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: 1167

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Demonizing people in need, with our current economy, is absurd.
It's amazing, the levels of cynicism - the governor has a barely-concealed financial stake in the multi million dollar drug testing company, the people who are being tested are assumed guilty until proven innocent, the assumption that people getting assistance are druggies (disproven here), the invasiveness of republicans into private lives, which they supposedly are against, the government support of a private company by forcing people to use its services without real cause.  It's maddening.
I can see it now, if they test positive for drugs that are made by big pharma, it will be okay, otherwise they get kicked to the curb.
"wow...so what's the reprecussions if a welfare reciepent comes up positive? "

They get honorary Mexican citizenship?
Welfare needs to be reformed somehow...how would you make sure people who don't deserve the money don't get it and the people that deserve it receive it?
I see your point.  Spending 178 million dollars to identify the 2% of people who don't deserve welfare because they smoked a joint sounds like a good place to start.  On the other hand, if Florida spent 178 million dollars on a job creation program to improve roads or something, that might go to someone undeserving.
You obviously have never met many unemployed or even homeless people.  Otherwise you wouldn't say something so patently stupid.
You met homeless people who do jobs and yet you claim that welfare should be abolished?  You would look those hard working people in the eye and claim that they don't deserve help to be kept afloat?  Since you have taken menial jobs , I assume you know that you can not live off the wages, right?  You also know that saying something stupid is not the same as being stupid, right?
you say, dont assume anything about someone you dont know
you assume that most people on wellfare are lazy
do you know MOST people on wellfare?

I have been broke and homeless in my life too, and spent many years doing all of the kinds of labor that are needed to get by - I was the only grad student who I knew who was doing landscaping, cleaning toilets, and painting houses.  I also went to school on GI bill dollars, after putting my life on the line in foreign countries and giving my body and brain to the US Army for a chunk of my youth.  I'm secure and making good money now, while working very, very hard and taking a fair amount of abuse, but still doing well.

 

Even so, this discussion isn't really about whether we should have gov't support for people - a valid topic, I agree, but a separate topic.  It's about a hypocritical, profiteering republican politician who is spending over 178 million dollars of taxpayer money to filter out the 2% of public assistance recipients who are being "bad" by ingesting or inhaling addictive or intoxicating substances; which will save under a hundred thousand dollars.  That's under 0.1% savings or something like that.  Meanwhile they preach about gov't spending.

Well, if Republicans understood the freedom that they espouse to believe in, they wouldn't have a problem with people doing drugs.  Also, I imagine that they can't be kicked off for alcohol or tobacco?  Both addictive and able to be abused, but legal.  Hypocrites, and they should be ashamed of using poor people as a political punching bag.  I don't believe in welfare, but as long as we have our current system in place, it will unfortunately be necessary.

I think it's pretty blatantly classist to employ drug testing in such a selective manner. This type of law assumes that the only people that receive government money are the poor when, in fact, there is a large amount of money going out the door in oil subsidies, farm subsidies, business "incentives", tax breaks to the ultra wealthy to "create jobs", etc.

 

Let's not forget that there is also non-cash governmental funding in the form of free schooling for our children, free police protection, the court system (which the wealthy and corporations benefit more greatly from), fire protection, military protection, etc.

If we are going to really drug test people who receive "hand-outs" from the government, shouldn't we be testing pretty much every US citizen rather than just the poorest ones? The problem is that some people assume that poor = drugs. Coincidentally, I would think you'd find a fairly large number of drug abusers among the wealthy (i.e. musicians, actors, executives). We all pretty much know that Bill Maher smokes pot, but he recieves a substantial tax break because of how much money he makes. Documents coming out of Enron showed an environment of drug use among upper management as part of the "fast" lifestyle. I could go on...

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service