Should certain food items not be able to be bought with food stamps?

[chairman]

I generally try to stay out of these debates, but... one of my first jobs as a teenager was working in a grocery store. That particular chain had a return policy such that any store brand product could be returned without a receipt. Every week we had people come in, use all of their food stamp/EBT benefits on store brand foods then turn around and return them without a reciept to trade for alcohol and cigarettes. Around the same time we had family friends that qualified for benefits, really could have used them, but refused to accept them. They were regular donors to food drives that I volunteered in.

The way I see it, asking the government to provide social services is like asking a gorilla to cross stitch. Government is just too big and clumsy to get the job done right. Some people who need help will never be able to get into the system and some people who abuse help will always be able to get into the system. It doesn't matter if you prohibit the purchase of donuts or not, people will still get them using benefits if they want them. I think we'd be better off abolishing all governmental social assistance, making a special category of non-profit that provided similar services, had very generous tax breaks associated with donations of time and money to said organizations, and let local charities do the job. Luckily for all of you that disagree with me, that'll never happen.

Interestingly, that job as a bagger for the grocery store is the only one that I have ever been drug tested for. I don't have an issue with drug testing to recieve benefits. Giving people the right to take actions without having to take responsibility for those actions is a recipe for disaster.

 

[dmmj]

So yesterday I went to the gas station to fill up my grandma's car before we went off on a trip (to purchase her a new computer) at the station there is an ATM machine in front of the cashier cage and right on the front it said "we accept EBT cards" referring to the ATM, so I guess they no longer have to work the system to just get cash, just go to the ATM machine.

 

[Robert]

An interesting scam.

$6 worth of bottled water, dumped out and returned to a bottle deposit becomes the $2.40 needed to buy a 40 Oz beer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tries-to-stop-food-stamp-water-dumping-fraud/

 

[October]

Dave, some people get cash assistance as well as EBT. I wonder if that's what they were referring too? But I don't know how it works. I didn't think you were able to withdraw cash, you had to use the card.

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

Here's some perspective:

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

TALLAHASSEE --
Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

[email protected] (850) 222-8382
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2...ting-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

 

[ascott]

You go Terry

Rock on with your bad self......

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

You go Terry

Rock on with your bad self......

Just kinda hate to see politician's waste the public's $$$ on a test they'd NEVER dare take themselves...

 

[terryo]

Sad....but I knew many, many drug addicts, and all were on welfare......but they were all poor too. This is why I always say that the system does not work. There are so many people who really need public assistance, and it's so hard for them to get it, while most, if not all, drug addicts are on welfare.

 

[exoticsdr]

Nice try Terry 'wit-yo-bad-self'. The drug testing in your news story was done on first time applicants to the welfare system and only recently started...so, let's use some common sense on this one and make some deductions based on the facts of today's economy. Who is a first time applicant? Most certainly, someone that has recently lost a job and needs the help, thus probably not someone that is a habitual drug user/welfare conniver. Want to make a bet that the numbers would be MUCH higher, had they required all those that have been on welfare, for let's say...the last 24 months, to submit to the testing instead of those applying for the first time....of course, we will never know the answer to that as the libs in power would scream holy murder if it's voting base were made to take a drug test before receiving their welfare checks.

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

Nice try Terry 'wit-yo-bad-self'. The drug testing in your news story was done on first time applicants to the welfare system and only recently started...so, let's use some common sense on this one and make some deductions based on the facts of today's economy. Who is a first time applicant? Most certainly, someone that has recently lost a job and needs the help, thus probably not someone that is a habitual drug user/welfare conniver. Want to make a bet that the numbers would be MUCH higher, had they required all those that have been on welfare, for let's say...the last 24 months, to submit to the testing instead of those applying for the first time....of course, we will never know the answer to that as the libs in power would scream holy murder if it's voting base were made to take a drug test before receiving their welfare checks.

How do you feel about ALL politicians, Demopublicans* OR Republicrats*, from dog-catchers on up to the POTUS, having to take $30 random drug tests? (You do know that cocaine and meth won't show up on the cheap tests, unless ingested no more than 45 minutes in advance and hallucinogenics like LSD, not at all...right? The $30 tests are only for cannabis, nothing else.)

Can you imagine the Former Cocaine Cowboy-In-Chief taking a $30 random drug test, trying to remember how long ago was his last "toot"...

How about EVERYBODY who gets government $$$, including farmers getting pay-offs from the government to NOT grow crops (speaking of Michele Bachmann ) having to take the same $30 random drug tests that poor folks are required to pay for.

How about each and every one of us...do you mind having your entire future being determined by a $30 test that can never be 100% accurate?

Be careful what you wish for, doc...just as there's the danger of false positives, there's also the equal danger of false negatives...

*Two sides of the same counterfeit coin...

 

[exoticsdr]

Nice try Terry 'wit-yo-bad-self'. The drug testing in your news story was done on first time applicants to the welfare system and only recently started...so, let's use some common sense on this one and make some deductions based on the facts of today's economy. Who is a first time applicant? Most certainly, someone that has recently lost a job and needs the help, thus probably not someone that is a habitual drug user/welfare conniver. Want to make a bet that the numbers would be MUCH higher, had they required all those that have been on welfare, for let's say...the last 24 months, to submit to the testing instead of those applying for the first time....of course, we will never know the answer to that as the libs in power would scream holy murder if it's voting base were made to take a drug test before receiving their welfare checks.

How do you feel about ALL politicians, Demopublicans* OR Republicrats*, from dog-catchers on up to the POTUS, having to take $30 random drug tests? (You do know that cocaine and meth won't show up on the cheap tests, unless ingested no more than 45 minutes in advance and hallucinogenics like LSD, not at all...right? The $30 tests are only for cannabis, nothing else.)

Can you imagine the Former Cocaine Cowboy-In-Chief taking a $30 random drug test, trying to remember how long ago was his last "toot"...

Including your hero and current Cocaine Commie-n-Chief....absolutely, make them take a test...and since they are all so wealthy, let's make em take a really expensive one that give lots of false positives, that'll teach 'em.

How about EVERYBODY who gets government $$$, including farmers getting pay-offs from the government to NOT grow crops (speaking of Michele Bachmann ) having to take the same $30 random drug tests that poor folks are required to pay for.

What does Michele Bachmann have to do with farm subsidies.....subsidies that were all started under another of your heroes, Jimmy Carter and continue because of programs such as the ethanol fuel program and continue because the government has made a large percentage of farmers into a bunch of welfare stoolies. Would think that you would be more angry with the likes of Tom Daschle who was directly responsible.

How about each and every one of us...do you mind having your entire future being determined by a $30 test that can never be 100% accurate?

Give me whatever test you like.

Be careful what you wish for, doc...just as there's the danger of false positives, there's also the equal danger of false negatives...


*Two sides of the same counterfeit coin...

 

[ascott]

It is not solely the matter of whether one will pass a drug test or not...it is not solely the matter of whether or not a person uses drugs or not....it is not a matter of whether you or I feel any particular person is "worthy" of welfare....

It is a matter of what rights we are willing to give away to catch 1,2,3,4 % of folks receiving welfare that use drugs? Next it will be a new department of the government that will establish this group of people to now go door to door to drug test all americans, it happens all of the time, it starts with no smoking in bars (for goodness sake folks there are pouring alcohol into their bodies, better than smoking, don't think so), then whoever "they" are decided that folks should not be able to smoke OUTSIDE? There is talk now of preventing folks from smoking in their own homes and properties....hmmm, I bet "they" have plans then to open clubs where you can go into and smoke, for a charge of course, just slide your drivers license in this little machine so that you are now able to be tracked.
you no longer can give reasonable discipline to your child, you can not offer a tone of disappointment at a negative behavior so your child learns social graces (which is a rare thing to observe anymore in public), you can not have one child work and gain individual recognition, for fear of another child who does not work hard getting their feelings hurt---which is a necessary thing to learn in order to be a productive viable part of the human race. Your child can no longer be "left behind" in school because "they" say it is not nice.
there are a number of things that are forced on us as a society because "they" say it is a good thing....well, I believe in hard work, I believe in honesty, I believe that if you do bad things you should be held accountable, I believe that if your child drops to the floor in a screaming fit---you as the parent had better get a grip on your child before they end up a drug addict collecting welfare.....

we need to fight for our rights against legislation that is designed to take our human rights away and then "sell" them back to you for a price....

I do not think that people should be drug tested in order to receive aid...remember, "they" have already closed in on the drug market and are cashing in---so why would "they" want to mess it up....you know, kids from broken homes (some damn good ones too) grow up to watch all the crap they sell them saying that a certain lifestyle is the goal, sell the drugs, use the drugs, lose everything, it's ok you can just go to rehab because it will be paid for by our government, don't feel bad because remember you don't have to apply yourself to be ok, life is fair, every one owes you something....ya da ya da ya da....drugs are big business and so why would "they" not jump on an opportunity to see if they can gain yet another source of money....hey lets try to make some money on drug testing for welfare recipients, so they spend loads of money to target a group, a group of welfare recipients for drug testing, the person test positive, the person screams discrimination, the person then goes to rehab paid for by the government, they get clean, they go back and get their welfare, then they go back to drugs, not to worry because they can go through the system as often as they need to.....either you are a person who uses drugs or you are not...welfare does not equal drug addict.....yes, there are welfare recipients who do drugs, yes there are folks that work that do drugs....what is the difference?

therefore, why would we want to give away yet another right for just another avenue for "they" to take something away from us just to turn around and sell it back to us....

be careful of what you are willing to give away just to make sure "life is fair"....

 

[dmmj]

who are they? are they watching me right now?

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

Nice try Terry 'wit-yo-bad-self'. The drug testing in your news story was done on first time applicants to the welfare system and only recently started...so, let's use some common sense on this one and make some deductions based on the facts of today's economy. Who is a first time applicant? Most certainly, someone that has recently lost a job and needs the help, thus probably not someone that is a habitual drug user/welfare conniver. Want to make a bet that the numbers would be MUCH higher, had they required all those that have been on welfare, for let's say...the last 24 months, to submit to the testing instead of those applying for the first time....of course, we will never know the answer to that as the libs in power would scream holy murder if it's voting base were made to take a drug test before receiving their welfare checks.

How do you feel about ALL politicians, Demopublicans* OR Republicrats*, from dog-catchers on up to the POTUS, having to take $30 random drug tests? (You do know that cocaine and meth won't show up on the cheap tests, unless ingested no more than 45 minutes in advance and hallucinogenics like LSD, not at all...right? The $30 tests are only for cannabis, nothing else.)

Can you imagine the Former Cocaine Cowboy-In-Chief taking a $30 random drug test, trying to remember how long ago was his last "toot"...

Including your hero and current Cocaine Commie-n-Chief....absolutely, make them take a test...and since they are all so wealthy, let's make em take a really expensive one that give lots of false positives, that'll teach 'em.

My hero? Kinda jumping to a decidedly rabid conclusion, aren't you?

How about EVERYBODY who gets government $$$, including farmers getting pay-offs from the government to NOT grow crops (speaking of Michele Bachmann ) having to take the same $30 random drug tests that poor folks are required to pay for.

What does Michele Bachmann have to do with farm subsidies...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glenn...hmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_subsidies.html You do know that Bachmann has apparently been the recipient of about a quarter of million bucks in government handouts...or weren't you informed of that by the GOP?.

.subsidies that were all started under another of your heroes, Jimmy Carter and continue because of programs such as the ethanol fuel program and continue because the government has made a large percentage of farmers into a bunch of welfare stoolies. Would think that you would be more angry with the likes of Tom Daschle who was directly responsible.

How about each and every one of us...do you mind having your entire future being determined by a $30 test that can never be 100% accurate?

Give me whatever test you like.

Be careful what you wish for, doc...just as there's the danger of false positives, there's also the equal danger of false negatives...


*Two sides of the same counterfeit coin...

Again, be careful what you wish for, doc...once you allow the government to take away Constitutional freedoms out of brain-washed fear, it's unlikely the government you love to fear will return them to you.

Remember, many of the things Obama is doing today are things Bu$$h put in place...

---

It is not solely the matter of whether one will pass a drug test or not...it is not solely the matter of whether or not a person uses drugs or not....it is not a matter of whether you or I feel any particular person is "worthy" of welfare....

It is a matter of what rights we are willing to give away to catch 1,2,3,4 % of folks receiving welfare that use drugs? Next it will be a new department of the government that will establish this group of people to now go door to door to drug test all americans, it happens all of the time, it starts with no smoking in bars (for goodness sake folks there are pouring alcohol into their bodies, better than smoking, don't think so), then whoever "they" are decided that folks should not be able to smoke OUTSIDE? There is talk now of preventing folks from smoking in their own homes and properties....hmmm, I bet "they" have plans then to open clubs where you can go into and smoke, for a charge of course, just slide your drivers license in this little machine so that you are now able to be tracked.
you no longer can give reasonable discipline to your child, you can not offer a tone of disappointment at a negative behavior so your child learns social graces (which is a rare thing to observe anymore in public), you can not have one child work and gain individual recognition, for fear of another child who does not work hard getting their feelings hurt---which is a necessary thing to learn in order to be a productive viable part of the human race. Your child can no longer be "left behind" in school because "they" say it is not nice.
there are a number of things that are forced on us as a society because "they" say it is a good thing....well, I believe in hard work, I believe in honesty, I believe that if you do bad things you should be held accountable, I believe that if your child drops to the floor in a screaming fit---you as the parent had better get a grip on your child before they end up a drug addict collecting welfare.....

we need to fight for our rights against legislation that is designed to take our human rights away and then "sell" them back to you for a price....

I do not think that people should be drug tested in order to receive aid...remember, "they" have already closed in on the drug market and are cashing in---so why would "they" want to mess it up....you know, kids from broken homes (some damn good ones too) grow up to watch all the crap they sell them saying that a certain lifestyle is the goal, sell the drugs, use the drugs, lose everything, it's ok you can just go to rehab because it will be paid for by our government, don't feel bad because remember you don't have to apply yourself to be ok, life is fair, every one owes you something....ya da ya da ya da....drugs are big business and so why would "they" not jump on an opportunity to see if they can gain yet another source of money....hey lets try to make some money on drug testing for welfare recipients, so they spend loads of money to target a group, a group of welfare recipients for drug testing, the person test positive, the person screams discrimination, the person then goes to rehab paid for by the government, they get clean, they go back and get their welfare, then they go back to drugs, not to worry because they can go through the system as often as they need to.....either you are a person who uses drugs or you are not...welfare does not equal drug addict.....yes, there are welfare recipients who do drugs, yes there are folks that work that do drugs....what is the difference?

therefore, why would we want to give away yet another right for just another avenue for "they" to take something away from us just to turn around and sell it back to us....

be careful of what you are willing to give away just to make sure "life is fair"....

Very well stated, ma'am!

---

 

[ascott]

I wish I knew who "they" were as well, as I don't recall being asked if it is ok for parents to discipline their children without the threat of being tossed in jail.

I don't recall being asked if I care if someone smokes in a bar or outside or at their own home.

I don't recall being asked if people who collect welfare or government subsidized aid should be drug tested.

I don't recall these specifics....I do recall the propaganda that is surrounding each of these few items, telling me that I as part of "we the people" feel this is what should happen...

And yes, "they" are always watching, every time you use your atm, every time you use your phone, every time you apply for a job, every time you get a blood test, every time you sit in traffic on a public road.....yes, they absolutely are

 

[dmmj]

well I am getting ready to moon someone so "they " had better watch out.

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

I wish I knew who "they" were as well, as I don't recall being asked if it is ok for parents to discipline their children without the threat of being tossed in jail.

I don't recall being asked if I care if someone smokes in a bar or outside or at their own home.

I don't recall being asked if people who collect welfare or government subsidized aid should be drug tested.

I don't recall these specifics....I do recall the propaganda that is surrounding each of these few items, telling me that I as part of "we the people" feel this is what should happen...

And yes, "they" are always watching, every time you use your atm, every time you use your phone, every time you apply for a job, every time you get a blood test, every time you sit in traffic on a public road.....yes, they absolutely are

Just as long as we get to live in a free country...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- attributed to Benjarmin Franklin, but probably a quotation from Richard Jackson, who wrote "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania" (1759)

---

well I am getting ready to moon someone so "they " had better watch out.

No prob, Captain...we still have the 1st Amendment!

 

[ascott]

LOL....careful it may end up on the internet and they will be making money off of it.....LOL

 

[Terry Allan Hall]

LOL....careful it may end up on the internet and they will be making money off of it.....LOL

Well, as long as the good Captain is getting his percentage...hate to see him getting exploited.

And he should DEFINITELY keep all merchandising rights...Captain Awesome T-shirts, Captain Awesome Hoodies, Captain Awesome lunchboxes...with the right push, Captain Awesome breakfast cereals...it could be pretty lucretive for our good Captain!

Depending on how his "moon" is recieved by the Masses, of course!

 

[exoticsdr]

Nice try Terry 'wit-yo-bad-self'. The drug testing in your news story was done on first time applicants to the welfare system and only recently started...so, let's use some common sense on this one and make some deductions based on the facts of today's economy. Who is a first time applicant? Most certainly, someone that has recently lost a job and needs the help, thus probably not someone that is a habitual drug user/welfare conniver. Want to make a bet that the numbers would be MUCH higher, had they required all those that have been on welfare, for let's say...the last 24 months, to submit to the testing instead of those applying for the first time....of course, we will never know the answer to that as the libs in power would scream holy murder if it's voting base were made to take a drug test before receiving their welfare checks.

How do you feel about ALL politicians, Demopublicans* OR Republicrats*, from dog-catchers on up to the POTUS, having to take $30 random drug tests? (You do know that cocaine and meth won't show up on the cheap tests, unless ingested no more than 45 minutes in advance and hallucinogenics like LSD, not at all...right? The $30 tests are only for cannabis, nothing else.)

Can you imagine the Former Cocaine Cowboy-In-Chief taking a $30 random drug test, trying to remember how long ago was his last "toot"...

Including your hero and current Cocaine Commie-n-Chief....absolutely, make them take a test...and since they are all so wealthy, let's make em take a really expensive one that give lots of false positives, that'll teach 'em.

My hero? Kinda jumping to a decidedly rabid conclusion, aren't you?

How about EVERYBODY who gets government $$$, including farmers getting pay-offs from the government to NOT grow crops (speaking of Michele Bachmann ) having to take the same $30 random drug tests that poor folks are required to pay for.

What does Michele Bachmann have to do with farm subsidies...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glenn...hmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_subsidies.html You do know that Bachmann has apparently been the recipient of about a quarter of million bucks in government handouts...or weren't you informed of that by the GOP?.

.subsidies that were all started under another of your heroes, Jimmy Carter and continue because of programs such as the ethanol fuel program and continue because the government has made a large percentage of farmers into a bunch of welfare stoolies. Would think that you would be more angry with the likes of Tom Daschle who was directly responsible.

How about each and every one of us...do you mind having your entire future being determined by a $30 test that can never be 100% accurate?

Give me whatever test you like.

Be careful what you wish for, doc...just as there's the danger of false positives, there's also the equal danger of false negatives...


*Two sides of the same counterfeit coin...

Again, be careful what you wish for, doc...once you allow the government to take away Constitutional freedoms out of brain-washed fear, it's unlikely the government you love to fear will return them to you.

Remember, many of the things Obama is doing today are things Bu$$h put in place...

---

It is not solely the matter of whether one will pass a drug test or not...it is not solely the matter of whether or not a person uses drugs or not....it is not a matter of whether you or I feel any particular person is "worthy" of welfare....

It is a matter of what rights we are willing to give away to catch 1,2,3,4 % of folks receiving welfare that use drugs? Next it will be a new department of the government that will establish this group of people to now go door to door to drug test all americans, it happens all of the time, it starts with no smoking in bars (for goodness sake folks there are pouring alcohol into their bodies, better than smoking, don't think so), then whoever "they" are decided that folks should not be able to smoke OUTSIDE? There is talk now of preventing folks from smoking in their own homes and properties....hmmm, I bet "they" have plans then to open clubs where you can go into and smoke, for a charge of course, just slide your drivers license in this little machine so that you are now able to be tracked.
you no longer can give reasonable discipline to your child, you can not offer a tone of disappointment at a negative behavior so your child learns social graces (which is a rare thing to observe anymore in public), you can not have one child work and gain individual recognition, for fear of another child who does not work hard getting their feelings hurt---which is a necessary thing to learn in order to be a productive viable part of the human race. Your child can no longer be "left behind" in school because "they" say it is not nice.
there are a number of things that are forced on us as a society because "they" say it is a good thing....well, I believe in hard work, I believe in honesty, I believe that if you do bad things you should be held accountable, I believe that if your child drops to the floor in a screaming fit---you as the parent had better get a grip on your child before they end up a drug addict collecting welfare.....

we need to fight for our rights against legislation that is designed to take our human rights away and then "sell" them back to you for a price....

I do not think that people should be drug tested in order to receive aid...remember, "they" have already closed in on the drug market and are cashing in---so why would "they" want to mess it up....you know, kids from broken homes (some damn good ones too) grow up to watch all the crap they sell them saying that a certain lifestyle is the goal, sell the drugs, use the drugs, lose everything, it's ok you can just go to rehab because it will be paid for by our government, don't feel bad because remember you don't have to apply yourself to be ok, life is fair, every one owes you something....ya da ya da ya da....drugs are big business and so why would "they" not jump on an opportunity to see if they can gain yet another source of money....hey lets try to make some money on drug testing for welfare recipients, so they spend loads of money to target a group, a group of welfare recipients for drug testing, the person test positive, the person screams discrimination, the person then goes to rehab paid for by the government, they get clean, they go back and get their welfare, then they go back to drugs, not to worry because they can go through the system as often as they need to.....either you are a person who uses drugs or you are not...welfare does not equal drug addict.....yes, there are welfare recipients who do drugs, yes there are folks that work that do drugs....what is the difference?

therefore, why would we want to give away yet another right for just another avenue for "they" to take something away from us just to turn around and sell it back to us....

be careful of what you are willing to give away just to make sure "life is fair"....

Very well stated, ma'am!

---

---

Actually, Terry, what I wish for is a return to the written letter of the Constitution and its original intent, not what we have today. I believe in hard work, self/family reliance and taking responsibility for my actions. I believe that NOBODY should get a free ride. I believe most of today's politicians should be in jail, along with 99.9% of the lawyers. I believe welfare takes away dignity and creates government reliance. As for my beliefs in whether or not you are an Obamamaniac, it's so hard to tell (No, not really)...you see, every time I hear Dear Leader speak he blames others (mostly Bush) for his problems....sounds like you frankly (blaming Bush for Obama's problems), sorry..just my take on your brand of politics.