Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[Care4all]

The punishment is that innocent people are being forced to surrender their constitutional rights to privacy for the sake of uncovering the wrong doing of others. This is the very antithesis of American concepts of freedom and our constitutional protections.

Onthefarleft, are you equally incensed that government requires people to detail where they live, whom they live with, how much they earn, how much they have in the bank, who they have sex with, the results of the sex act, how much they spend on education, how much they invest with the failure to do so resulting in long prison terms?

You leftists always scream about privacy, yet the most glaring and intrusive invasion of privacy most of you would fight to the death to keep.

That is of course, the IRS 1040 form where every person must detail every intimate part of their life to the government.

hmmmmmmm....if you want the deduction it gives you.....

I don't have to tell them anything other than what we make....the home is paid for now, so there is no interest deduction for us so we no longer have the opportunity to have enough deductions for the long form....

but yes, I do agree with you that this is intrusive....but it is not a "search" which a urine analysis is, according the courts....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I happen to know most food banks offer quality items..and there are an awful lot of folks lining up there, repeaters time and again, for their items...but there are always those folks who will complain even when it's free.

Quality is not a right, it's something you work to attain. You want better than pastries and bread, get off the drugs and your ass, and get a job.

I donate to our local food bank. They want canned goods. I suspect the breads and pastry are donated by bakeries. But as an individual, they want canned and boxed foods. I usually buy a couple of cases of soup, canned chicken and such at Sam's and donate them. I'm sure this is because these foods keep well.

 

[Jarhead]

are they doing alcohol testing, too?

either way... are you going to starve people for smoking a joint? pure harassment, imo.

God forbid we actually teach people there are negative consequences to bad behavior. It isn't harassment at all. It's essentially saying if you're on welfare, money provided to you that was taken by force from someone else, you have an obligation to those people to not waste it by buying weed.

welfare is a 2 year program....do all that are on welfare NEVER WORK? the MAJORITY on welfare have worked and do end up working again...their own taxes have paid for the safety net in those cases....it ain't your money, it's their money....for the most part.

Actually, it is neither ours or theirs. It is money we earned and in turn paid to the government in return for UNDEFINED services.
I use the term undefined as it is not like FICA or UI that is defined for the purpose...and no, I dont want to get into the debate about FICA and how it is used

But whether they have worked or not, they can still be eligible for welfare.....so to say it is THEIRS is not accurate.

They are entitled to it as American Citizens....but they did not earn the money nor did they pay for the service.

 

[Jarhead]

The punishment is that innocent people are being forced to surrender their constitutional rights to privacy for the sake of uncovering the wrong doing of others. This is the very antithesis of American concepts of freedom and our constitutional protections.

Onthefarleft, are you equally incensed that government requires people to detail where they live, whom they live with, how much they earn, how much they have in the bank, who they have sex with, the results of the sex act, how much they spend on education, how much they invest with the failure to do so resulting in long prison terms?

You leftists always scream about privacy, yet the most glaring and intrusive invasion of privacy most of you would fight to the death to keep.

That is of course, the IRS 1040 form where every person must detail every intimate part of their life to the government.

hmmmmmmm....if you want the deduction it gives you.....

I don't have to tell them anything other than what we make....the home is paid for now, so there is no interest deduction for us so we no longer have the opportunity to have enough deductions for the long form....

but yes, I do agree with you that this is intrusive....but it is not a "search" which a urine analysis is, according the courts....

I will say this...and I will be blasted by my conservative friends on here.

I just completed my 2010 taxes (extension).

My Real estate taxes and my interest on Mortgage amounted ot over 31K...(I pay over 11K in real estate taxes). ...add in the college tuition tax credit and my two kids, wife and me as dependants....

Heck.....My taxable income dropped by over 45K.

The system is not fair to those that can not afford a home.

 

[Uncensored2008]

hmmmmmmm....if you want the deduction it gives you.....

There was a good reason that the founding fathers opposed direct taxation. Taxes MUST be anonymous to be fairly and evenly administered. If the taxpayer is known, favors will be bought, no way around it.

I don't have to tell them anything other than what we make....the home is paid for now, so there is no interest deduction for us so we no longer have the opportunity to have enough deductions for the long form....

Why should you have to reveal your personal finances to the central authority? And don't you have to tell them how many children you have (results of sex acts) and the status of those?

but yes, I do agree with you that this is intrusive....but it is not a "search" which a urine analysis is, according the courts....

Of course it is a search, a fishing trip intended to trigger a detailed search, i.e. and audit.

 

[Jarhead]

hmmmmmmm....if you want the deduction it gives you.....

There was a good reason that the founding fathers opposed direct taxation. Taxes MUST be anonymous to be fairly and evenly administered. If the taxpayer is known, favors will be bought, no way around it.

I don't have to tell them anything other than what we make....the home is paid for now, so there is no interest deduction for us so we no longer have the opportunity to have enough deductions for the long form....

Why should you have to reveal your personal finances to the central authority? And don't you have to tell them how many children you have (results of sex acts) and the status of those?

but yes, I do agree with you that this is intrusive....but it is not a "search" which a urine analysis is, according the courts....

Of course it is a search, a fishing trip intended to trigger a detailed search, i.e. and audit.

truth is, you dont have to reveal anything but your income.
If you opt for the write offs, you must reveal other infomration such as how many dependants you have.

But that is purely an option....if you prefer not telling the IRS how many kids you have simply file with only you as a dependant.

 

[McDowell's]

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

I found the the last sentence of this article interesting:

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

So there goes the "what about the children" argument.

 

[Care4all]

hmmmmmmm....if you want the deduction it gives you.....

There was a good reason that the founding fathers opposed direct taxation. Taxes MUST be anonymous to be fairly and evenly administered. If the taxpayer is known, favors will be bought, no way around it.

I don't have to tell them anything other than what we make....the home is paid for now, so there is no interest deduction for us so we no longer have the opportunity to have enough deductions for the long form....

Why should you have to reveal your personal finances to the central authority? And don't you have to tell them how many children you have (results of sex acts) and the status of those?

but yes, I do agree with you that this is intrusive....but it is not a "search" which a urine analysis is, according the courts....

Of course it is a search, a fishing trip intended to trigger a detailed search, i.e. and audit.

ok, you could talk me in to it being a "search" as well....

My husband and I were never blessed with children, I am baron...so no, the gvt has not needed to know about our sex life!

 

[Jarhead]

hmmmmmmm....if you want the deduction it gives you.....

There was a good reason that the founding fathers opposed direct taxation. Taxes MUST be anonymous to be fairly and evenly administered. If the taxpayer is known, favors will be bought, no way around it.

Why should you have to reveal your personal finances to the central authority? And don't you have to tell them how many children you have (results of sex acts) and the status of those?

but yes, I do agree with you that this is intrusive....but it is not a "search" which a urine analysis is, according the courts....

Of course it is a search, a fishing trip intended to trigger a detailed search, i.e. and audit.

ok, you could talk me in to it being a "search" as well....

My husband and I were never blessed with children, I am baron...so no, the gvt has not needed to know about our sex life!

they dont need to anyway.

You only need to tell them if you opt to write them off.

See? I am not a hypocrite...It is my choice to have my privacy invaded.

Just as it is a welfare recipients choice to have theiur privacy invaded with a drug test.

 

[lilbug]

God forbid we actually teach people there are negative consequences to bad behavior. It isn't harassment at all. It's essentially saying if you're on welfare, money provided to you that was taken by force from someone else, you have an obligation to those people to not waste it by buying weed.

welfare is a 2 year program....do all that are on welfare NEVER WORK? the MAJORITY on welfare have worked and do end up working again...their own taxes have paid for the safety net in those cases....it ain't your money, it's their money....for the most part.

They haven't paid nearly in taxes what they are taking in welfare, Care. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? You're saying most welfare recipients are really just paying themselves? Think about that for two seconds.

Agreed. Yeah, welfare's intent was to be a temporary thing...but, there are countless individuals who have made it their way of life because they grew up in a household that also made it their way of life. Their main purpose in life is finding ways to beat the system and stay on it and they are experts at it. It's unfortunate they do not focus all that effort in some kind of training, education or actually looking for a job. I do also put a lot of the blame on the system itself. I don't think in it's inception they predicted the amount of fraid and abuse that occurs today and has for years, and they do not have adequate checks and balances in place to prevent it....but this does not justify those folks who are taking advantage of the system's short-comings... to my mind they're scum, living off the backs of working folks to support their way of life. They're cheating fellow Americans, and they're are making it difficult for those who truly need to get the assistance to do so without shame...that's beyond low and no way to justify it.

 

[Care4all]

There was a good reason that the founding fathers opposed direct taxation. Taxes MUST be anonymous to be fairly and evenly administered. If the taxpayer is known, favors will be bought, no way around it.

Why should you have to reveal your personal finances to the central authority? And don't you have to tell them how many children you have (results of sex acts) and the status of those?

Of course it is a search, a fishing trip intended to trigger a detailed search, i.e. and audit.

ok, you could talk me in to it being a "search" as well....

My husband and I were never blessed with children, I am baron...so no, the gvt has not needed to know about our sex life!

they dont need to anyway.

You only need to tell them if you opt to write them off.

See? I am not a hypocrite...It is my choice to have my privacy invaded.

Just as it is a welfare recipients choice to have theiur privacy invaded with a drug test.

see, I'd rather take the other approach, and fight like heck to remove all of those intrusive questions or the irs altogether than to give in to a gvt over reach.... I'm a fighter, I don't give in easily...if I think something is wrong, I will go to my death before agreeing with it....and on principle, the irs is intrusive.

 

[Jarhead]

ok, you could talk me in to it being a "search" as well....

My husband and I were never blessed with children, I am baron...so no, the gvt has not needed to know about our sex life!

they dont need to anyway.

You only need to tell them if you opt to write them off.

See? I am not a hypocrite...It is my choice to have my privacy invaded.

Just as it is a welfare recipients choice to have theiur privacy invaded with a drug test.

see, I'd rather take the other approach, and fight like heck to remove all of those intrusive questions or the irs altogether than to give in to a gvt over reach.... I'm a fighter, I don't give in easily...if I think something is wrong, I will go to my death before agreeing with it....and on principle, the irs is intrusive.

iof it means anything....

I donate a generous amount anually to charities..and becuase of the amount, I need to itemize the donations.

I do not want the government to know who I donate to.

So we just dont take the write off....drives my accountant nuts....but it is something my wife and I feel very strongly about.

Likewise, we do not write off the car my wife uses for work she does for 1099 income. We do not feel the IRS has the right to know where she drives and what she does......and take your mind out of the gutter...what she does on the side is legit!

 

[Care4all]

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

I found the the last sentence of this article interesting:

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

So there goes the "what about the children" argument.

that's good, but is that person who was designated now have to be subjected to an illegal search and seizure by having to take a drug test?

 

[lilbug]

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

I found the the last sentence of this article interesting:

Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

So there goes the "what about the children" argument.

Well, this is just insane...these folks aren't too concerned about their children in the first place or they wouldn't be doing drugs...and by providing this 'out' the system is it's own worst enemy, providing yet another avenue for abuse.

that's good, but is that person who was designated now have to be subjected to an illegal search and seizure by having to take a drug test?

Truly, I don't get you're condoning folks taking from law abiding, hard working citizens, raising kids as impaired parents and condoning illegal activity. How does their right to that trump their right to not be subjected to drug testing?

 

[Jarhead]

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

I found the the last sentence of this article interesting:

So there goes the "what about the children" argument.

Well, this is just insane...these folks aren't too concerned about their children in the first place or they wouldn't be doing drugs...and by providing this 'out' the system is it's own worst enemy, providing yet another avenue for abuse.

that's good, but is that person who was designated now have to be subjected to an illegal search and seizure by having to take a drug test?

Truly, I don't get you're condoning folks taking from law abiding, hard working citizens, raising kids as impaired parents and condoning illegal activity. How does their right to that trump their right to not be subjected to drug testing?

Care4all does not deserve the spin.

What she is saying is "liberty" trumps all.....she sees it as a loss of liberty

and it is.....but only if you OPT to take welfare.

So it is no more a loss of liberty than offering a lending institution your w-2 in an effort to get a loan.

 

[Uncensored2008]

ok, you could talk me in to it being a "search" as well....

My husband and I were never blessed with children, I am baron...so no, the gvt has not needed to know about our sex life!

You want a couple of mine?

Just kidding. Sorry you didn't have children if you wanted them.

 

[Care4all]

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure - CNN

I found the the last sentence of this article interesting:

So there goes the "what about the children" argument.

Well, this is just insane...these folks aren't too concerned about their children in the first place or they wouldn't be doing drugs...and by providing this 'out' the system is it's own worst enemy, providing yet another avenue for abuse.

that's good, but is that person who was designated now have to be subjected to an illegal search and seizure by having to take a drug test?

Truly, I don't get you're condoning folks taking from law abiding, hard working citizens, raising kids as impaired parents and condoning illegal activity. How does their right to that trump their right to not be subjected to drug testing?

i don't think kids should be taken away from their parents and given to the state to support under most cases, especially if there is no drug abuse or abuse of any kind....i don't think being poor is a reason to take them from the parents nor do i think having an occasional drink or joint is a reason to take someones kids away....which you suggested earlier....

a drug urine test is not accurate 10% of the time and up to 30% of the time....it also does not tell you anything of importance....sure they could test positive if a workplace tested them on a monday and they had smoked a joint with a friend a week ago, but at the same time another employee could snort a gram of coke monday morning on his way to the office, and made to take a urine test, and it would come out negative, because the coke had not metabolized in their system....so the cokehead keeps his job, while stoned at work and the person who smoked 1 jay a week earlier on his own time off, who is straight as an ace while working loses his job, or welfare or kids according to you....

that's just not right.

and you have no proof that the pot head paid for such with their welfare, a friend could have shared one, and no proof that even the coke head in my example purchased his coke with welfare money either.....your presumptions is what i have a problem with....

and IF the parent on welfare IS TRULY a drug ADDICT, who is unrecoverable, and they are harming their kids, then yes....their kids should be taken away, by social services....and you DO NOT need to subject them to a drug test to see that their kids are being harmed....

I am a realist....if you were to take the kids away from all parents that have used an illegal drug, then there would not be enough orphanages to take care of them all....more than 50% of our country is estimated to have done illegal drugs at one time or another from the last thing i read on it...

i see it, as none of your business....or the gvt's business.

the government making a citizen who does not even work for them in a dangerous job, be subjected to this kind of search and seizure is unacceptable, and a gvt over reach imo....and it is like the gvt making them testify against themselves too imo...so that's a double whammie, breaking the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment, again, in my opinion.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There are three different people in my eyes.

Whoont, whoont, whoont. Nothing you've said there justifies the word games you are playing. All you're doing is "justifying" your prejudicial and hate filled class warfare mentality. Though you're doing a fool's job of it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Explain to us again why hard working taxpaying American citizens should be forced to subsidize drug use?

Uhhh, no. I'm going to say no, I'm not going to explain that to you until you can prove that it's even happening on any meaningful scale. And class warfare rhetoric is not proof.

 

[WillowTree]

Well, this is just insane...these folks aren't too concerned about their children in the first place or they wouldn't be doing drugs...and by providing this 'out' the system is it's own worst enemy, providing yet another avenue for abuse.



Truly, I don't get you're condoning folks taking from law abiding, hard working citizens, raising kids as impaired parents and condoning illegal activity. How does their right to that trump their right to not be subjected to drug testing?

Care4all does not deserve the spin.

What she is saying is "liberty" trumps all.....she sees it as a loss of liberty

and it is.....but only if you OPT to take welfare.

So it is no more a loss of liberty than offering a lending institution your w-2 in an effort to get a loan.

It's also a lack of liberty to toil your ass off all day then have to come home and hand over 30% of what you made so a drug user can abuse his children. They just take what you have earned and then want to hold the children hostage. NO one to date on this thread has ever held a drug abusing welfare receipent responsible for the welfare of his or her child. that's what demonRats do.. they make the hard working taxpayer shoulder that responsibility and then whine about their loss of liberty. I think it street shitter mentality myself.