Texas leads the nation once again.

[SassyIrishLass]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

You had no say in the matter where you were born.

The majority of people providing tax money to pay for welfare get tested it's only fair the recipient should also

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You can't help yourself.....hint, you've used that BS to death and it's become comical

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

Interesting results; can you kindly provide a link?

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

I whole heartedly agree with that suggestion. We would clean out about 80% of the elected officers, methinks.

See post 2:

'During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 — less than 3 percent — tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

“Viewing all of the facts in the light most favorable to the state, we agree with the district court that the state has failed to establish a demonstrable or peculiar drug-use problem among TANF applicants. If anything, the evidence extant suggests quite the opposite: that rates of drug use in the TANF population are no greater than for those who receive other government benefits, or even for the general public,” Marcus wrote.' ibid

And:

"In 2009, Arizona was the first state to adopt a program that drug-tested recipients of welfare whom officials had “reasonable cause” to believe were using drugs. Besides stigmatizing recipients of government assistance, implying that they’re a group of no-good drug fiends, the bill was implemented to try rand resuscitate a failing budget, and Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.

But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn’t return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0.1 percent of the amount distributed over that period."

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/gop’s_inane_money_eating_sham_drug_tests_for_welfare_a_huge_failure/

Not only are drug testing requirements for public assistance applicants un-Constitutional, they also provide no benefit to state taxpayers.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

Interesting results; can you kindly provide a link?

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

I whole heartedly agree with that suggestion. We would clean out about 80% of the elected officers, methinks.

See post 2:

'During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 — less than 3 percent — tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

“Viewing all of the facts in the light most favorable to the state, we agree with the district court that the state has failed to establish a demonstrable or peculiar drug-use problem among TANF applicants. If anything, the evidence extant suggests quite the opposite: that rates of drug use in the TANF population are no greater than for those who receive other government benefits, or even for the general public,” Marcus wrote.' ibid

And:

"In 2009, Arizona was the first state to adopt a program that drug-tested recipients of welfare whom officials had “reasonable cause” to believe were using drugs. Besides stigmatizing recipients of government assistance, implying that they’re a group of no-good drug fiends, the bill was implemented to try rand resuscitate a failing budget, and Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.

But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million. Even if we include the savings from cutting benefits to the 1,633 people who didn’t return the pre-test survey, it brings the total to only 0.1 percent of the amount distributed over that period."

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/gop’s_inane_money_eating_sham_drug_tests_for_welfare_a_huge_failure/

Not only are drug testing requirements for public assistance applicants un-Constitutional, they also provide no benefit to state taxpayers.

Do you find it odd that out of 87,000 people tested, only 1 person failed a drug test?
but then, the salon, what would you expect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong.

Drug tests as a condition of eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

Drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional upheld on appeal:

Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

Consequently, Texas isn't 'leading' anything; what we witnessed was the usual authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution and citizens' rights common to most republicans and conservatives, who were once again seeking to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

welfare isnt a right. its not anywhere to be found in the constitution. Therefore, no matter what is done to it as far as requirements or even if it is offered or not, is not something that is subject to constitutional review.

Wrong.

No one ever said it was a 'right.'

But the 4th Amendment is in the Constitution, an Amendment drug tests violate – if you'd bother to read the linked articles or researched the subject you'd understand that:

“We respect the state’s overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line,” Marcus wrote. ibid

I do understand, you are the one having a problem with it.
Drug testing for welfare would not be mandatory, anyone can refuse the drug test, but then they dont get the welfare since its not a constitutional right. To keep welfare they would willingly subject to a test.
Just like driving, you dont have to take the breathalyzer if you are pulled over for suspicion of driving while intoxicated, but you will lose the privilege to drive. Driving just like welfare are not constitutional rights, and either one can have conditions that you must agree to prior to having access to either one.
Thats what you dont understand. If pookie would rather not take a drug test, he is free to decline and walk out of the office with no check in hand. No rights were violated.

Wrong again.

Your thread premise has failed, it can't be salvaged, your ignorance and hate are established, you're only further embarrassing yourself.

And again, no one is saying public assistance is a 'right,' that's not at issue.

This issue is the state compelling drug tests as a condition of eligibility for public assistance, whether the applicant receives public assistance or not is irrelevant, where the drug test requirement in of itself manifests as a violation of citizens' 4th Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches and violations of one's privacy by the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Texas is not a leader, it's a follower. Data from the states with existing drug testing of welfare programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — shows they have spent a million more dollars a year than saved to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a much lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. This only prevented addicts from seeking drug treatment for fear of loss of benefits.

Somebody is getting screwed big time.
Costs us 10 dollars to drug test where I work.
that means that at the 10 dollar expense, even one person taken off of welfare would be a savings.

Another false comparison fallacy.

And yet again – you're confusing public sector with private sector.

4th Amendment jurisprudence doesn't apply to private persons, organizations, or private employers – it applies only to government and the relationship between government and those governed.

In this case state government violating citizens rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment by requiring drugs tests through force of law as a condition of eligibility.

And as already documented, drug testing for public assistance realizes no savings to taxpayers.

But by all means, continue to adhere blindly to failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma; what you think, feel, or believe is thankfully irrelevant in the context of the Constitution and its case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Drug testing for the welfare crowd is long overdue
Hopefully other states will follow. This could save the country a good deal of money that could be used on something that is of value to all, or better yet, before spending any money on anything, pay down the debt.
Excellent Job Texas
Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

even if it is an older article, it gives me hope.

Wow are you stupid.

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

But then you republicans love to waste money and persecute people you don't like or approve of.

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

Republicans are willing to pay $100 to possibly save $1 in welfare costs

Which is worth the expense to most conservatives if they can disadvantage those whom they so despise.

For most on the right it's not about 'saving money,' it's about their unwarranted contempt for those receiving public assistance.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Wrong.

Drug tests as a condition of eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

Drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional upheld on appeal:

Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

Consequently, Texas isn't 'leading' anything; what we witnessed was the usual authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution and citizens' rights common to most republicans and conservatives, who were once again seeking to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

welfare isnt a right. its not anywhere to be found in the constitution. Therefore, no matter what is done to it as far as requirements or even if it is offered or not, is not something that is subject to constitutional review.

Wrong.

No one ever said it was a 'right.'

But the 4th Amendment is in the Constitution, an Amendment drug tests violate – if you'd bother to read the linked articles or researched the subject you'd understand that:

“We respect the state’s overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line,” Marcus wrote. ibid

I do understand, you are the one having a problem with it.
Drug testing for welfare would not be mandatory, anyone can refuse the drug test, but then they dont get the welfare since its not a constitutional right. To keep welfare they would willingly subject to a test.
Just like driving, you dont have to take the breathalyzer if you are pulled over for suspicion of driving while intoxicated, but you will lose the privilege to drive. Driving just like welfare are not constitutional rights, and either one can have conditions that you must agree to prior to having access to either one.
Thats what you dont understand. If pookie would rather not take a drug test, he is free to decline and walk out of the office with no check in hand. No rights were violated.

Wrong again.

Your thread premise has failed, it can't be salvaged, your ignorance and hate are established, you're only further embarrassing yourself.

And again, no one is saying public assistance is a 'right,' that's not at issue.

This issue is the state compelling drug tests as a condition of eligibility for public assistance, whether the applicant receives public assistance or not is irrelevant, where the drug test requirement in of itself manifests as a violation of citizens' 4th Amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches and violations of one's privacy by the state.

so you are agreeing that nobody should have to submit to a breath test when stopped for DUI? and if they refuse, the loss of their license is a violation of their constitutional rights?
You do understand that you are the one that is making yourself out to be an idiot.
If the application for being on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth states that drug tests will be required, then there is no reason to consider it unconstitutional, which it is not in the first place since its not mandatory.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

does it bother you if a working family that pays tax does not have enough money to feed their family?

As a matter of fact, that is why one of my volunteer activities is treasurer of the local food bank. Does it bother you that kids could go hungry in Texas in the midst of the richest economy in the world?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Drug testing for the welfare crowd is long overdue
Hopefully other states will follow. This could save the country a good deal of money that could be used on something that is of value to all, or better yet, before spending any money on anything, pay down the debt.
Excellent Job Texas
Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

even if it is an older article, it gives me hope.

Wow are you stupid.

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

But then you republicans love to waste money and persecute people you don't like or approve of.

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

Republicans are willing to pay $100 to possibly save $1 in welfare costs

Which is worth the expense to most conservatives if they can disadvantage those of us whom they so despise.

For most on the right it's not about 'saving money,' it's about their unwarranted contempt for those of us receiving public assistance.

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

does it bother you if a working family that pays tax does not have enough money to feed their family?

As a matter of fact, that is why one of my volunteer activities is treasurer of the local food bank. Does it bother you that kids could go hungry in Texas in the midst of the richest economy in the world?

cant compare a local food back that runs off of freely given contributions and a waste of a government program that operates by stealing money from workers.
as far as kids going hungry, why dont their parents feed them, and these are legal citizens right? because if they are illegals I really dont care if they starve to death to be totally honest with you.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

In all too many cases the dope takers cash in the food stamps to buy dope with and let the kids go hungry. How could you possibly take credit for where you were born? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. I guess that makes sense to you as well. LOL

In the future, TooTall, I will make sure that I add the following, just for you, in all my posts:

Special note for TooTall. This message may contain sarcasm, which could be dangerous to the mental health of the uneducated. Read at your own risk, TT.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Drug testing for the welfare crowd is long overdue
Hopefully other states will follow. This could save the country a good deal of money that could be used on something that is of value to all, or better yet, before spending any money on anything, pay down the debt.
Excellent Job Texas
Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

even if it is an older article, it gives me hope.

Wow are you stupid.

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

But then you republicans love to waste money and persecute people you don't like or approve of.

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

Republicans are willing to pay $100 to possibly save $1 in welfare costs

Which is worth the expense to most conservatives if they can disadvantage those of us whom they so despise.

For most on the right it's not about 'saving money,' it's about their unwarranted contempt for those of us receiving public assistance.

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

does it bother you if a working family that pays tax does not have enough money to feed their family?

As a matter of fact, that is why one of my volunteer activities is treasurer of the local food bank. Does it bother you that kids could go hungry in Texas in the midst of the richest economy in the world?

cant compare a local food back that runs off of freely given contributions and a waste of a government program that operates by stealing money from workers.
as far as kids going hungry, why dont their parents feed them, and these are legal citizens right? because if they are illegals I really dont care if they starve to death to be totally honest with you.

MP, please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you care if anybody other than yourself is hungry.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Drug testing for the welfare crowd is long overdue
Hopefully other states will follow. This could save the country a good deal of money that could be used on something that is of value to all, or better yet, before spending any money on anything, pay down the debt.
Excellent Job Texas
Texas Senate approves drug testing for welfare

even if it is an older article, it gives me hope.

Wow are you stupid.

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

But then you republicans love to waste money and persecute people you don't like or approve of.

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

Republicans are willing to pay $100 to possibly save $1 in welfare costs

Which is worth the expense to most conservatives if they can disadvantage those of us whom they so despise.

For most on the right it's not about 'saving money,' it's about their unwarranted contempt for those of us receiving public assistance.

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

does it bother you if a working family that pays tax does not have enough money to feed their family?

As a matter of fact, that is why one of my volunteer activities is treasurer of the local food bank. Does it bother you that kids could go hungry in Texas in the midst of the richest economy in the world?

cant compare a local food back that runs off of freely given contributions and a waste of a government program that operates by stealing money from workers.
as far as kids going hungry, why dont their parents feed them, and these are legal citizens right? because if they are illegals I really dont care if they starve to death to be totally honest with you.

MP, please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you care if anybody other than yourself is hungry.

You do a fairly good job of insulting your own intelligence by not comprehending what you read.
Please show were I even remotely indicated care about anyone I dont know.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Wow are you stupid.

The first state to do that was Florida several years ago.

The outcome was that something like less than 1% of those tested came out positive.

It cost the state millions of dollars and was totally a waste of time and money.

But then you republicans love to waste money and persecute people you don't like or approve of.

I think we should be drug testing politicians.

Republicans are willing to pay $100 to possibly save $1 in welfare costs

Which is worth the expense to most conservatives if they can disadvantage those of us whom they so despise.

For most on the right it's not about 'saving money,' it's about their unwarranted contempt for those of us receiving public assistance.

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

does it bother you if a working family that pays tax does not have enough money to feed their family?

As a matter of fact, that is why one of my volunteer activities is treasurer of the local food bank. Does it bother you that kids could go hungry in Texas in the midst of the richest economy in the world?

cant compare a local food back that runs off of freely given contributions and a waste of a government program that operates by stealing money from workers.
as far as kids going hungry, why dont their parents feed them, and these are legal citizens right? because if they are illegals I really dont care if they starve to death to be totally honest with you.

MP, please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you care if anybody other than yourself is hungry.

You do a fairly good job of insulting your own intelligence by not comprehending what you read.
Please show were I even remotely indicated care about anyone I dont know.

I rest my case. And, since that makes you a self centered, selfish asshole, you are now on ignore. I don't deal with people like you in the real world. I certainly have nothing to say to people like you in cyberspace. Merry Christmas, asshole.

 

[TooTall]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

In all too many cases the dope takers cash in the food stamps to buy dope with and let the kids go hungry. How could you possibly take credit for where you were born? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. I guess that makes sense to you as well. LOL

In the future, TooTall, I will make sure that I add the following, just for you, in all my posts:

Special note for TooTall. This message may contain sarcasm, which could be dangerous to the mental health of the uneducated. Read at your own risk, TT.

That would be great, since I sometimes confuse BS with delusional nonsense.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Republicans are willing to pay $100 to possibly save $1 in welfare costs

Which is worth the expense to most conservatives if they can disadvantage those of us whom they so despise.

For most on the right it's not about 'saving money,' it's about their unwarranted contempt for those of us receiving public assistance.

does it bother you if a working family that pays tax does not have enough money to feed their family?

As a matter of fact, that is why one of my volunteer activities is treasurer of the local food bank. Does it bother you that kids could go hungry in Texas in the midst of the richest economy in the world?

cant compare a local food back that runs off of freely given contributions and a waste of a government program that operates by stealing money from workers.
as far as kids going hungry, why dont their parents feed them, and these are legal citizens right? because if they are illegals I really dont care if they starve to death to be totally honest with you.

MP, please don't insult our intelligence by implying that you care if anybody other than yourself is hungry.

You do a fairly good job of insulting your own intelligence by not comprehending what you read.
Please show were I even remotely indicated care about anyone I dont know.

I rest my case. And, since that makes you a self centered, selfish asshole, you are now on ignore. I don't deal with people like you in the real world. I certainly have nothing to say to people like you in cyberspace. Merry Christmas, asshole.

guess the truth hurts. LOL

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

In all too many cases the dope takers cash in the food stamps to buy dope with and let the kids go hungry. How could you possibly take credit for where you were born? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. I guess that makes sense to you as well. LOL

In the future, TooTall, I will make sure that I add the following, just for you, in all my posts:

Special note for TooTall. This message may contain sarcasm, which could be dangerous to the mental health of the uneducated. Read at your own risk, TT.

That would be great, since I sometimes confuse BS with delusional nonsense.

I'll also try to keep my words at two syllables or less.....

 

[TooTall]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

In all too many cases the dope takers cash in the food stamps to buy dope with and let the kids go hungry. How could you possibly take credit for where you were born? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. I guess that makes sense to you as well. LOL

In the future, TooTall, I will make sure that I add the following, just for you, in all my posts:

Special note for TooTall. This message may contain sarcasm, which could be dangerous to the mental health of the uneducated. Read at your own risk, TT.

That would be great, since I sometimes confuse BS with delusional nonsense.

I'll also try to keep my words at two syllables or less.....

That should be extremely easy for you to do.

 

[Political Junky]

Doesn't the Right call for smaller government?

 

[Dana7360]

Wrong.

Drug tests as a condition of eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

Drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance is un-Constitutional upheld on appeal:

Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

Consequently, Texas isn't 'leading' anything; what we witnessed was the usual authoritarianism and contempt for the Constitution and citizens' rights common to most republicans and conservatives, who were once again seeking to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

welfare isnt a right. its not anywhere to be found in the constitution. Therefore, no matter what is done to it as far as requirements or even if it is offered or not, is not something that is subject to constitutional review.

You are a clueless IDIOT who can't read. Welfare is most certainly in the US Constitution multiple times.

where

Where did you go to school?

I started learning about the constitution in grade school.

Read the preamble to the constitution. If you don't know what the preamble is look it up.

I swear I can't believe how down right uneducated some people are about our constitution and nation.

 

[Dana7360]

So, dependent children will get no food, since their parents smoked a joint, and lost their food stamps. Makes sense, I guess. I was smart enough not to be born in Texas, and they should be, too.

In all too many cases the dope takers cash in the food stamps to buy dope with and let the kids go hungry. How could you possibly take credit for where you were born? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. I guess that makes sense to you as well. LOL

That was put a stop to a very long time ago.

They don't receive stamps or any paper currency.

They do receive a card that is used just like a debit card at a grocery store. It can only be used at approved stores and only for approved items.

If a person tries to use it in a store that's not approved the card won't work.

Learn facts about things before you post.