1996 that came about because of bi-partisanship and I'd like to see more welfare reform.
That said, the last time I checked, there was still four available people for every one open job position. So you're in favor of disfranchising voting Americans because businesses aren't hiring (despite a nice run of record profits the last 2-3 years), so they are getting government help. I notice you got all worked up when I brought up the abuses of the system by your heroes, the wealthy. I can see who leading you by the nose!
Anyway, in the end you want to punish the millions of Americans who already been financially and economically spinning their wheels for not just the start of the recession but also over thirty years of flat wages. I guess you're one of those "let them eat cake" folks, guess what, you're more like them than you are like the wealthy and it's going to stay that way.
Oh, back to me,,the parasite. I have never received any government benefits, student loans or whatever. I worked my way through college and I have worked every since. In a fews years I'll be 55 and I am going to retire, because I planned my finances three decades ago, I can do that.

 

[Pho_King]

The newest articles I have found are from the end of April. They say the same thing though.... Costs a lot, saves nothing, welfare recipients have the same level of drug use as the general public.

This was one of those programs that sounded great on the surface, but really isn't working out as planned.
I was all for it when we implemented it, but I'm not seeing the cost savings.
I know there are those gaming the system. I know a couple people, personally. I just don't think there's enough to justify the pain in the ass to the rest

Yup. It sounded reasonable to me too, and while I still say druggies shouldn't benefit from assistance, I'm more concerned with the cost.

Excuse me, but could you point me to a vending machine where I might purchase a pair of your soiled panties?

 

[Bill Angel]

I've got a great idea that neither the dems nor the reps will go for. Let's make it so you can only vote if you've served your country.

How very Heinlein of you. Actually not a bad idea, though. Of course, you might differentiate service under arms as opposed to other, non-military service. That would offer a choice for those not inclined to take up arms to serve their fellow citizens.

As a veteran of the US Navy I am of course not opposed to such a suggestion for personal reasons. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of the US Government having the final say as to which law abiding tax paying citizens get to vote and which don't. As it stands now, if the US Government wants to take away your right to vote you have to be convicted of committing a felony by a jury of your peers.

 

[Againsheila]

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

That worked so well in Florida 2.6% tested positive and most of those were marijuana, the costs of the tests far outweighed the results. I bet if you drug tested the bozos in government wanting the tests would be a higher % of positive tests. I find it strange how the right wing wants to fuel hatred toward the poor, many of which have health issues lately. they seem so consumed with hate about so many things its kind of sad and they also like to ignore facts, must be why Fox is where they get most of their info.

Yeah, let's drug test congress....If they fail, they lose their jobs....