slj678 0 #1 January 27, 2010 http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21122 Saw it come up and made me wonder how much money the country would save? Any thoughts?"I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #2 January 27, 2010 I think it is a great Idea, back when I was using, (clean 16 years now) I'd say 80 percent of the poeple I delt with were on Welfare! Fuckin rediculous! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d_squared431 0 #3 January 27, 2010 I think it would be a good idea. I also think that the applicants should have to pay for the testing not the state or tax payers.TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1 I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slj678 0 #4 January 27, 2010 QuoteI think it is a great Idea, back when I was using, (clean 16 years now) I'd say 80 percent of the poeple I delt with were on Welfare! Fuckin rediculous! Yeah I just don't see it happening until Obama is out of office unless they found a way to do it by individual states. No offense, but Obama isn't going to screw the people that won him the election and will still probably be voting for him again when it comes time for election, regardless of how crappy he is doing."I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #5 January 27, 2010 If you're on welfare, you're a government employee. I say test away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #6 January 27, 2010 >I think it is a great Idea . . . OK. Situation: 24 year old woman college grad working for the government at her first job. She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night, and gets popped on a test the next day - and gets fired. Let her starve? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amstalder 0 #7 January 27, 2010 Question- Are you saying she did the cocaine before or after she started her new job?? Im of the mindset that she shouldve known better regardless. But Im also super conservative about things like that.... But to the OP, yes, welfare recipients should be tested for drugs... I have relatives on welfare who do drugs and you really dont know how much that pisses me off (same with the fact that one of my former classmates at the Academy tested positive for pot recently and was allowed to say because he was a football player... sorry off on a tangent)... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #8 January 27, 2010 SC in 3 2 1Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slj678 0 #9 January 27, 2010 Quote>I think it is a great Idea . . . OK. Situation: 24 year old woman college grad working for the government at her first job. She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night, and gets popped on a test the next day - and gets fired. Let her starve? Coming from somebody who is in college right now, there is a time and place for everything. She had 4+ years to explore in college so I don't really feel that sorry for her... I'm not saying its right to make her starve but you gotta look at the big picture. There are far more people doing wrong other than her situation. And you are telling me with a college degree she couldn't even find somewhere to work ie. Mcdonalds even?"I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amstalder 0 #10 January 27, 2010 I was thinking that as soon as I saw the title, and I resisted posting for a few minutes... But I guess I dont have very good self control Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #11 January 27, 2010 Think somebody pulled a quick one...I swear this was in BF when I saw it first.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #12 January 27, 2010 >I'm not saying its right to make her starve but you gotta look at the big >picture. There are far more people doing wrong other than her situation. Agreed. So what's the solution? >And you are telling me with a college degree she couldn't even find >somewhere to work ie. Mcdonalds even? Would you hire someone who had just gotten fired for doing cocaine? Even if she had a bachelor's in Old English Literature? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #13 January 27, 2010 Quote>I think it is a great Idea . . . OK. Situation: 24 year old woman medical resident working for the government at her first job. She makes a huge mistake, does cocaine at a party one night, and gets popped on a test the next day - and gets fired. Let her starve? Still feel the same way?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slj678 0 #14 January 27, 2010 Quote>I'm not saying its right to make her starve but you gotta look at the big >picture. There are far more people doing wrong other than her situation. Agreed. So what's the solution? >And you are telling me with a college degree she couldn't even find >somewhere to work ie. Mcdonalds even? Would you hire someone who had just gotten fired for doing cocaine? Even if she had a bachelor's in Old English Literature? There are a number of things you can do. Obviously you can't let people in your country starve, so put them on a probationary period. They will receive welfare for a month. Then after the month is up they have to report in every so often (2 weeks, month whatever) for X number of months/years And what person applying to mcdonalds says, "Hi my name is jessica and I just got fired from my government job because I snorted cocain at a party?" All she has to do is say I need work immediately and i will take the wage everyone else receives, and you get an employee with good work ethics and experience."I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #15 January 27, 2010 >Still feel the same way? Feel what way? I asked a question; I didn't express a feeling. But yes, if that person was working in healthcare, the question is the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #16 January 27, 2010 >Obviously you can't let people in your country starve, so put them on a >probationary period. They will receive welfare for a month. Then after the >month is up they have to report in every so often (2 weeks, month >whatever) for X number of months/years Not a bad idea. (Maybe combine that with mandatory substance abuse treatment.) >All she has to do is say I need work immediately and i will take the wage >everyone else receives, and you get an employee with good work ethics >and experience. Perhaps; you'd have to find a place that doesn't care about previous work experience and doesn't ask about it (McDonald's does.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slj678 0 #17 January 27, 2010 Quote Perhaps; you'd have to find a place that doesn't care about previous work experience and doesn't ask about it (McDonald's does.) Sure almost everywhere does, but when listing your job and reason for leaving all you have to simply put is personal. If they reject you with a degree and work experience, then that manager might also be on drugs "I didn't know they gave out rings at the holocaust" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #18 January 27, 2010 Quotehttp://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21122 Saw it come up and made me wonder how much money the country would save? Any thoughts? I thought Republicans were for less government intrusion in people's lives and less government spending. What this would do is increase the cost of all welfare programs while doing very little to combat poverty.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #19 January 27, 2010 Pretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #20 January 27, 2010 Quote>Still feel the same way? Feel what way? I asked a question; I didn't express a feeling. But yes, if that person was working in healthcare, the question is the same. OK...what's your answer to my question?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #21 January 27, 2010 >what's your answer to my question? Yes, I feel the same way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #22 January 27, 2010 QuotePretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts. How would you deal with a mother that smokes pot (grows her own so it doesn't cost anything) but is otherwise a decent mother?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #23 January 27, 2010 QuoteQuotePretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts. How would you deal with a mother that smokes pot (grows her own so it doesn't cost anything) but is otherwise a decent mother? No problem. I'm sure if she's a decent mother she understands her responsibility to the kids and will find a way to provide for them...without welfare. I guess the question is do you see welfare as helping or hurting? It has a place for folks who need some temporary aid to get through the tough times. Too many see it as "guaranteed income".Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #24 January 27, 2010 QuotePretty sure this would decrease the cost of welfare by removing those who are drug addicts. Is it really good social policy to take away addicts' only means of support? Would this not simply increase poverty, homelessness, and hunger and all the other negative things that go along with that? And won't that simply increase the financial pressure on private organizations like the Salvation Army? I'm not sure society will see any net gain by making life harder for drug addicts. These people need help, not more punishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #25 January 27, 2010 Quotehttp://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21122 Saw it come up and made me wonder how much money the country would save? Any thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would'nt save anything because now government would have to pay for drug rehab plus the welfare, and a whole new agency to oversee everthing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites