Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't?… Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states.The chain-mail aspects of it aside, it's irritating to read because it's wrong.
I don't mean morally or ethically wrong, but factually wrong. Incorrect. Not accurate.
Snopes.com does an excellent job of laying it out; for example, Kentucky has merely introduced a bill, not passed it.
The re-post the goes on to cry out how it's OK to test people who work, but not people who apply for financial assistance.
Of course, that's a false equivalency; when you are employed, you also receive things like a 401(k), a much greater salary, and other considerations. Most employers only require a pre-employment screen, not ongoing. And of course, not everyone even requires a test. In fact, in my 16 years of employment I've only been required to have a drug screen once — for a job at a newspaper. Even when I was a teacher, no one required it.
My biggest question, though, for all of those eager to jump aboard the drug test bandwagon, is "Who will pay for the drug tests?" Usually the conversation goes silent, but the one answer I've heard that was the most cogent was "Take it out of their first check." That's still taxpayer-funded. Multiply the cost of a drug screen times the number of people who require assistance. Not a pretty number.
Finally, the most annoying thing about Facebook is the propensity of people to simply re-post something without even checking the facts. It used to be that I would get an e-mail from a co-worker about how Sally is dying of cancer, and her wish was for this e-mail to go around the world, and if I break the chain, I'll go to hell (or something similar). These days, it's "click like if you agree!" or "Re-post this if you have a heart."
If I wanted this kind of annoyance, I'd put my phone number up for telemarketers to have a field day with me. Folks, I'll post what I want without being pushed to do so. And you can bet your ass that I'll check it out first.
----------
UPDATE: See the following post that goes into this further after some interesting comments.
----------
FURTHER UDPATE: Even more here.
8 comments:
First off, I don't believe this would be any additional cost to tax payers. If anything it will reduce costs because it will catch these drug addicts that don't deserve help from the government if they are spending money on drugs. That way less people will be collecting money. Also what is your issue with this? are you a drug addict?
Of course when you are employed you get a 401k, a better salary and "other considerations"
One difference you forgot to mention is that the employed actually WORK!
It is people like you that drain on our society and why our country is broke
Thanks for posting. I'd like to answer your questions.
(1) Drug tests cost money. They're not free; nothing is free. So when you say there will be no additional cost, are you saying there is no cost at all? The only other option would be that the recipients would pay, but remember — they have no money, so that's additional money being pulled from the government. Your whole argument, by the way, hinges on the theory that welfare recipients are probably drug users. Please see my second post on this topic.
(2) Yes, employment brings better things. We agree on this basic fact.
(3) You said "the employed actually work." That is a truism, but it's also misleading. Public assistance can take many forms, such as food stamps, rent subsidies and so forth. You could have a job and still be in the poverty range, and therefore, eligible. I'm guessing you don't work part-time at a minimum wage job.
(4) I don't think I'm a drain on our society, since I contribute to it regularly, via income taxes, sales taxes and so forth. I also don't think I'm the reason our country is "broke," as I didn't authorize two unfunded wars. I'm not in government.
brin you are still wrong...of course not all welfare recipients are drug users however, SOME are. I didnt say most, just SOME. There are many frontline drug testing "strips" that are inexpensive and designed especially for large companies that drug test on a regular basis. I firmly believe that the amount of "users" that will be denied will greatly outweigh the cost of the tests themselves. And even if it does not, those that "use" do not deserve assistance anyway. They are recieving money from the government to break the laws the government set forth. Am I correct? Of course I am. And who knows, MAYBE it just might help that 1 user from using again. One life saved is cause enough.
Of course some welfare recipients are drug users. Some drivers are intoxicated. Does that mean that everyone must undergo a sobriety check every time they get in a car? Maybe a breath-ignition lock in every steering column? It would definitely save lives.
I don't think anyone wants to fund anyone's drug habit. The area of disagreement is the necessity for it. It's using an ax where a scalpel would do.
I'm also reminded that a basic American principle is that people are innocent until proven guilty. This tack basically assumes every is tentatively guilty, and they must prove their innocence. That's probably what bothers me at the most basic level.
One last question: A drug screen has prevented someone from signing up for any kind of assistance, even for their innocent children. What do we do now to help that person end their drug use? After all, if one life saved is cause enough...
Your responset is weak and misleading Brian and your original statements are as well. Quit being so naive and manipulative. People just want to do the right thing for their country and simply on principle. Everyone is sick and tired of giving ppl hand outs plain and simple. This issue isn't coming up out of the blue for no reason. its obvious that the welfare system is extremely abused in many more ways than the drug issue, so this won't be the only piece of legislation to effect the recipients. Hope you are ready for it because the changes are coming....
Hi Bobby,
I guess my "responset" could be considered weak by some, but what of anything I said is misleading? If there's something that is factually untrue, then I want to definitely know so I can correct it.
You make a lot of blanket statements and generalizations — do you realize that? You tell me that "people want to do the right thing for their country" — really? Like those who cheat on their taxes, or those that shoot up schools? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, although I believe that generalizations like that are misleading.
You say that "everyone" (generalization again) "is sick and tired of giving [people] handouts..." Again, really? Have you checked the popularity figures on Social Security and Medicare recently? Please do that and let me know.
You said "it's obvious that the welfare system is extremely abused..." Again, really? You just made a pretty strong statement, but you haven't back it up. No offense, but this isn't a tea party rally where you can just make shit up and say it, and therefore it's true. If you want to discuss this, then let's discuss it. But I expect you to be fact-based. SHOW ME where there is "extreme abuse."
Enjoy your coffee and doughnuts, and get back to me when you have something to back you up.
Otherwise, thanks, and have a good week.
Oh Brother .... manipulative and inaccurate are just the beginning. PS: most people who receive SS, actually worked to PAY INTO it. Get off the computer and go find a job b/c the rest of us ARE tired of paying for public assistance and I don't need a poll run by a group of people with nothing better to do than run polls to tell me that.
Hi, "Unknown." :-)
Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that you're wrong.
Social Security is not designed for people to pay into it and later receive benefits; that's called a "savings account" or a 401(k). Social Security payments that are being received now and funded by payments into the system by workers right now, like me.
If there was a savings account system, then there would be no talk of insolvency, right? "Your money" would be there for "you."
Understand that Social Security is a program in which workers and employers pay in, and different eligible recipients receive benefits. There is no tie between "working to pay into it" and receiving benefits, except for eligibility.
I think your real concern, though, is that you feel like your money is going to help other people, correct?
I have a question for you: Currently, someone without insurance (a party-time worker, for example) comes into an emergency room with all the signs of a heart attack. What should the hospital do?
Speaking of getting jobs, if you don't want to pay for Social Security, then you don't have to. Get a job like a teacher or a county employee; most of those don't participate in Social Security and instead get public employee retirement plans.
I've been on both sides of this fence, and I'm happy to talk to you all day long about it. :-)
Post a Comment