NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[ClosedCaption]

So you're cool with school bus drivers doing drugs?

e
No because they are transportation

Would you allow an adult child to live at home rent free and pay all their bills and for their food as you watched them spend their own money on drugs and alcohol? Yes, or no?

Your mischaracterization only leads to one answer. Thats why you set it that way.

But if you ask me if people should be able to engage in whatever they like as long as it doesnt hurt their chances at earning more money. Most people on welfare have jobs btw

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

It's getting something compared to a person who WORKED, and made the same amount of money as you,

but didn't get the deductions. Breeders are moochers.

Are you really claiming that welfare recipients earn as much as I do, and pay the same taxes I do? Seriously?

I'm comparing you to someone who works.

No, you are comparing me to welfare recipients, I have a job bub.

Let me tell you exactly the comparison I'm making.

Some years ago where I was working, I helped a woman there do her taxes. She made the same wage I did.

She paid $1000 in federal taxes. I paid $5000.

The difference? All the credit she got for having 2 kids.

Get it?

Get it completely... as I've told you.. I'm a CPA. I totally get it.

What you need to get over is this idea that she somehow stole from you. That's ridiculous.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

Nobody stole form anyone.

Then why are you calling welfare stealing?

What? Dude.. are you high?

Welfare and tax breaks are all determined by legislation.

What does that have to do with your absurd claim that I am calling welfare stealing?

FOCUS.

 

[Publius1787]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

I voted "other" because I don't think social welfare should exist, but you could put me down as a Yes while it exists.

We must operate in the political system we're dealt. Machiavellian, perhaps, but everything is.

 

[Publius1787]

You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.

People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.

Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

I like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

And where are you gonna house all those former welfare receipants when they can't pay their rent?

I'll post a sign in your back yard that says "Druggies Welcome Here."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.

People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.

Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

I like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

And where are you gonna house all those former welfare receipants when they can't pay their rent?

I'll post a sign in your back yard that says "Druggies Welcome Here."

That's pretty much what I told him. He responded that I could put them in my ass.

He's a child.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Everyone knows that a druggy would rather eat and smoke $400 of food and drugs per month and not work, rather than $2,000 per month with a job, right? Isn't that a no brainer?

I am amazed at how much the conservatives who want to end welfare know about what it is like to be hungry, knowing full well that they have never had to live like them in their entire lives.

 

[Publius1787]

You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.

People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.

Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

I like this part: "Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it."
The purpose of welfare is to help get people back on their feet. Not to simply subsidize them for sitting on their asses. Doing drugs isn't exactly helpful to the formers ends. 1/3rd of those tested in NC were found to have done drugs. We shouldn't invest in future of those who refuse to invest in their own future. You can't get a job if you fail a drug test. You shouldn't get welfare if you fail a drug test.

And where are you gonna house all those former welfare receipants when they can't pay their rent?

I'll post a sign in your back yard that says "Druggies Welcome Here."

That's pretty much what I told him. He responded that I could put them in my ass.

He's a child.

Likely on welfare smoking weed in his mother basement.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Everyone knows that a druggy would rather eat and smoke $400 of food and drugs per month and not work, rather than $2,000 per month with a job, right? Isn't that a no brainer?

I am amazed at how much the conservatives who want to end welfare know about what it is like to be hungry, knowing full well that they have never had to live like them in their entire lives.

We want to end the need for welfare except in cases where a person through no fault of their own cannot support themselves.

 

[amrchaos]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

 

[Publius1787]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

 

[Publius1787]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

Indeed, go to school and they tell you the horrors of drugs from K-12 as early as the 70's. Then they do drugs, knowing the consequences, and then say "don't punish me for my mistake." No dice, you knew the consequences, you did it anyway, and now you want me to fund your habit. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Let liberals set up a foundation to help your types out. But then again, they are never really good at spending their own money for such causes. they would much rather spend mine.

 

[Publius1787]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

*Joke*

I was talking to a friend's little girl, and she said she wanted to be
President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked
her,

'If you were to be the President, what's the first thing you would do?'
She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until
you're President to do that.

You can come over to my house and mow the grass, pull weeds, and sweep my
yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store
where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use
toward food or a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause she's only 6.

And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the
eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work,
and you can just pay him the $50?'

And I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

 

[Wilbur Right]

oke*

I was talking to a friend's little girl, and she said she wanted to be
President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there,

You, friends with TWO liberal democrats?
Now that's funny.

Your "joke" kinda sucked though.

 

[Dragonlady]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

I have no comprehension problems. The OP is blatantly false. They screened 7600 welfare recipients as potential drug users. It took Interviews, police reports - this is an expensive process. Of the 7600, the people who had admitted to or been charged with drug offenses in the past, were subjected to the 89 most likely drug users to testing, and 21 of them tested positive.

How many thousands of dollars did they spend on the interviews and police reports? How many additional government workers did they hire to completed this work? Did this program result in tax savings to the program, and if so, did the tax savings cover the costs of screening and testing 7579 people who did not use drugs.

Stop trying to pretend that drug testing of welfare recipients is a sound fiscal idea.

 

[rightwinger]

The only reason to drug test people is to further punish them for not having a job so you have to make sure they know they will be subjected to peeing in containers for their amusement

No it's to punish them for using tax payer money for illegal activities

Why do you want to fund crime?

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

Everyone pays taxes

If you are getting a cash payout for your rug rats we should make sure you are not spending the money on drugs

For the sake of the children

Hilarious, but in reality just a dodge b/c you simply don't have a rational argument against drug testing welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't everyone who receives government aid be tested for drugs?

How about farmers? They receive more money than welfare families. Don't want them wasting our tax dollars on drugs

 

[dblack]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

I have no comprehension problems. The OP is blatantly false. They screened 7600 welfare recipients as potential drug users. It took Interviews, police reports - this is an expensive process. Of the 7600, the people who had admitted to or been charged with drug offenses in the past, were subjected to the 89 most likely drug users to testing, and 21 of them tested positive.

How many thousands of dollars did they spend on the interviews and police reports? How many additional government workers did they hire to completed this work? Did this program result in tax savings to the program, and if so, did the tax savings cover the costs of screening and testing 7579 people who did not use drugs.

Stop trying to pretend that drug testing of welfare recipients is a sound fiscal idea.

Out of curiosity, does it matter? Does it matter if it's "sound fiscal policy" if it violates the rights of citizens?

 

[Dragonlady]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

*Joke*

I was talking to a friend's little girl, and she said she wanted to be
President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked
her,

'If you were to be the President, what's the first thing you would do?'
She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until
you're President to do that.

You can come over to my house and mow the grass, pull weeds, and sweep my
yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store
where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use
toward food or a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause she's only 6.

And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the
eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work,
and you can just pay him the $50?'

And I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

As the child's mother, I would have replied that "Perhaps because no one has told the homeless man they would pay him for doing the work."

 

[pwjohn]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

You poor, poor thing. Enjoy your rage knowing that you'll never, ever get your way. lol