TN Welfare applicants drug tests: 37 out of 16,017 positive (0.2%)

[Greeneyedlady]

If they have small children at home, wouldn't the benefits they receive from the government for free be better served making sure it's the children that get it instead of being used to supply drugs to someone who cares about their addiction more than taking care of the kids?
Sorry, but this needs to be done. I don't hear anyone complaining about taking a job for pay and having to take a drug test. It should be the same for welfare recipients.

 

[Greeneyedlady]

The taxpayers shouldn't have to fund someone's drug habits.

 

[Sonny Clark]

And do you think that's the proper role of government? To decide what's best for us and "encourage" us to follow their lead?

Beggars can't be choosers. If you want the Freebies, you'll have to meet the requirements. Nothing's really 'Free.'

Government services shouldn't have strings attached. This is a dangerous trend and will be used by authoritarians to dictate behavior. Would you apply the same logic to parents whose children are educated via "free" public education? Should they also be subject to extra scrutiny because they're on the public dole?

That's what i've always said. Nothing's really 'Free.' You sell your soul to the Devil when you invite Big Brother into your life. It's only about control for him. So my advice would be to forgo the Freebies and opt for going the old fashioned route instead... Work harder.

I have no interest in your advice. You're advocating authoritarian policies, and that sucks.

In the end, it could likely lead to less Tennesseans being solely dependent on Government Freebies. Less drug use usually leads to Citizens being more productive Citizens. And that in turn leads to happier families and less Citizens requiring Freebies. Tennessee is onto something.

Are you saying that those receiving government assistance had a choice before applying, and that they applied for assistance even though they could've been self-supporting all along. And, if they are cut off of benefits, they'll be able to return to self-supporting status? Really? Is it that easy to walk out the door and go to work making a living wage? Gee, I would've never thought that was possible.

 

[paulitician]

I didn't intend it to be personal. I was just pointing out that quitting drugs will probably be what's best for one's self and their family. And Tennessee is encouraging that.

Yes, drugs are bad. But, if the state is going to test those receiving some form of assistance, why not test everyone in the state that is on the state payroll? Do they not get tax dollars on payday? And, what would you suggest the state do with those that they kick off the program? What about the children of those that they kick off the program? What is the states plan to address the needs of those that they kick off the program? Do we allow them to die on the street like animals? Do we tell them to eat out of trash cans and dumpsters? What do we tell them about shelter, clothing, clean water, medicine, health care? Do we abandon them like they have an incurable virus?

The goal is promoting less drug use. It leads to better more productive Citizens. And in turn, that will hopefully lead to less Tennesseans relying solely on Government Freebies. I think Tennessee is onto something.

I agree that drug use is bad, and I would never condone it in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I feel the same about alcohol and alcoholics. I have written many pieces on the U.S. protecting the opium crops in Afghanistan, which the drug finds its way to this country. But, if the state is going to deny assistance to those that test positive for drug use, they should have an alternative plan for them instead of sending them away to eat out of trash cans or dumpsters. What is the states plan for them once they deny them benefits? Does the state realize that some of those denied, may have small children at home that depend on food stamps? Has the state given consideration to the consequences of denying benefits? What would you suggest the state does to make sure those denied aren't turned to the streets without anything?

See, i don't see it as a 'Good' or 'Bad' issue. Promoting less drug use is a wise logical endeavor. In general, it leads to more productive Citizens. And that in turn helps families. It also leads to less Citizens being solely dependent on Government Freebies. So i think Tennessee has made a very wise decision. I don't think it's all about morals and judgment. It's about logic and common sense.

What would you suggest the state does to those that they cut from the welfare program(s)? Do you know of any alternatives that the state has in place once they cut them loose? What would you do with them? What do you think happens to them once the state denies them benefits? Or, do you even care?

Can't save everyone. Resources are finite. That's the harsh reality.

 

[dblack]

And do you think that's the proper role of government? To decide what's best for us and "encourage" us to follow their lead?

Beggars can't be choosers. If you want the Freebies, you'll have to meet the requirements. Nothing's really 'Free.'

Government services shouldn't have strings attached. This is a dangerous trend and will be used by authoritarians to dictate behavior. Would you apply the same logic to parents whose children are educated via "free" public education? Should they also be subject to extra scrutiny because they're on the public dole?

That's what i've always said. Nothing's really 'Free.' You sell your soul to the Devil when you invite Big Brother into your life. It's only about control for him. So my advice would be to forgo the Freebies and opt for going the old fashioned route instead... Work harder.

I have no interest in your advice. You're advocating authoritarian policies, and that sucks.

In the end, it could likely lead to less Tennesseans being solely dependent on Government Freebies. Less drug use usually leads to Citizens being more productive Citizens. And that in turn leads to happier families and less Citizens requiring Freebies. Tennessee is onto something.

They're onto fascism. We don't (really, we don't) want a government preoccupied with making us better Citizens.

 

[Sonny Clark]

If they have small children at home, wouldn't the benefits they receive from the government for free be better served making sure it's the children that get it instead of being used to supply drugs to someone who cares about their addiction more than taking care of the kids?
Sorry, but this needs to be done. I don't hear anyone complaining about taking a job for pay and having to take a drug test. It should be the same for welfare recipients.

And, likewise, it should be the same for anyone being paid by the state, including those giving the test, judges, lawyers, cops, county clerks, etc. Anyone getting a check funded by tax dollars should be required to take the test. Why single out those getting welfare checks? Tax dollars are tax dollars. A tax funded check is a tax funded check. No difference.

 

[paulitician]

Beggars can't be choosers. If you want the Freebies, you'll have to meet the requirements. Nothing's really 'Free.'

Government services shouldn't have strings attached. This is a dangerous trend and will be used by authoritarians to dictate behavior. Would you apply the same logic to parents whose children are educated via "free" public education? Should they also be subject to extra scrutiny because they're on the public dole?

That's what i've always said. Nothing's really 'Free.' You sell your soul to the Devil when you invite Big Brother into your life. It's only about control for him. So my advice would be to forgo the Freebies and opt for going the old fashioned route instead... Work harder.

I have no interest in your advice. You're advocating authoritarian policies, and that sucks.

In the end, it could likely lead to less Tennesseans being solely dependent on Government Freebies. Less drug use usually leads to Citizens being more productive Citizens. And that in turn leads to happier families and less Citizens requiring Freebies. Tennessee is onto something.

Are you saying that those receiving government assistance had a choice before applying, and that they applied for assistance even though they could've been self-supporting all along. And, if they are cut off of benefits, they'll be able to return to self-supporting status? Really? Is it that easy to walk out the door and go to work making a living wage? Gee, I would've never thought that was possible.

Quit the drugs and grab two or three jobs if ya have to. No one deserves or is entitled to anything. It's a choice. Choose the drugs, or choose the Freebies. It's up to the individual to make that call.

 

[Greeneyedlady]

Yes, they have the choice of giving up drugs to get government benefits. It's that simple.

 

[Ravi]

If they have small children at home, wouldn't the benefits they receive from the government for free be better served making sure it's the children that get it instead of being used to supply drugs to someone who cares about their addiction more than taking care of the kids?
Sorry, but this needs to be done. I don't hear anyone complaining about taking a job for pay and having to take a drug test. It should be the same for welfare recipients.

And, likewise, it should be the same for anyone being paid by the state, including those giving the test, judges, lawyers, cops, county clerks, etc. Anyone getting a check funded by tax dollars should be required to take the test. Why single out those getting welfare checks? Tax dollars are tax dollars. A tax funded check is a tax funded check. No difference.

I hope you don't really believe it. None of us should be subjected to that sort of suspicion from our government.

 

[dblack]

Oh, i still hate Big Government. I don't demand Freebies. But if i did, i would expect to have to meet mandated requirements. Promoting less drug use is an overall benefit. And Tennessee has every right to mandate it. Citizens will have to make their choice. It's either their drugs, or their Freebies. It's their call.

And you don't see how this is dangerous? Government could push us into just about anything with this kind of logic. For example, we'd all be happy and more accepting as a society if we accepted gay marriage. Should government revoke tax exempt status from churches that refuse to accommodate them? It's their bigotry, it's their call, right? If they want the perks, they gotta play ball. Would you be down with that as well?

 

[koshergrl]

How much state and federal income tax do you think someone pays that is employed and still eligible for Welfare?

Can't admit you were wrong, eh? He wasn't talking about that, anyway. He was talking about paying into the system over their work life period. Many, many welfare recipients are elderly people that worked all their lives.

That's a total lie.

Do you even know what welfare is? It doesn't go to elderly people, you nincompoop.

Some of the elderly receive foodstamps, but for the most part, if they have worked during their lives, their SSB is just high enough to prevent them from getting any more than a few dollars, at most.

Food stamps are part of the welfare system and recipients in Tenn are drug tested to receive them.

In the field, "welfare" refers to cash benefits provided to families with children.

But okay. Elderly people who worked ALL THEIR LIVES, as you defined it...are not eligible for foodstamps. The combination of their income from ssb (based on the fact they have worked *all their lives*) in addition to whatever retirement they generally have (as a result of working *all their lives* most of the elderly have something coming in besides welfare...usually some sort of retirement fund or CD payments or something), the fact they are usually a single person household and have small shelter expense, and don't have any children in the home, means that those people aren't eligible for much, if any, snap allotment.

Try again, you lying piece of shit.

That's incorrect. It depends on their income. They may also apply for SSI and many other benefits paid for through income tax.

Lololol.....

 

[paulitician]

Beggars can't be choosers. If you want the Freebies, you'll have to meet the requirements. Nothing's really 'Free.'

Government services shouldn't have strings attached. This is a dangerous trend and will be used by authoritarians to dictate behavior. Would you apply the same logic to parents whose children are educated via "free" public education? Should they also be subject to extra scrutiny because they're on the public dole?

That's what i've always said. Nothing's really 'Free.' You sell your soul to the Devil when you invite Big Brother into your life. It's only about control for him. So my advice would be to forgo the Freebies and opt for going the old fashioned route instead... Work harder.

I have no interest in your advice. You're advocating authoritarian policies, and that sucks.

In the end, it could likely lead to less Tennesseans being solely dependent on Government Freebies. Less drug use usually leads to Citizens being more productive Citizens. And that in turn leads to happier families and less Citizens requiring Freebies. Tennessee is onto something.

They're onto fascism. We don't (really, we don't) want a government preoccupied with making us better Citizens.

But you want it to hand you those Freebies huh? Well, guess what? Nothing's really 'Free.' You want the Freebies, stop doing drugs and begin properly taking care of your family. Period, end of story.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, drugs are bad. But, if the state is going to test those receiving some form of assistance, why not test everyone in the state that is on the state payroll? Do they not get tax dollars on payday? And, what would you suggest the state do with those that they kick off the program? What about the children of those that they kick off the program? What is the states plan to address the needs of those that they kick off the program? Do we allow them to die on the street like animals? Do we tell them to eat out of trash cans and dumpsters? What do we tell them about shelter, clothing, clean water, medicine, health care? Do we abandon them like they have an incurable virus?

The goal is promoting less drug use. It leads to better more productive Citizens. And in turn, that will hopefully lead to less Tennesseans relying solely on Government Freebies. I think Tennessee is onto something.

I agree that drug use is bad, and I would never condone it in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I feel the same about alcohol and alcoholics. I have written many pieces on the U.S. protecting the opium crops in Afghanistan, which the drug finds its way to this country. But, if the state is going to deny assistance to those that test positive for drug use, they should have an alternative plan for them instead of sending them away to eat out of trash cans or dumpsters. What is the states plan for them once they deny them benefits? Does the state realize that some of those denied, may have small children at home that depend on food stamps? Has the state given consideration to the consequences of denying benefits? What would you suggest the state does to make sure those denied aren't turned to the streets without anything?

See, i don't see it as a 'Good' or 'Bad' issue. Promoting less drug use is a wise logical endeavor. In general, it leads to more productive Citizens. And that in turn helps families. It also leads to less Citizens being solely dependent on Government Freebies. So i think Tennessee has made a very wise decision. I don't think it's all about morals and judgment. It's about logic and common sense.

What would you suggest the state does to those that they cut from the welfare program(s)? Do you know of any alternatives that the state has in place once they cut them loose? What would you do with them? What do you think happens to them once the state denies them benefits? Or, do you even care?

Can't save everyone. Resources are finite. That's the harsh reality.

Very inhumane and barbaric answer. Cold hearted and cruel. And, we're suppose to be a civilize people. Imagine that for a second. Yet, we condone and pay for foreign aid, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, build mosques on foreign soil, engage in senseless deadly costly wars, and pay for the president's lavish vacations, all with taxpayers' hard earned tax dollars. Simply amazing. The logic is truly baffling, to say the least.

 

[koshergrl]

None of those things are *welfare*, but okay....

Ravi is talking about the elderly who *worked all their lives*. Those people, likewise, are not income eligible for energy assistance and state-paid insurance premium assistance. Those income guidelines are the SAME as the guidelines used for foodstamps, and the elderly WHO HAVE WORKED THEIR WHOLE LIVES are not generally eligible.

I know, I denied them regularly.

If you know, then you know that tax dollars help with winter heating, food stamps, housing, aid for dependent children, disability, and other assistance. Everyone pays taxes in one form or the other. tax dollars are used to help people. Tax dollars help the poor, the needy, the less fortunate among us. Where else do you think the money comes from?

The people who are sucking the system dry are NOT the ones supporting it.

Gads, how stupid can you be?

In what way(s) are they not supporting it? Please explain. Many that are presently receiving some form of assistance, have worked during their life. All of them make purchases. Some of them pay property tax, school tax, highway tax each and every time they put gas in their vehicle, etc. etc. etc. We all pay into the system. The government divides the tax dollars up into different categories, then disburses the money where needed. Welfare is paid through tax dollars collected from taxpayers. And, many pay into the system for years until they need assistance. Children are too young to work and pay into the system. The disabled, handicapped and others can't work. So, the system provides for their "WELFARE". It's really a very simple thing to understand. Where do you think the money comes from? And, do you honestly believe that everyone receiving some form of assistance, has never ever paid one cent into the system? Please explain. Thanks.

Again.

#1. Elderly who have worked all their lives are not income eligible for *welfare*.
#2. Elderly who RECEIVE welfare are not PAYING for welfare, and never have or they wouldn't be ELIGIBLE for welfare.

This isn't that difficult. I suggest you get a job where you have to crunch numbers, then you will understand this.

And I strongly suggest that you look up the word "welfare". What exactly do you think "welfare" means?
WELFARE : ( Dictionary.com ) ----- financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government.

Some elderly that are getting some form of assistance, have worked all of their lives. Some of the people, not elderly, have worked for years paying into the system. Children getting assistance aren't old enough to work. The disabled, the handicapped, and those with other issues that can't work, are getting welfare, but are still paying taxes in one form or the other. This is not rocket science.

Welfare in this conversation is referring to ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. That means, programs the recipients haven't paid into.

 

[Greeneyedlady]

If they have small children at home, wouldn't the benefits they receive from the government for free be better served making sure it's the children that get it instead of being used to supply drugs to someone who cares about their addiction more than taking care of the kids?
Sorry, but this needs to be done. I don't hear anyone complaining about taking a job for pay and having to take a drug test. It should be the same for welfare recipients.

And, likewise, it should be the same for anyone being paid by the state, including those giving the test, judges, lawyers, cops, county clerks, etc. Anyone getting a check funded by tax dollars should be required to take the test. Why single out those getting welfare checks? Tax dollars are tax dollars. A tax funded check is a tax funded check. No difference.

Sure. Anyone who gets paid by the government from taxpayer dollaers should have to take a drug test. And just so you know, It is almost a required test to work in a government office.

 

[dblack]

Yes, they have the choice of giving up drugs to get government benefits. It's that simple.

Should that also apply to parents with children enrolled in pubic schools?

 

[koshergrl]

Sadly, most will continue to miss the point. Nothing is really 'Free.' Big Brother is gonna get something out of the deal. You really are making a deal with the Devil when you demand Big Brother support you and your family.

There will be a heavy price to pay. Your independence and freedom will be the price. You invited Big Brother in, now he owns you. So take my advice, don't sell your soul to the Devil. Just do it the old fashioned way... Work harder.

People like Ravi live to be owned.

One way to solve the problem... Don't count on Big Brother to support you and your family. Don't like the requirements, don't ask for the Freebies. Just forget about it and work harder. Get two or three jobs if you have to. Don't sell your soul to the Devil.

Yeah, people like ravtard think welfare recipients are soooo stupid and helpless that they are incapable of getting up off their fat asses to support themselves, even if they HAVE to.

They aren't that stupid, and they're perfectly capable of doing what they have to do to survive..even if that means FINDING A JOB.

Yup, grab two or three jobs if you have to. Because once you invite Big Brother in, he owns you. You'll do what you're told. If you want those Freebies to continue.

What about those that can't work? What about the children? What about the disabled? What about the handicapped? What about the elderly? And, how many jobs do you think are out there? Haven't you heard that there aren't enough jobs that cover all education and skill levels to meet the demand? Haven't you heard that employers are producing more with less employees? Haven't you heard that technology, innovation, and automation are replacing workers? Haven't you heard that many college grads have moved in with their parents due to the weak job market?

Wow, you've really swallowed the whole enchilada, haven't you?

You're either very young, or have led a very, very sheltered life.

 

[dblack]

If you know, then you know that tax dollars help with winter heating, food stamps, housing, aid for dependent children, disability, and other assistance. Everyone pays taxes in one form or the other. tax dollars are used to help people. Tax dollars help the poor, the needy, the less fortunate among us. Where else do you think the money comes from?

The people who are sucking the system dry are NOT the ones supporting it.

Gads, how stupid can you be?

In what way(s) are they not supporting it? Please explain. Many that are presently receiving some form of assistance, have worked during their life. All of them make purchases. Some of them pay property tax, school tax, highway tax each and every time they put gas in their vehicle, etc. etc. etc. We all pay into the system. The government divides the tax dollars up into different categories, then disburses the money where needed. Welfare is paid through tax dollars collected from taxpayers. And, many pay into the system for years until they need assistance. Children are too young to work and pay into the system. The disabled, handicapped and others can't work. So, the system provides for their "WELFARE". It's really a very simple thing to understand. Where do you think the money comes from? And, do you honestly believe that everyone receiving some form of assistance, has never ever paid one cent into the system? Please explain. Thanks.

Again.

#1. Elderly who have worked all their lives are not income eligible for *welfare*.
#2. Elderly who RECEIVE welfare are not PAYING for welfare, and never have or they wouldn't be ELIGIBLE for welfare.

This isn't that difficult. I suggest you get a job where you have to crunch numbers, then you will understand this.

And I strongly suggest that you look up the word "welfare". What exactly do you think "welfare" means?
WELFARE : ( Dictionary.com ) ----- financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government.

Some elderly that are getting some form of assistance, have worked all of their lives. Some of the people, not elderly, have worked for years paying into the system. Children getting assistance aren't old enough to work. The disabled, the handicapped, and those with other issues that can't work, are getting welfare, but are still paying taxes in one form or the other. This is not rocket science.

Welfare in this conversation is referring to ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. That means, programs the recipients haven't paid into.

Nonsense. Everybody pays taxes, one way or another. You have no way of knowing what someone's net "take" is.

 

[paulitician]

The goal is promoting less drug use. It leads to better more productive Citizens. And in turn, that will hopefully lead to less Tennesseans relying solely on Government Freebies. I think Tennessee is onto something.

I agree that drug use is bad, and I would never condone it in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I feel the same about alcohol and alcoholics. I have written many pieces on the U.S. protecting the opium crops in Afghanistan, which the drug finds its way to this country. But, if the state is going to deny assistance to those that test positive for drug use, they should have an alternative plan for them instead of sending them away to eat out of trash cans or dumpsters. What is the states plan for them once they deny them benefits? Does the state realize that some of those denied, may have small children at home that depend on food stamps? Has the state given consideration to the consequences of denying benefits? What would you suggest the state does to make sure those denied aren't turned to the streets without anything?

See, i don't see it as a 'Good' or 'Bad' issue. Promoting less drug use is a wise logical endeavor. In general, it leads to more productive Citizens. And that in turn helps families. It also leads to less Citizens being solely dependent on Government Freebies. So i think Tennessee has made a very wise decision. I don't think it's all about morals and judgment. It's about logic and common sense.

What would you suggest the state does to those that they cut from the welfare program(s)? Do you know of any alternatives that the state has in place once they cut them loose? What would you do with them? What do you think happens to them once the state denies them benefits? Or, do you even care?

Can't save everyone. Resources are finite. That's the harsh reality.

Very inhumane and barbaric answer. Cold hearted and cruel. And, we're suppose to be a civilize people. Imagine that for a second. Yet, we condone and pay for foreign aid, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, build mosques on foreign soil, engage in senseless deadly costly wars, and pay for the president's lavish vacations, all with taxpayers' hard earned tax dollars. Simply amazing. The logic is truly baffling, to say the least.

Just the harsh reality. Who told you life was fair? Well allow me to inform you that it's not. No one deserves or is entitled to someone else's income. You want those Freebies, meet the requirements. If you choose not to meet the requirements, than so be it. Like i said, can't save everyone. Resources are finite. We do what we can.

 

[Greeneyedlady]

The goal is promoting less drug use. It leads to better more productive Citizens. And in turn, that will hopefully lead to less Tennesseans relying solely on Government Freebies. I think Tennessee is onto something.

I agree that drug use is bad, and I would never condone it in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I feel the same about alcohol and alcoholics. I have written many pieces on the U.S. protecting the opium crops in Afghanistan, which the drug finds its way to this country. But, if the state is going to deny assistance to those that test positive for drug use, they should have an alternative plan for them instead of sending them away to eat out of trash cans or dumpsters. What is the states plan for them once they deny them benefits? Does the state realize that some of those denied, may have small children at home that depend on food stamps? Has the state given consideration to the consequences of denying benefits? What would you suggest the state does to make sure those denied aren't turned to the streets without anything?

See, i don't see it as a 'Good' or 'Bad' issue. Promoting less drug use is a wise logical endeavor. In general, it leads to more productive Citizens. And that in turn helps families. It also leads to less Citizens being solely dependent on Government Freebies. So i think Tennessee has made a very wise decision. I don't think it's all about morals and judgment. It's about logic and common sense.

What would you suggest the state does to those that they cut from the welfare program(s)? Do you know of any alternatives that the state has in place once they cut them loose? What would you do with them? What do you think happens to them once the state denies them benefits? Or, do you even care?

Can't save everyone. Resources are finite. That's the harsh reality.

Very inhumane and barbaric answer. Cold hearted and cruel. And, we're suppose to be a civilize people. Imagine that for a second. Yet, we condone and pay for foreign aid, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, build mosques on foreign soil, engage in senseless deadly costly wars, and pay for the president's lavish vacations, all with taxpayers' hard earned tax dollars. Simply amazing. The logic is truly baffling, to say the least.

We are a civilized Nation. Unfortunately we don't have a choice when it comes down to what our politicians do when it comes to foriegn countries. We DO have a choice when it comes to our own citizens and supplying someone with the means to continue a destructive drug habit is not a "benefit" the taxpayers should provide.