Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't see how Hatch's proposal would in any way (gasp!) EXPAND government. It makes sense. Drug testing would not need to be done by the government when there are private drug testing facilities from coast to coast - in part because of employer-required drug testing. It's not like these tests are $10,000 a pop.
I was in the grocery store in line behind a woman a week or so ago - she had on sun glasses but I could see her eyes well enough from the side to see they were all red and bloodshot. She bought a pack of gum with her food stamp card, requested $100 in cash and asked the clerk if she could use the card again right away. What do you think she was spending the money on? If she could draw down $100 in cash and still have room to use the card again, she had some dependents she should have been thinking about feeding rather than where she could get her next hit. A lot of food stamp/welfare money goes to drug purchases. A lot of people on welfare have live-in boyfriends or unreported husbands supporting them, some just jump from man to man and have no idea which one is the father of the child they're giving birth to ... another child = more welfare/food stamp money.
I can tell you from a legal secretary's perch and from personal observation that many of these people have "inside" help who approve their benefits even when they know it's a lie. They know how to play the system - and they do it quite well.
I think you're making stuff up, honey.
a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
There it is again...The capitulation to the notion that the welfare state program has any business existing in the first place.Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.
You do understand that application of "Lame post" to that of Deanie-weanie is more than redundant...
I like the idea 'a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips.'
On the one hand, it seems at first a fine idea, and could be implemented quite simply: have an aisle with nutritionally acceptable foods, and have food stamps apply only to these items, that aisle.
On the other hand, I have always championed freedom of choice...and suggested education rather than government enforcement.
I'll have to think about it. But good post.
I don't see how Hatch's proposal would in any way (gasp!) EXPAND government. It makes sense. Drug testing would not need to be done by the government when there are private drug testing facilities from coast to coast - in part because of employer-required drug testing. It's not like these tests are $10,000 a pop.
I was in the grocery store in line behind a woman a week or so ago - she had on sun glasses but I could see her eyes well enough from the side to see they were all red and bloodshot. She bought a pack of gum with her food stamp card, requested $100 in cash and asked the clerk if she could use the card again right away. What do you think she was spending the money on? If she could draw down $100 in cash and still have room to use the card again, she had some dependents she should have been thinking about feeding rather than where she could get her next hit. A lot of food stamp/welfare money goes to drug purchases. A lot of people on welfare have live-in boyfriends or unreported husbands supporting them, some just jump from man to man and have no idea which one is the father of the child they're giving birth to ... another child = more welfare/food stamp money.
I can tell you from a legal secretary's perch and from personal observation that many of these people have "inside" help who approve their benefits even when they know it's a lie. They know how to play the system - and they do it quite well.
It is at that.The title of this thread is so misleading it's Pathetic
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, proposed yesterday that people seeking unemployment benefits or welfare undergo drug tests before they can receive benefits
Hatch suggests such a system would save money and reduce the deficit, presumably by virtue of withholding benefits from those who fail drug tests. His release does not address the costs of drug testing everyone receiving unemployment or welfare benefits or enrolling those who fail the test in treatment programs.
Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Millions and million of Americans unemployed and Orin Hatch wants to start a "massive expansion" of Federal Government to test these millions and millions of people for drugs.
We would have to set up tens of thousands of labs and staff. It could cost billions. Oh those "fiscally conservative Republicans". Always "thinking".
There it is again...The capitulation to the notion that the welfare state program has any business existing in the first place.Lame post. I would 100% support this idea. And if there was a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips, I would support that too.
You do understand that application of "Lame post" to that of Deanie-weanie is more than redundant...
I like the idea 'a system that could be implemented to keep those on Food Stamps from using them to buy sugary sodas and potato chips.'
On the one hand, it seems at first a fine idea, and could be implemented quite simply: have an aisle with nutritionally acceptable foods, and have food stamps apply only to these items, that aisle.
On the other hand, I have always championed freedom of choice...and suggested education rather than government enforcement.
I'll have to think about it. But good post.
or
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
~Louis D. Brandeis
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, proposed yesterday that people seeking unemployment benefits or welfare undergo drug tests before they can receive benefits
Hatch suggests such a system would save money and reduce the deficit, presumably by virtue of withholding benefits from those who fail drug tests. His release does not address the costs of drug testing everyone receiving unemployment or welfare benefits or enrolling those who fail the test in treatment programs.
Orrin Hatch Calls For Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Millions and million of Americans unemployed and Orin Hatch wants to start a "massive expansion" of Federal Government to test these millions and millions of people for drugs.
We would have to set up tens of thousands of labs and staff. It could cost billions. Oh those "fiscally conservative Republicans". Always "thinking".
Right...They had probable cause.I have a friend who failed an on the job breathalizer test. FIRED. She wreaked of alcohol and they nailed her.
I'm all for drug testing when there's cause or after an accident, just not at random or as a pre-condition of getting a job....Even then, the value of the drug test is of questionable merit, as they test for metabolites rather than actual concentrations of a given drug in the system.
I think you're making stuff up, honey.
a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
The "need" for gubmint charity is grossly overstated, because the bureaucracy consumes something on the order of half of the funds supposedly meant to go to those purported to be in need. After that, people who give to private charity (i.e. food shelves) won't be donating Twinkies and beer.I certainly get your point. And, generally, accept its rectitude.
But I'd have to be convinced that private charity would do the trick before I could subscribe to the complete elimination of public charity.
"Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01
That works out to a bit less than $1000 from each American...but I don't know how many are recieiving same, and how much each requires.
And there are folks who require help...
If urinalysis is used to show probable cause, gas chromatography is then useless. If I knew I was going to give a hot UA, I'd knock off any and all further indulgence so it wouldn't show up on a GC test.Right...They had probable cause.I have a friend who failed an on the job breathalizer test. FIRED. She wreaked of alcohol and they nailed her.
I'm all for drug testing when there's cause or after an accident, just not at random or as a pre-condition of getting a job....Even then, the value of the drug test is of questionable merit, as they test for metabolites rather than actual concentrations of a given drug in the system.
Not quite....they pre-screen for metabolites and then if they are detected the next test is gas chromatography.
If urinalysis is used to show probable cause, gas chromatography is then useless. If I knew I was going to give a hot UA, I'd knock off any and all further indulgence so it wouldn't show up on a GC test.Right...They had probable cause.
I'm all for drug testing when there's cause or after an accident, just not at random or as a pre-condition of getting a job....Even then, the value of the drug test is of questionable merit, as they test for metabolites rather than actual concentrations of a given drug in the system.
Not quite....they pre-screen for metabolites and then if they are detected the next test is gas chromatography.
Besides that, if someone smokes a joint or stuffs some coke in their head on their own time, it's really none of your or my damned business.
There, again, you're accepting the premises that it's any of their business and that the programs have any business existing....Which it isn't and they don't.That's why the government makes it a "condition" of employment....if you don't want the government knowing your drug habits then seek employment elsewhere...I think the same should go for receiving government assistance. If you want taxpayer money from the government for "subsistence" you better not be spending it on drugs.
The "need" for gubmint charity is grossly overstated, because the bureaucracy consumes something on the order of half of the funds supposedly meant to go to those purported to be in need. After that, people who give to private charity (i.e. food shelves) won't be donating Twinkies and beer.I certainly get your point. And, generally, accept its rectitude.
But I'd have to be convinced that private charity would do the trick before I could subscribe to the complete elimination of public charity.
"Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01
That works out to a bit less than $1000 from each American...but I don't know how many are recieiving same, and how much each requires.
And there are folks who require help...
So you kill two birds with one stone in eliminating federal (if not all) gubmint "charity".
Leave that for the states, localities and private charities to figure out.
