Bills to require drug testing of welfare recipient
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1271) 6 years ago
LC0739 and LC0940 would require/authorize drug testing of welfare recipients. Florida and Michigan have struck down the tough version of such laws. Lawmakers are trying to write watered down laws. I just don't want to see laws that hurt the children. What is next? Denying benefits to smokers?


I think Wyoming has a law denying food stamps to certain sex crime convictions. I wonder how many of those have then moved to Montana to get food stamps. Should find out how many have moved to Montana and send Wyoming a "Thank you" letter.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
More resource wasting brought to you courtesy of the party of "small government". Cost more to administer the program than it will save on welfare to the addicted. Stupid proposal that should be rejected.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6174) 6 years ago
I think that there have been some studies of that issue and the result showed that there was less drug use among welfare recipients than in the general population. http://thinkprogress.org/...-positive/
Top
+1
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
Adding to what Wendy said: every real-world application of these supposed "money-saving" laws is a huge waste of state funds and resources. It only takes a moment to Google the failed policies and over a million dollars wasted in states like Florida.

Is this really what we have become as a country? Are we so afraid of the poor that if a child's parent had addiction issues or mental health issues, we would intentionally take away that child's access to food; a child already living below the poverty line? Even if these programs weren't a HUGE waste, even if they broke even (or heck, even if we made some money), I would still be ashamed to see even more children struggle with food insecurity. Investment in our young people has got to become a priority for this country. It's about time we start holding these anti-family politicians accountable for their bill and amendement choices.

We're better than this, and we need to start acting like it.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 6 years ago
Representative-elect Randy Pinocci (R - MT House District 19) believes drug testing welfare recipients is smart.



So does Representative-elect Steve Lavin (R - MT House District 8).



Personally, I think state legislators qualify as welfare recipients.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
+1,000,000 Hannah!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11667) 6 years ago
The Republicans have appointed to chair and vice chair of the state education committee people who are opposed to public education and science. Plus one guy convicted of child abuse. Yikes.
Top
Posted by gypsykim (+1553) 6 years ago
I believe that if you drug-test welfare recipients, you must also drug-test anyone who receives any federal monies, including those who receive farm subsidies. You can't single out one group.

I also agree with Hannah. In Florida, this program cost millions of dollars and found something like thirty drug users. Not even close to worth it.

We are in a sad state with our upcoming legislature.
Top
Posted by Diesel (+181) 6 years ago
I believe it should be mandatory. The children don't get to see the money or care if their parent is using it to buy drugs....and it happens all too often. If people want help this could in turn help them to get clean or stay off. There will always be quirks with everything but too many people abuse the system....and then the ones that really could use the help don't qualify because there are too many people on it wasting it. Just my opinion
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 6 years ago
Here are some interesting facts about Montana's SNAP Program...

http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/hcsd/snap
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1914) 6 years ago
In Florida, they said the cost would be covered by drug users being tossed out of the welfare system. Guess what? Poor people don't have spare money for dope. The number of drug users in the welfare system is LESS than the general population. It cost the state millions but since the testing company was owned by a friend of the governor. . .

Mandatory drug testing is one of those things that is easy to endorse but hell to pay for and accomplishes very little. If you want to keep the government from wasting money, mandatory drug testing is a huge waste. And you still end up with kids going hungry.

Then again, if a few poor children starve to death, so what?
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 6 years ago
In regard to Florida, I think that this article reported in May is informative:

http://www.huffingtonpost...05768.html
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 6 years ago
Imagine that the MONTANA BEER WINE & DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION contributed to Steve Lavin's campaign. They want to make sure your drug of choice is alcohol. Welfare recipients can do alcohol and cigarettes. No problem with that.

And the MONTANA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION also contributed to Steve Lavin's campaign. They love having people come into clinics for mandatory drug tests.

Who's buying your state legislator?

http://data.influenceexpl...N0YW5kYXJk
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+191) 6 years ago
Good grief...

Who gets "bought" for a hundred and sixty bucks?

Get real.......
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 6 years ago
$160 was the maximum donation a PAC could make to an individual candidate's campaign for the Montana House at the time:

http://politicalpractices...tionLimits
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+477) 6 years ago
The whole idea of pre-employment drug testing has done nothing but cost the government and businesses untold amounts of money.
Brought to us by the Great Communicator himself,Ronald Reagan.
Who at the time was asked to provide a specimen and declared,
"It would be undignified for the president of the United States
to do so."
Nothing wrong to screen when there is probable cause or post accident.
Now if all the politicians would willingly be tested then maybe
they can talk about testing welfare recipients etc. They shold
also be willing to be randomly tested at anytime througout their
term.
Top
Posted by Carol H (+119) 6 years ago
"poor" people always find money for dope, seriously.... maybe if they had to do mandatory drug testing they would lay off the drugs and get clean which in turn would help their children!!
Top
-1
Posted by Renegade (+68) 6 years ago
Why is it that I have to be drug tested to keep my job so I can pay taxes but most of you think it is wrong to test the people who are taking my taxes? You wonder why this country is in the shape it is in.
Top
-2
Posted by Carol H (+119) 6 years ago
I couldn't agree more renegade.
Top
-2
Posted by alan (+18) 6 years ago
+2,000,001 renegade!
Top
-2
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2677) 6 years ago
Y'all obviously didn't read any of the links provided above.
Top
Posted by A.T. Nelson (+33) 6 years ago
Ok, let's get rid of all drug testing.

Anyone that votes for that must also sign a waiver to forgo any law suit when something happens because the other person was on drugs. Ie. A trucker hits you and kills your family cause he was stoned, oh, too bad,
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 6 years ago
The Nation: The GOP's Drug-Testing Dragnet

How Republicans and industry profiteers are targeting high school students, welfare applicants and the unemployed.


by Isabel Macdonald April 3, 2013

The annual Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) conference, held in 2012 in San Antonio, Texas, looks like any other industry gathering. The 600 or so attendees sip their complimentary Starbucks coffee, munch on small plates of muffins and fresh fruit, and backslap old acquaintances as they file into a sprawling Marriott hotel conference hall. They will hear a keynote address by Robert DuPont, who served as drug policy director under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Nothing odd about any of this until you consider that the main subject of the conference is urine.

Seventy-seven years old, DuPont adopts the air of a sprightly televangelist as he outlines what he calls “the new battle lines” in the war on drugs, one that “begins with kids.” At the climax of his speech, DuPont offers “the new paradigm” of drug treatment: a program that one controversial Hawaiian judge administers to all drug-addicted probationers he oversees. “If they test positive,” he says, his voice slowly rising into a high-pitched yell, “they go to jail that day! No discussion!… No discretion! To jail that day!”


READ MORE HERE.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
Rather than more drug testing, let's end the sham and decriminalize the drugs. What we are doing now isn't working. More drug testing won't solve any problems.

http://www.washingtonpost...alization/
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11667) 6 years ago
How come everyone wants to CUT money for food and INCREASE money for drug testing when the drug testing WASTES money?

If a business wants you to pee in a cup (and I had to for a job renting videos), that is the business's money. If the government wants you to pee in a cup and is asking you to do so in order to supposedly SAVE money, they better prove they are actually SAVING money.

And, no all "poor people" aren't drug users. Most people in Miles City are "poor" and most people aren't using drugs. Again, the Florida drug testing showed FEWER poor people used drugs than in the general population.

I am often appalled by the bigotry showed by rightwingers but to paint all "poor" people as drug users with filthy kids is disgusting. i know lots of "poor" people who are fine, upstanding people with wonderful children who are just dealing with an economy designed to help the hyperich and screw over everybody else.

I hope all your "poor" friends are as quick to judge you as you are to judge them.
Top
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2413) 6 years ago
Farmers get more welfare than any minority or poor people,"CRP's". Israel,egypt,and the United Kingdom, etc get American dollars, why not drug test their people before giving them our dollars. Along with all the free money to the bankers at 0% interest, check that welfare handout. I think a discussion of just what is welfare, and who gets most of it is the real debate.
Top
supporter
Posted by cubby (+2624) 6 years ago
I have nothing wrong with giving to the needy but when your standing in line with a (poor folk) in front of you at the check out line with 2 shopping carts full of stuff and as they check out they use food stamps for the first load and pay cash for all the junk food and wine and smokes that food stamps won't pay for all while playing on their smart phones and wearing brand name shoes, that my people is what pisses me off.

why are they on the system? What can we do to stop those kinds of people that are using the system and some of you think is fine and dandy? If drug testing isn't the answer maybe surprise inspections at the low income housing is in order. We pop in unannounced and check to see how things are going, if we find you have big screen TV's in every room, high speed internet, people staying there that are not listed on the agreement what should we do with them? Just let them keep taking all the free money from us? If some of you people can't see how the system is failing then you people need to get out more often cause it's happening everywhere.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
"Farmers get more welfare than any minority or poor people,"CRP's". Israel,egypt,and the United Kingdom, etc get American dollars, why not drug test their people before giving them our dollars. Along with all the free money to the bankers at 0% interest, check that welfare handout. I think a discussion of just what is welfare, and who gets most of it is the real debate."

You obviously have not read the current farm bill. Nobody is getting rich off of it. The payment might seem larage until you see the bill for fertilizer, seed, and equipment. A used JD row-crop tractor is $200,000+.You'd be bitching about the price of food without farm payments. It provides stability to our system.

I work on the largest irrigated farm in the country, and we get randomly drug-tested weekly.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 6 years ago
A person who worked with welfare recipients once said, "You either give them a loaf of bread ..or, they will steal it."

Let's assume that most welfare recipients are the drug-addled losers conservatives think they are. You drug test them and take away their welfare benefits.

Now what happens?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
Go ahead and Google the "Welfare Queen" Myth. Go on... I'll wait.

What you will find is abuse like you illustrated above is minimal, hardly a speck in the chart. You will also find that the majority of people who use SNAP (food stamps) are off the program in three-six months (because their situation is improved). You will also find the economic benefit for every dollar invested in the SNAP program has a greater than $1-$1 ratio. You'll find that of ALL the government funded programs, SNAP and welfare is one of the LEAST abused systems (painfully low fraud percentage).

But don't let the FACTS or IMPORTANCE of the Social Safety Net keep you from posting myths and garbage about people struggling.

(And because it's the holidays and last I checked we were supposed to be generous, giving, and trying to instill an importance beyond material possessions for our children... I'm going to go ahead and address your little "story" regarding a family on SNAP and in supported housing. Because your paragraphs reek of judgment, negativity, and a profound lack of understanding of humanity.)

According to cubby...

Poor people are not allowed to smoke, or drink, or enjoy even small treats of junk food or soda or sweets. Not a single candy bar to enjoy. You will live painfully and without any culinary enjoyment or guilty pleasures!

Smart phones can already be owned BEFORE someone loses their job. Also, try and get a job without a contact phone number to arrange for an interview. Nevermind that the phone could have been a gift, or that the family is locked into a contract established earlier (and cannot afford the $200+ fee per line to cancel said contract and decimate their credit rating).

And those brand name shoes. How dare poor people have quality footwear! Never mind that quality lasts longer and may have been purchased before jobs were lost or medical emergencies drained the savings and checking account. But you *KNOW* that they bought those shoes, cubby, and that you would be paying for food for their family.

And that TV you own? Sell it.
The computer that you could use for job applications that depreciated in value and is now only worth $50? Sell it.
Internet for job searching and enjoyment because you can't afford cable? No enjoyment for YOU. Sell it. Disconnect it.
Clean, nice furniture for you and your family? Sell it.
Nice clothes? Sell them (for pennies on the dollar).
No movies, no games, no enjoyment. Sell it all.

Because when either parent goes looking for a job, they had better LOOK poor, their house MUST appear destitute, their children must not have any items for enjoyment or entertainment and must appear POOR any time day or night (for those little inspections cubby wants).

And cubby KNOWS these people and KNOWS all the back story and history of all these flagrant purchases, so he is justified in his judgment story. And instead of reporting fraud (because he has all the FACTS and knows that they are not being legal with their 3-6 months of assistance), we just get these fallacious stories of ridiculous waste in the system.

Is this how we treat our fellow Americans?
For everyone always saying "God Bless" on here... is this what Jesus would do?
Why is everyone so afraid of poverty in this country?
Why insist that we treat poor people like pariahs?


I vote for DIGNITY with my tax dollars, HUMANITY, SERVICE. Everyone in this thread should do the same. I support Children and Families (the true building blocks of this nation) every day-- why don't you, cubby?!

In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, this fact disgusts me:

In 2013, 49.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 33.3 million adults and 15.8 million children.

(Citation: http://www.feedingamerica...sheet.html)

All of the facts of SNAP completely discredit your Welfare Queen Myth, your Abuse of the System Myth, and your little Shaming Story. Educate yourself and then reach out to your fellow man, woman, and child (not just this holiday season, but every week of the year). Hold your elected officials responsible and help bring our brothers and sisters out of poverty.
Top
+1
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11667) 6 years ago
ALL the points to Hannah!

Of course, good "christians" and conservatives KNOW that what they think is real because, you know, the real world is full of stuff like facts and science and NOTHING interferes with a good opinion like FACTS.

Poor people should starve and decrease the surplus population. That would take care of having to be compassionate to those who are suffering. Get rid of the safety net and thousands would starve or die of preventable health issues or freeze to death because they can't afford to housing. Then dump them in pits because we aren't the kind of country that cares for those in need. Cover them up and build another shopping mall on top. Problem solved.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
Thank you Hannah for launching the truth!!!



[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (11/29/2014)]
Top
Posted by gypsykim (+1553) 6 years ago
Here, here, Hannah!! I could not have said it better myself!!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11667) 6 years ago
There is fraud in the crop insurance program. Let's get that down to 1% before we complain about SNAP.

And then there military contracts. . . .
Top
Posted by Tomm (-1035) 6 years ago
and immigration.
Top
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+191) 6 years ago
The point is, nobody is watching the store.


http://video.foxbusiness....show-clips

And when Bon Jovi, Springsteen and Turner can collect farm subsidies, there is something wrong there, as well......

http://dailycaller.com/20...ral-funds/
Top
supporter
Posted by cubby (+2624) 6 years ago
Never mind I'm just a uninformed hillbilly and I will stay in my bubble from now on.
Top
-1
founder
supporter
Posted by Tom Masa (+2033) 6 years ago
True and good.
Top
Posted by jj&j (+60) 6 years ago
No chubby you have some good points and so does Hannah. As usual there is no black and white answer just shades of grey. I think we can agree that there are SOME people that are milking the system for all it is worth and know exactly how to do it. Then there are those truly in need that just need a helping hand. How does one stop the fraud without hurting the truly needy?
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1914) 6 years ago
Trial is set to begin for two North Dakota brothers accused of intentionally destroying potatoes and defrauding the federal government out of about $2 million in crop insurance payments.
Aaron and Derek Johnson, of the Cooperstown area, are charged with conspiring to receive illegal payments by intentionally damaging the spuds. They have pleaded not guilty.
The Johnsons are accused of applying chemicals to the potatoes and using portable heaters in the warehouse in order to accelerate deterioration. The government says once the potatoes rotted, the men reported the loss to their insurance company and said the crop was lost due to naturally caused diseases.
A defense attorney says the brothers may be guilty of bad farming practices, but that is not illegal.
Jury selection is scheduled Monday in Fargo.


As I said. . .
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 6 years ago
I honestly don't know how some of you people sleep at night.

(Or get dressed in the morning, but that's a separate issue)
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
I am not understanding Amorette's point. Seems like if there is a trial for fraud, they didn't get away with it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 6 years ago
I think her point is that you hear plenty of casual poor-shaming out on the internets, but that you have to actively push people to see or think about where the real sources of fraud are in our subsidy programs.
Top
Posted by nativemc (+910) 6 years ago
A little information about the beginning and history of Food Stamps here. quoted as written in Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon? - See more at: https://oregonhunger.org/history-food-stamps-and-snap#sthash.ryz57jVf.dpuf
September 2007 marked the 30-year anniversary of the Food Stamp Program, the largest and most comprehensive nutrition program in America. Yet many people don't know that Portland, Oregon was an original pilot site for a project called the “Food Stamp Plan” that preceded the current program. The pilot operated from 1939-1943, and was seen as an innovative way to respond to severe hunger caused by the Depression while also supporting farmers. - See more at: https://oregonhunger.org/history-food-stamps-and-snap#sthash.ryz57jVf.dpuf

The program was revived in the early 1960's, and received national attention after CBS aired a documentary in 1968 called Hunger in America, which showed children dying of severe malnutrition many years after the Depression, and shocked the nation into expanding food stamps as part of the War on Poverty. In 1977, U.S. Senators Bob Dole and George McGovern created the program as we know it today, through landmark legislation that expanded participation and eliminated the process of purchasing food stamps. - See more at: https://oregonhunger.org/history-food-stamps-and-snap#sthash.ryz57jVf.dpuf
A bi-partisan effort in 1977.

[This message has been edited by nativemc (12/2/2014)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
Cubby, I never brought name-calling or anything else into this discussion. The only "facts" you brought to the table were fallacious stories of rampant abuse in the system. No facts, no statistics... just a story. And that story (perpetuated by politicians and the uninformed) is used to negatively drive budget cuts to the Social Safety Net and to shame Americans who've fallen on hard times and need a hand up.

Federal Welfare programs are the LEAST fraud-wrought system of all government programs, looking at an approximate ~1% fraud rate. That's better than corporate fraud rates and expensive government building contracts rates! If you're looking for departments to audit and "fix" the waste and fraud in, SNAP and other welfare programs are your LAST target; truly the least of our concerns! But every year, bolstered by silly stories like you posted above, lawmakers try and push funding reductions through Congress (there were cuts last years), or states try to pass bills akin to the topic of this thread which do nothing but waste tax dollars and succeed in further shaming families who need help.

I asked you to educate yourself, cubby, because you have the ability to take these facts and apply them to your knowledge base. With this new information, YOU have the choice to change how you tell stories, change how you donate and support your local community, and (hopefully) change your attitude regarding your fellow man. Choosing to ignore the facts and continuing to tell these fanciful stories will propagate LIES and misinformation that does real damage to families; and is willful ignorance on your part.

JJ&J, I will respectfully disagree with you on this one: cubby does not make ANY points based on factual information or reality. In no way is that "making good points" that are even in the same ballpark as the factual information and reality that myself and others have posted here. Continuing to justify and encourage stories like he told only does damage. Like I pointed out above... a program with the LEAST amount of fraud is not a concern. If we are needing to tackle government programs for auditing and fraud checking, SNAP and welfare are at the BOTTOM of the list.

We have choices, daily, on how to treat each other and support our brother and sisters. You now have the correct, factual information, and I do hope that you use it support your neighbors.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by cubby (+2624) 6 years ago
Hanna, I spoke of a real life event that I witnessed and you some how came back with a lot of assumptions of who I was referring to. So thanks for the links I'm a brighter redneck because of them. But still won't fix the people that I SEEN abusing the system.
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1914) 6 years ago
Hannah pointed out that 1) you didn't KNOW they were "abusing the system." You ASSUMED they were. 2) You never tell stories about struggling poor people because you don't bother to make note of the VAST majority of people who need SNAP to FEED THEIR FAMILIES.

The point is, you want to "fix" the system. Find a system that is broken, first.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
If you SAW this abuse, and were fully aware of the complete story behind what you witnessed (ie, how/when this family made all of those purchases, where the money came from, what was received as gifts, when they lost their jobs, what medical debt they had, etc.; basically you were fully aware of their financial situation at the time you witnessed full cart-loads at the supermarket)... did you report the FRAUD?

SNAP Fraud is very easy to report and there is a dedicated team who investigates fraud and imposes penalties. To report: https://www.ucowf.net/ind...&Itemid=65

I also encourage you to recognize that even IF your experience was legitimate, that an isolated incident is not indicative of struggling families as a whole. When in doubt, don't punish hungry children for the sins of their parents.
Top
Posted by Tomm (-1035) 6 years ago
I have just done a quick count. It appears there have been 46 entries in this thread. Cubbi has been accused of not stating his source. This is true, he should have listed like some of the others. I counted at least 12 entries that has statements about costs, states failures, abuses etc. that were not backed up. These were "opinions", "statements of fact" etc. with no validation. Be fair.
Top
-1
Posted by K. D. (+359) 6 years ago
I agree with Cubby. I guess I fail to live a life with the blinders on, and no one will tell me what I see really isn't there. The problem is, when it comes to welfare abusers, one spoiled apple should not spoil the bunch, which I try to remind myself of constantly.

[This message has been edited by K. D. (12/2/2014)]
Top
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+191) 6 years ago
The thing I find most interesting in this topic is watching the Kabuki dance by the Federal Courts, to preserve the dangerous inroads they have already made to violate basic 4th and 5th Amendment Rights of certain groups or individuals.

Can anybody tell me why drug testing violates the 4th and 5th Amendment Rights of persons applying for welfare, but it does not violate the 4th and 5th Amendment Rights of a bus driver or train engineer? Or for that matter, a file clerk injured on the job?

The "public interest" argument is bogus.

If it's a Constitutional Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure or self-incrimination, "public interest" should have no bearing.

Oh, and I get the point. I've heard all the justification arguments for years. What I have never heard is an adequate Constitutional one.
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1914) 6 years ago
I'm opposed to drug testing for anything unless there is an actual REASON to believe someone is abusing drugs. Period. I am particularly opposed to it as a program of government waste, profiteering and a way to deprive hungry children of FOOD, but I think it is stupid to test EVERYONE. Another boondoggle making money for the drug testing companies.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 6 years ago
I find the constitutional musing of avowed insurrectionists to be unconvincing, myself.

I believe that the concept that you're missing is 'undue burden', but Wendy could probably tell us more, if she wanted to.
Top
moderator
founder
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6174) 6 years ago
I do not want to.
Top
Posted by Hugo Stiglitz (-26) 6 years ago
Brandy,
CRP is not welfare for farmers, despite the fluffy description that most people read (and public perception) there is a bit of history involved. One reason was made evident in the 1930's (and locally in the 70's) quite a bit of this country was farmed and mother nature can do strange things when the whole countryside is bare, lose dirt (dirty thirties). Anyhow, in a nutshell CRP was created to prevent overproduction, which had both market and environmental effects. Think of it as the Governments idea of keeping the peace, but is definitely not welfare. Most years those farmers would actually make more money putting that land back into production. You should count your blessings they don't.

Cubby,
You forgot to mention the four fifty pound sacks of dog food that they had under thier carts for the three pitbulls they have in thier back yard.
Yes, there are people that need welfare, I've met them and my heart goes out to many and I'm sure some of you can quote some study from some other state, but that's not Miles City. In my former occupation I saw first hand the degree of abuse of the system and I assure most of you that the true figures would be alarming.
So, yes, I would support drug testing. If a recipiant/ parent pops hot on a drug test it's not the Government taking food from thier kids, its them, the drug user.
No child should have to grow up in an environment as bad as I've seen. It's absolutely heartbreaking, I would love nothing more than to have most of you that have posted spend even a week with HHS (DFS) or the Police/ Sheriffs Dept. and see the true face of your assumptions.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16853) 6 years ago
Hugo Stiglitz wrote:
"After reading through this topic I have decided beyond the shadow of a doubt, that this website is almost entirely infested with ignorant, in bread, liberal morons. Most of what you are posting and claiming are bigger lies than any of the candidates have told, actually it's somewhat entertaining, there is only one or two of you that even know your ass from a hole in the ground and all the rest of you simply regurgitate garbage that you don't even comprehend, or get straight.

Go ahead, elect Obama and make history, you will "end" the United States of America.

Me, I'm voting for the only good option, yes, I said Romney and I damn sure ain't coming back on this forum."

Hugo talks smack here.

"in bread" is my favorite, by the way.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6174) 6 years ago
Hugo has apparently gone back on his word.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
From Hugo:
If a recipiant/ parent pops hot on a drug test it's not the Government taking food from thier kids, its them, the drug user.


We do not punish children (or the elderly, or veterans) for the sins of others. Period. Children cannot go and GET their own food. Many elderly are also limited. Veterans (some disabled) have hurdles to receiving assistance and food.

It is repugnant to even suggest that since it is the parent's fault that food stamps are taken away, that it is OK in the wealthiest nation in the world, to allow some of our most vulnerable population to starve. Even if there is abuse, we supply a hand-up without judgment. Because it is the Right Thing To Do. People should not be starving in America.

Poverty kills. Literally.
If you cannot reach out a hand to starving minors, elderly, and veterans; YOU are what is wrong with this country.
Top
+1
Posted by K. D. (+359) 6 years ago
So Hannah, what do you suggest? Give the drug addicted welfare recipients more food stamps in hopes that the money trickles down to the children as food?

Unfortunately there is no easy solution to the welfare system, and throwing quotes out from various websites will not fix it either. We as citizens need to contact our legislators and congressmen/women to voice our opinion. We also need to report the abuse we see in hopes that it will make an effect. If enough people complain and voice our opinion, maybe something will be done.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 6 years ago
Procreate. Oh. Dear.

What part of 'IT COSTS MORE MONEY TO SCREEN WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR DRUG ABUSE THAN IS PREVENTED IN FRAUD' do you people find so procreateing hard to understand?

Are you somehow in charge of money? Because if you honestly don't understand the sentence above, then you shouldn't be.
Top
+1
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
Ms./Mr. K.D.-- if you read all of my above posts, all of your concerns regarding the welfare system have been adequately addressed (with citation) by myself and others.

The "rampant" problems people keep squealing about are not supported by ANY research, reality, or factual information. We've acknowledged the fraud percentage (as supported by, literally, EVERY study that has been done); and that percentage was found to be ~1%, the best fraud rate of any govt. program (a statistic stressed above).

My point, through all of this, isn't to fix a system (because it ain't broke!), but to IMPROVE a system; to make it BIGGER. To be honest, we don't do enough for poverty-stricken families. We need to do more! The government doesn't do enough. And repeatedly, private charity organizations (and churches) have expressed being overwhelmed by the level of poverty and have begged the govt. assistance to ramp up what they offer.

If you're searching for govt. waste to tackle, food stamps and welfare are the (factually, statistically) LEAST OF YOUR CONCERNS.

Just on NPR news this morning, a report on the Millennial generation stated that more Millennials (ages 0-34) are living in poverty than any other living generation.

Poverty is getting worse in this country.
I would rather see my tax dollars hopefully supporting a family that may have substance-abuse problems; food that *may* help vs supporting corporations, or dollars to blow up people halfway across the world, or dollars to support a lazy Congress.

[This message has been edited by Hannah Nash (12/4/2014)]
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
If our social services network was properlying funded, red kettles this time of year would be unnecessary. It is fukcing unbelieveable that we willingly use 700 million dollar aircraft to drop $50,000 smart-bombs on $2.00 pup tents, but we refused to take 1% of the military budget to care for our own people. And then we waste money on drug testing when it really is not a problem. Poverty is the problem. We need to eliminate it. Instead we come up with new and creative ways to shame people for being poor. Shame on us. We are better than this.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/4/2014)]
Top
+1
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1334) 6 years ago
Right on Richard!

It also gets my panties in a bunch that people will waste energy on this subject as if it has more merit than the billions of dollars Americans were fleeced out of by Wall Street et all. Why aren't more people debating that?

How about bills requiring a balanced budget, or drug testing for the people that control America's laws and finances, or Congressional accountability?

[This message has been edited by Steve Sullivan (12/4/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 6 years ago
What was it that Mr. Rock tweeted last night? Something about selling untaxed cigarettes will get you killed, but the people who fleece us from Wall street get bonuses?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2504) 6 years ago
So while we're distracted with fallacious stories of "huge fraudulent waste in the welfare system", we do not see the rampant waste in other government programs

Bringing facts into this conversation doesn't appear to work.
Perhaps switching to analogies might help me get the point across.
Top
+1
Posted by Oddjob (+191) 6 years ago
Bridgier, Esquire, says

"I believe that the concept that you're missing is 'undue burden'"

Please elaborate.

I really, really want to hear this.....
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1668) 6 years ago
There is a recurrent theme throughout this conversation, like many others I've heard and read before, that I just can't wrap my mind around.....

Why do any of you assume that those "fleecing the system" are also on drugs? These are two totally different categories. There are those using the system fraudulently. There are those recipients using drugs. They are not necessarily the same demographic. Is there some crossover? Sure. But stop acting like someone who "buys four bags of dog food for their three pit bulls" is automatically also on drugs. It's a ludicrous leap. So, instituting a drug testing policy is not going to stop the incidents you all are describing. Aside from the fact, as it has been pointed out repeatedly, that drug testing policies in other states have failed miserably.

If you feel someone is using the system fraudulently, REPORT it. Stop whining about it to anybody who will listen. If you refuse to become part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

And to be honest, I'd much rather be fleeced by the poor than by the CEO whose obscene annual bonus was used to buy his third vacation home, equipped with solid gold toilets, especially when he earned it at the expense of his employees or the public. I think Jesus would have been down with that. Or at least that's what the Bible tells me anyway.
Top
+1
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14936) 6 years ago
Absofukcingluty! Well said, Denise!

Top
Posted by Mandi (+361) 6 years ago
I think that educating food stamp recipients about proper nutritional choices would be helpful. Is there any teaching given regarding proper food choices? I see nothing wrong with food stamps, but perhaps their choices should be more limited such as the WIC program. This would possibly help with some of our child obesity issues, if sweets and pop, etc were not allowed ro be purchased with food stamps. By the way....i come in peace.... please do not attack lol!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11667) 6 years ago
Ah, but healthy food choices can be more expensive than unhealthy food choices and the poor are not allowed anything but the cheapest. Maybe just gruel three times a day. One bowl. No seconds.

Actually, the SNAP program does offer training but the problem is often time and availability of cooking equipment. If you are working weird shifts at part time jobs and have no stove or refrigerator, cooking is a problem. Plus we are creatures of habit and fast food, whether mac and cheese at home or through drive-thru, is a easy, especially after a hard day.

And if you think all poor people are just lying around eating peeled grapes, you are an idiot.
Top
-1
Posted by droped (+12) 6 years ago
If you are clean what do you have to worry about? Seems simple to me. Federal laws prohibit drugs, yet they pay for quite a few benefits, it's only fair....
Top
+1
-1
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6174) 6 years ago
Slippery slope.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3208) 6 years ago
They may not have to do drug testing...

http://dailyleak.org/2014...p-program/
Top
supporter
Posted by tom regan (+2415) 6 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9125) 6 years ago
Depleted uranium has nothing on the density of some of those commenter's skulls.
Top