In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2305
Online now 1966 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
To receive that gov check since most workers paying for welfare have to pass one to keep the job that pays for welfare?
This post was edited by DrStache 20 months ago
Is that not a fair question? Seriously? Is it unconstitutional?
Who's paying for the testing?
Yes. You have to be drug tested for jobs(at least any job I've ever had) so why not?
We will. Taxpayers. I think when 35-50% test positive it could actually save us money.
Have you been doing your own, private drug tests to reach that 35-50% number?
Not all jobs require drug testing. The only thing I see drug testing doing is ultimately causing more crime. Plus, kids will be the ones that suffer and they have nothing to do with the drugs. Our system is so messed up that it's going to very difficult to fix.
Why would I? The ACLU already denounced it. I'm just guessing. I would gladly pay a 30 dollars extra every week to fund 52 tests a year for the poor. But I'm a giver. Or the government. Could just cut a national guard troop here or there and fund it. Wouldn't cost the poor anything.
If that was the case, then I would be fine with it. Big if though, imo.
Which leads me into my next discussion points. Governement paid abortions up to 5 years old. That way, no kids would suffer long term.
You didn't understand the question. Where did you get the 35-50% number that you're so sure will result in a positive drug test.
Well if you believe he New York Times and the ACLU then it might not be for you. Those that think outside the box, maybe so.
I'll wait for an article not written by the ACLU. And you're saying that because it didn't work in Florida, it wouldn't work anywhere else?
"While early results hint at some potential, savings have been small and few abusers have been caught. More troubling, collateral damage to children has not been effectively addressed — strange, considering that today's welfare program, which offers temporary assistance, is open only to deeply impoverished families with children."
Savings.....small or big......always a good thing
The Christian in name only chides in
You know where that's going
Show me the guy who can turn a loaf of bread into a catfish pond and I'll concede.
This. So much this.
Once someone loses their money source, they must find a new way to make a living. People living off of Welfare aren't trained workers that can easily go out and find a well paying job. I'm sure a lot of people would turn to either selling drugs or prostitution. Those are two illegal professions in which you can make more money than working two part time jobs. Ultimately, it'll probably end with more people in our prisons and a larger bill to the tax payers.
Which would lead to less gun control. I like this plan.
Except neither of the two gunman in the last two shootings were welfare recipients.
No,no,no........crime goes up, Government loosens gun laws so paying citizens can shoot more criminals.
Who pays for testing? Seems like an unnecessary cost.
What percentage of welfare recipients use drugs?
Many of them work 40hours a week on a farm or some minimum wage job. I doubt 70-90% of them shoot up each week.
Other than weed, what drugs stay in your system for more than 3-4 days? If testing is on a given date, its seems rather easy to pass the test. I imagine random testing would be a violation of civil rights/ACLU lawsuit so they would know in advance what day they would need to take the test.
Should everyone in America that receives a subsidy from the government be subjected to such testing?
If so then almost every taxpayer in America would be required to submit to testing. Because according to Simpson-Bowles, tax credits and subsidies are taking over $1.1 TRILLION from federal receipts each year. This is a substantially larger number than "welfare spending" or foodstamps (foodstamps are only around $66 billion annually I think)
Maybe requiring people to pick up their checks each month in person would help. I imagine the people that couldn't pass a drug test they knew about in advance would "look" like addicts. It might be cheaper to have a government employee selectively screen recipients instead of spending millions drug testing the entire population of welfare users.
Hmmm profiling say you?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports