Looks like Florida's program to drug test welfare recipients will save the state $40thousand to $98thousand a year, not including cost of administering the program, at a cost of only $178million.  tbo.com


This has nothing to do with Florida governor Rick Scott's shadow-ownership of the major drug testing company in Florida.


Republicans are against government intrusion into people's private lives.  This is not an intrusion into anyone's private life, either.











Views: 1173

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In general, while I am willing to pay taxes to fund a welfare safety net, I am much less willing to pay for a welfare feather bed. The worry of large scale drugs testing is always Quis custodiet ipsos custodes : it adds another layer of bureaucracy.

Your first paragraph touches on an excellent point.  As you pointed out, subsidies to various sectors are considered welfare.  So yes, in turn, there should be a way to make this applicable to the corporations and sectors that receive government funding.  However, a lot of those sectors are established, usually providing significant monetary returns.  And I think that's the significant difference between private sectors and private, impoverished individuals.


Furthermore, you'd have to provide a significant amount of statistics to show drug use within sectors.  On the contrary, drug use statistics are based on the class systems and illicit drug use is statistically higher in the poor, so it only makes sense to issue drug tests, especially if we all want to see returns and an elevation of the poor to a higher income bracket.


there are a number of issues here. Let's face it welfare is really screwed up. It would be morally reprehensible to deny someone help. On the other hand where do you draw the line. As for drug abuse there are some very inexpensive screening tests that could be used. there could be a three strikes rule or some such. People who test positive could get help and potentially get cleaned up and get employed. Where does it say that the taxpayers who themselves are struggling are required to support bad behavior. If you are earning your own money and decide to blow it on sex drugs and rock 'n roll that your business. Don't think for a minute though I want a handout my hard-earned cash to some ne'er-do-well. This is a another example of bad behavior or poor choices usurping the moral high ground. As I said I am not unwilling to help someone but it's my money it's my rules. I think welfare is far too lenient. Yes I know the argument that for the downtrodden do not humiliate or denigrate them any more than they are. I am more than willing to help someone who wishes to help themselves. I think there should be mandatory drug testing, mandatory verifiable birth control, semi annual health check ups in the categorization of the money given to welfare recipients. I think this should be a limit on pregnancies for example if you enter welfare with one child and have another that's fine but at that point to make it my responsibility if you decide to have a third fourth or fifth child. Do not say I am cruel do not try to take the moral high ground. having children is your responsibility not mine. If you are told not to have any more children and have to accept mandatory birth controland try to cheat the system I'm sorry supporting a child is your problem not mine. That's one of the problems with welfare today. If I get a loan from the bank and I don't pay back they take my stuff. While welfare is not a loan there are too few rules for keeping the recipients in check. If you come to my door on a rainy night I will give you soup, and hot shower cleaning dryer close a blanket and the couch to sleep on. The problem with welfare they've come to my door demanding steak my good scotch a bubble bath and my bed.as I said we should help each other but all things have their limits.
A ceo, a welfare recipient and a laborer are all sitting at a table when a plate with 100 cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the ceo reaches out to rake in 99 of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the ceo locks eyes with the laborer. "You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the welfare recipient. "He wants a piece of your cookie."
and the laborer is now peeved at the welfare recipient for wanting a few crumbs, conveniently forgetting about boss hog scoffing all the cookies. Kind of like this post going of topic - Rick Scott raking in the cookies, while many are moaning instead about the welfare recipient.
And the ceo is insisting that the welfare recipient and laborer both undergo drug testing before either gets a cookie.  They will have to pay for it themselves, but if it is negative, the laborer will have to pay the ceo for the welfare recipient's test.  If it is positive, then the ceo gets that cookie too.

This is a really clever allegory - I like it!

Regardless of what his stake in the company is, there's absolutely no reason why someone on welfare should not be drug tested.  Want government welfare?  Simple, keep clean.  Use the apportionment appropriately to serve your needs to survive and help out your family for the time allotted.  He did the right thing, however, my only concern is how effective the drug testing is and are the people who are administering it and reading the results qualified?

Oh, so do you get drug tested? I would hope so since you get some sort of "handout" from the government, whether it be tax credits, subsidized student loan interest, etc. I'm sure we can find something that you receive from our tax dollars that you should be tested for.

I think you're missing the point.  It's not correct to think that receiving free welfare is the same as receiving a loan.  In fact, they're 2 totally different beasts.  And I assume your definition of 'handout' is equivalent to free.


Welfare handouts are free to these individuals.  They don't have to be paid back. Loans accumulate interest and it gets compounded.  Sure, I get assistance, but it's assistance for an otherwise unaffordable endeavor for many.  However, the government will not only get the money paid back + interest (including Sallie Mae before the government took over in July of 2010), but they'll also see a return investment when I get done with residency.  So I will be putting back into the system at my OWN expense, all-the-while throughout school as well.  


A tax credit isn't a handout.  It's a deduction from your income based on criteria you've met, ie donation of clothes or books, money to charities, etc... Again, not a handout, but a deduction of your taxes.


Like I stated, welfare is implemented as assistance.  With the assistance, you are expected to provide a return.  It's similar to an investment and we Americans are investing in our poor so that there is an opportunity to make life easier for themselves. 


And yes, I can get randomly drug tested at any time by the hospital and I've already had to do a criminal background check a while ago, along with a statement from my local police department.  

A couple of things. First of all, Stafford (or government "subsidized" loans) are, in fact, a handout. Loans normally accumulate interest. Government-subsidized loans do not because the government pays the loan interest for free while you are in school. Therefore, it's a "handout".

A tax credit is not the same as a deduction. If you have $0 income taxes in a given year, a credit would give you money back. Therefore, tax credits (i.e. earned income credit, child tax credit, etc) are handounts.

When you really think about it, though, nothing is a government handout since we all pay in via taxes. We all pay school taxes (if we own property), sales taxes (which is a regressive tax), income taxes (although some get the whole of their income taxes back). Welfare is not all that different from other kinds of government programs from which we all benefit. We look down our noses at welfare recipients, though, because of an innate classism that exists in most of our minds, that somehow being poor is the fault of laziness or the like.

Subsidized loans accumulate interest after you graduate and it still has to be paid back.  This is unlike welfare where it does not need to be paid back.


And yes, you're correct and I'm incorrect about the tax credit/tax deduction.  Major faux pas on my part.  Thank you for catching that and clarifying it.


I don't agree with your last paragraph.  I don't look down on the poor, and I know many others that don't.  Nor do I consider them lazy.  I don't think of them as any less human than I am and I don't believe classism is 'innate'.  Also, yes, you're right, education is welfare, but again, it's an investment that sees returns, ie. graduating seniors going either to work, to college, playing sports for college, etc...






Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service