Had an interesting debate with a friend on this matter. He thought that they shouldn't because it singles them out and is unfair and stigmatizes them. I believe that they should because we all know that there are SOME, not all that exploit the system. Also, I work and therefore taxes are taken from my paycheck to help these people, while I have no problem with my money going to people who really do need it. I believe that it is wrong that I have to pay for those who leech off the system.

So what do you think?

No, because next is testing for alcohol, then nicotine, then caffeine, then mandating their diet, etc. Then it morphs into anyone who receives any government assistance at all... ie Road Construction, Student Loans, etc.

Now abolishing direct government aid? I may be up for that on constitutional grounds, but on humanitarian grounds I would want to support those who CAN'T support themselves.

Yes, drop test them thoroughly and often.

I coached at the now-defunct Libbey High School in Toledo's hood. The government leeching that goes on in that neighborhood is appalling. There are plenty of nice, kind people, but it's also filling with people whose entire life plan is devoted towards getting government cash. For example, there were two girls walking down the hallway pregnant about a month or so ago and I turned to a friend in the administration and said "so what percentage of girls are pregnant here? I know Waite is in the area code which has the highest rate in the county." His response, "lots. that's the system. They get pregnant early and often, so they can begin to get a paycheck for nothing, and then they try to convince the government their baby is retarded for their check is bigger. It's their pay raise so to speak." Then to see parents complain about little shit because "Oh hell my aid doesn't kick in until the first of the month!" and stuff when you can just smell the liquor on their breath.

I think the neighborhoods need to be cleaned up, and drug testing their lethargic asses is a damn good start. Step number two would be to get a fucking job.

With the leftist bunch currently controlling DC, chances of drug testing welfare recipients or welfare reform in general have a snowball's chance in hell of being on the political agenda.

While the governments of the giant socialist experiment known as Europe are starting to make welfare and other "entitlement" cuts because they've finally figured out it's unsustainable (ya think?), Uncle Sam's socialist buffoons are heading the exact opposite direction in the midst of the "Great Recession."

Therefore, the point of this thread is moot.

If they are getting welfare and public house ...Hell .....Yes
If they are in Public House or recieveing additional housing allowance ...... every member living in that housing unit should be tested........

can we go one step further and prevent women on welfare from having additional babies to get bigger welfare paychecks? seriously, i worked in the philly hood with teenagers and most of them couldn't wait until they got knocked up so they could get a paycheck.

and absolutely drug test. i have to potentially take drug tests to work and get my paycheck, why not people who are on welfare?

^^ ^Let's chemically sterilize the men on public assistance and sew the vagina's shut on the women...And when they test positive for drugs, take away all of their welfare money and let their kids starve. With a system like this, we can be rid of them all in about 2 generations.

I think a better approach is to try and limit what they can spend their assistance money on. For instance, if a girl gets pregnant...the assistance she receives is supposed to be for raising the child. Hence, she could get a specific debit card that is limited to purchasing necessities for their children. Maybe even make it a law that managers of retailers are required to disallow certain purchases made with "Welfare Cards." To me, drug testing is just a waste of money. FWIW, there's no such thing as "welfare" anymore as the FEDS removed it in 1996 in exchange for 50 different state programs known as "temporary assistance for needy families." The number of recipients under this program has dropped every year since 1996. You can only receive it for two years. The only thing else they could get would be Supplemental Security Income if they demonstrate they're disabled.

FWIW...guaranteed access to public schooling is part of the U.S. welfare state...so is social security and medicare...why not drug test people who take part in those programs as well?

Women on public assistance are privy to free contraception already, same as men. So, that angle just simply wouldn't work.
Unless you want sterilization introduced into drinking water (um, who'd idea was that?) lol

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to drug testing, if they could determine exactly what drugs they want to test for. I mean, are there specific tests designed for meth, pot, oxy, coke, etc.? Can they differentiate between prescribed drugs that may or not be desperately needed?

Suppose you just got all your widom teeth cut out and you're on dentist prescribed pain relievers for a few days. Can the test tell you that you've only taken that drug for less than two days vs. if you've had a habit for years?

Same with alcohol. How is the test supposed to differentiate if somebody went to a wedding reception the night before and got wasted on the free bar vs. somebody who takes their welfare money and buys a 12pk and a bottle of Wild Irish Rose on a regular basis?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating people taking advantage of the system as I can't stand it myself. I'm just simply saying that it's not as cut and dry as our imaginations would like it to be.

If there was a way to determine those types of factors, I'd be all for it and would vote for it in a heartbeat. I don't think that people who take advantage of the system should be continuously rewarded for their irresponsibe behavior.
But, until the welfare systems are completely overhauled, which the need is great, I think we're kinda stuck with what we currently have.

If I have to be drug tested to work and be taxed so they can get it then YES they need to be drug tested

Hey! Idea lets have the women who have babies on welfare ...... get nothing until the father can be identified. No identification of father no check. Those presently on welfare needs to claim who the father is or the check will be cut in half.
Fathers of those children need not apply just start to pay up …can't pay …. Join the military, part of your unemployment is taken or get a job or just stop making babies....same goes for the women...

If there is a system that is reliable, has a low margin of error or cheating, can be cheaply and effectively administered, and clear guidelines for those who fail and how they can be put back on assistance (timelines etc), then I'll support it.

Easy yes from me.

A lot of us have to take drug tests for work, so why not? If I fail a drug test I can/will be fired and stop getting a paycheck, so why not?

CenterBHSFan;383972 wrote:Same with alcohol. How is the test supposed to differentiate if somebody went to a wedding reception the night before and got wasted on the free bar vs. somebody who takes their welfare money and buys a 12pk and a bottle of Wild Irish Rose on a regular basis?

Now I am for sterilization for people that would buy Wild Irish Rose...

Everyone is saying it's an "easy yes." If we're to demand consistency in our U.S. welfare state....shouldn't people who receive medicare, social security, unemployment insurance monies, access to guaranteed public education, also be drug tested?

No decries about an unjust expansion of government power from our Conservative friends?

BoatShoes;384078 wrote:Everyone is saying it's an "easy yes." If we're to demand consistency in our U.S. welfare state....shouldn't people who receive medicare, social security, unemployment insurance monies, access to guaranteed public education, also be drug tested?

No decries about an unjust expansion of government power from our Conservative friends?

I think every one should be tested (renew you driver license get tested, new driver get tested, apply for a home mortgage get tested ..... I even think Local, State and Federal Employees and Politicians should be tested every six months failure to pass the test ……….fired, rejected for license and mortgage…..simple and effective.

Belly35;384096 wrote:I think every one should be tested (renew you driver license get tested, new driver get tested, apply for a home mortgage get tested ..... I even think Local, State and Federal Employees and Politicians should be tested every six months failure to pass the test ……….fired, rejected for license and mortgage…..simple and effective.

and if you get a false positive?

Belly35;384096 wrote:I think every one should be tested (renew you driver license get tested, new driver get tested, apply for a home mortgage get tested ..... I even think Local, State and Federal Employees and Politicians should be tested every six months failure to pass the test ……….fired, rejected for license and mortgage…..simple and effective.

Wouldn't it just be easier to strap a camera and a microphone to your head? Then they can see and hear everything you do.

Why do I want even more costs to be introduced to a system I'm paying for?

ptown_trojans_1;384099 wrote:and if you get a false positive?

away a what if..... what if we lower welfare cost and prevented addition drug usage A few what if for a alot of positive possiblities.
If a false positive .... re test and explain why.......

Belly35;384096 wrote:I think every one should be tested (renew you driver license get tested, new driver get tested, apply for a home mortgage get tested ..... I even think Local, State and Federal Employees and Politicians should be tested every six months failure to pass the test ……….fired, rejected for license and mortgage…..simple and effective.

That's going to cost a lot of money.

believer;383924 wrote:With the leftist bunch currently controlling DC, chances of drug testing welfare recipients or welfare reform in general have a snowball's chance in hell of being on the political agenda.

this may be the dumbest thing I've ever read...so you're saying that government encroachment into peoples lives is more likely in a Republican controlled DC?

I agree with Boatshoes...limit the purchasing power of "their" money. If they want to act like children and have everything in life taken care of for them, then treat them like children.

They shouldn't have any access to the money. All bills should be paid electronically, and their food should be paid with a debit card that can only make certain purchases.

If they want "spending money", then go get a job.

jmog;384072 wrote:A lot of us have to take drug tests for work, so why not? If I fail a drug test I can/will be fired and stop getting a paycheck, so why not?

that is exactly what i was going to say. because when you think about it, i have to be drug free in order for the people on welfare to receive their checks