No Drug Tests For Food Stamp Recipients, Feds Tell Georgia

Baby implies a person, one cannot be a person until there is a place for the person to live, that place is located in a fully formed and functioning brain, well it is for most people, I am begining to wonder is some have their personality (person) in a different organ.

 

That goes without saying. Food stamps are one of the biggest scams in the country. We're not even allowed to find out what stores get the money, how much, and what it's spent on. After all, that's just part of the public record, and we're just not public enogh to see records like that. We're the taxpayers.

The government CAN do things better than the private sector can.

Waging war. Ralph's and Walmart don't do well at that. Governments exist to exercise the power to break things and kill people.

But feeding poor people? FDR was busy destroying food on the farms with men and families starving in the cities.

IMO, welfare recipients shoudl be WEIGHED before they get their next check, and two dollars should be subtracted for every pound they gained. It means they're eating too much and not working hard enough to find employment.

 

No they are not, it is only a handful of RWNJs that are demanding it and their handlers pass the laws to play to their sheeple. I think any losses incured by such programs should be directly billed to the Party that passed them and then passed on to their registered voters, wonder how long that would last.

 

Do you believe in ghosts?

Then tax them to pay for welfare.

 

Go outside and play in your sand box and stop bothering the adults here.

 

Then do what the Mayor said.

WEIGH THEM.

The adults can't GET BIGGER while chowing down at the public trough.

When that program is successful, force it on the politicians.

Jerry Nadler will vote against this proposal...and HE has a detectable gravitational field.

- - - Updated - - -

You're confusing your bible, Das Kapital, with the Constitution again.

 

You're confusing your bible, Das Kapital, with the Constitution again.

 

May have been Kansas I was thinking of, I was just going from memory.

Regardless, according to a lot of studies it's been a money sink in most states that have tried it. I don't want folks on welfare using drugs, but I'm also unwilling to cut my nose off to spite my face.

I'd point out how silly it is for voters to demand their dollars be wasted (every single negative result is a waste), but I think it's fairly obvious.

The shame is I think we agree with the goal, but disagree on it's efficacy.

 

Oh.

"Every single negative result is a waste".

Makes you wonder why so much money is spent HIV testing, when every negative result is a waste.

 

So....250 people decided to abstain from welfare, and didn't even take the test...

And welfare benefits can total almost $30,000 person....,

.....which means the mere THOUGHT of being tested, at absolutely NO COST to the state, saved the state SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS...

How much money were you people pretending testing COST the state again? A thousand dollars a head, maybe?

Clearly the government does not have ENOUGH of those "expensive" testing programs.

 

You can deny the facts, but for every welfare recipient that chooses NOT to participate because their drug use is more important, saves the taxpayers their monthly hand out.

 

If the state provides support to private citizens, I believe the state has the right to request that those citizens not engage in behavior which would prohibit the citizen from supporting himself. If the state does not have this authority, is suggested then that the private citizen has the right to absorb resources from other citizens via the state and not provide anything in return. That would cause the rights of the few to infringe on the rights of the many.

As long as this type of testing is done on a blanket basis and is not specifically targeted at any racial or geographic group, I believe this type of testing is beneficial and efficient.

 

No the state doesn't have the right to request that the freeloaders use their taxpayer-stolen funds for the purposes they were stolen to do....provide food and support.

The state has no rights.

The state has power.

The state is obligated to use that power wisely.

Thuse the state is REQUIRED to validate the uses to which it's "public support" funds go.

The state may audit each, any and every contractor for funds expended.

The state may audit each, any and every business that pays sales tax.

The state may re-assess the value of a property at anytime if market conditions warrant or if the owner made a significant change to the property.

The state may do all of this becuase it has a responsibility to the people to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

AUDITING the USELESS when they take public monies to ensure those monies are used ONLY for the purposes those monies were disbursed to provide is as valid for the welfare maggot as it is for the multi-billionaire contractor.

Why the Rodents continue to impose double standards all down the line is not a mystery. They know full well that the USELESS are purveyors of that precious commodity, the vote, and the Rodents don't want to stop being their customer.

 

I'd be OK with drug tests for welfare SCUM, as long as CEOs of private companies recieving any govt. monies or Wall Street bankers recieving any monies where also pyys TESTED in their offices.

 

Taxcutter says:
Every trucker in the country has to pass drug tests to keep his/her CDL. Tax dollars don't pay that bill.
But moochers don't have to do anything to get their free stuff.

 

While in some cases there may be a difference in intent between the words 'right' and 'power to enforce a moral obligation,' I believe the difference is superfluous in this case.

You are correct that the state has the obligation to ensure that its funds are being used appropriately. If the state allows the few to waste the funds taken from the many, that is a violation of the state's obligation to the many.

 

Their test is due to safety issues, want to explain why we would want to test every person on welfare, lets hear a valid reason and while you are at it you can explain why you want to waste taxpayer money, since testing will cost more than they would save?

- - - Updated - - -

By wasting more money? Con logic is illogical.

 

Heck...lets go one step further and run criminal background checks on anyone living in house while we are at it.

 

I would go further than that test ever politician in the land, that bill would Never pass.

 

Where the hell did you get that from? The requirement for food stamps is that you make LESS than a certain amount, not work a certain number of hours.

 

I say test EVERYONE, the Constitution be damned, now I see where the right is going, baby steps first, then onto the real agenda.

 

Taxcutter says;
People who work for a living and actually pay incomes taxes have to jump through all sorts of government imposed hoops, but moochers get a 100% free ride.

That's why taxpayers despise moochers.

 

From the federal SNAP qualification rules. Where else? You won't qualify for food stamps for more than 3 months if you don't have a job. Feel free to prove me wrong if you disagree.

 

BS, what government imposed hoops are you having to jump through? A background check and drug test are per the company policy, they do not have to have such a policy they just do.
Who is mooching, are you actually trying to claim that anyone getting assistance is a moocher? You really are not that confused are ya?

 

Objectively true, and is the case more than 90% of the time in all the cases I've seen.

And we have no idea why, but we're going to count every single one as a person who was a drug user and didn't want to take the test even though that's grossly out of line with the rate of drug use.

So great, nice to know you support the witch hunt regardless of the price tag attached... Shame that we can agree on principle, but for ideological reasons you prefer to cut off your own nose =\

Regardless of the cost? That's my only point, It wastes money on two fronts, first most people pass the test, upwards of 90% in most states so all of the money spent testing them went right down the drain and second, it's been challenged in court in most of the states as well, compounding on the problem of it being a net loss for tax payers.