[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 13 September 2011 - 06:40 PM, said:

The savings from people who would be eliminated would more than cover the testing.

The savings would be minimal since most of the people on gov't assistance aren't committing fraud. Plus searching for fraud and policing the system would require hiring more state employees to actually find the people who are committing the fraud, prove they're committing fraud, and then preventing them from doing it again. All that is going to require money to do and let's not forget these new Republican governors are firing state employees to balance their budgets. You can't fire state employees because we need to balance the budget and then turn around and say we need somebody to catch people who are committing welfare fraud. Because those somebodies would be you guessed it, state employees.

Then it's going to cost money to administer and process the drug testing. That's also going to cost money. And since we're testing EVERYBODY on welfare that would include people who aren't using drugs so basically your wasting money there. Then of course we all know it's impossible to cheat a piss test . These drug test would be most likely piss tests since they are the cheapest tests that produce a fast result. The only way somebody can't cheat a piss test is if the person administrating the test actually watches the person take the test. And that's sort of perverted and IMO worse than an intrusive airport screening. We saw the outrage over the old woman who was forced to take off her diaper at the airport. Just imagine the outrage over an old woman like her being watched while see takes a piss test just so she can get some gov't assistance. So it's unlikely they'll watch people actually piss into the cup which enables those who want to cheat the drug test to do so. So you'll still have people who use drugs on welfare.

But most importantly as I already said, it infringes on a person's civil rights. The second a law like that was passed it would go directly to the courts and end up being ruled unconstitutional.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

The savings would be minimal

Not true.Just because you ramble on for paragraphs does not mean your right.

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

Then it's going to cost money to administer and process the drug testing. That's also going to cost money.

$68 dollars is the cost I pay to have someone tested. I am sure the government with more people being tested would get a better deal. Take it out of the check if we are concerned.

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

But most importantly as I already said, it infringes on a person's civil rights. The second a law like that was passed it would go directly to the courts and end up being ruled unconstitutional.

So all these companys drug testing are violating civil rights? I think your just pulling shit out of your ass now.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 13 September 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

So you meant employed people who cheat the system are the ones sitting at home on their asses eating bon bons? You weren't talking about unemployed people at all in that bon bons statement?

And here you again are talking about the unemployed.

Anyone who cheats or abuses the system. As in our last debate you keep trying to say things that I said when I did not to prove a point that you are wrong about. Let me clear it up for you. If you are unemployed.... Get a job. If you are underemployed get another job. Support yourself and stop taking tax money from schools Police Fire departments and the US citizen.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 13 September 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

So you meant employed people who cheat the system are the ones sitting at home on their asses eating bon bons? You weren't talking about unemployed people at all in that bon bons statement?

Sooooo if you are only working 20 hours a week yes. If you need more money, get of the couch and work for it. If you have to work for $7.25 than so be it. Earn your keep.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 14 September 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

Not true.Just because you ramble on for paragraphs does not mean your right.

Okay now you prove it would be inexpensive to administer drug tests to EVERY person on gov't assistance. You talk about the savings but first for there to be some savings you first have to prove people currently on gov't assistance are using drugs. You can't kick them off assistance until you drug test them first. Or do you still not understand that? You'd have to spend money to do the drug test first before you could collect any savings from eliminating the drug users. I doubt the drug testing would be a one time thing too. You'd probably have to drug test annually. I hope that paragraph wasn't too long for you since you know you're being forced to read this. I don't know why you're bitching about how much I write when you wanted me to contribute to this thread.

Quote

$68 dollars is the cost I pay to have someone tested. I am sure the government with more people being tested would get a better deal. Take it out of the check if we are concerned.

You're testing everybody to catch a few. The costs would add millions to state budgets that ARE GETTING CUT. Governors like Snyder aren't looking to create more spending, they're cutting spending. But like I said the people who want to cheat the test will do it. Cheating a piss test is not hard at all. So you're still going to have people who use drugs on welfare, it'll end up being a big waste of money. Oh I hope this paragraph didn't strain your eyes.

Quote

So all these companys drug testing are violating civil rights? I think your just pulling shit out of your ass now.

Companies that drug test their employees are privately owned that's why they can do it. A person has a choice not to take a job with a company that drug tests and work for one that doesn't drug test if they want. But we only have one federal government and that government must follow the constitution especially since gov't employees take an oath to support that constitution. But if you still want to think I'm just pulling shit out my ass then go read the 4th amendment.

[SecondHandJets]

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

That's not accurate. Drug testing is a condition of employment and should be a condition of public assistance. In order to receive public assistance, there are several conditions that have to be met by the applicant, and drug testing should, and will be one of them. Just like you said, a "condition" is a choice. You can take a drug test, or you can choose to not receive aid.

The most rigorous drug testing is employed by the government for their federal employees. It's not a matter of Constitutional Rights under the 4th Amendment since the employment process, just as the welfare application process, is con

That's not accurate. Drug testing is a condition of employment and should be a condition of public assistance. In order to receive public assistance, there are several conditions that have to be met by the applicant, and drug testing should, and will be one of them. Just like you said, a "condition" is a choice. You can take a drug test, or you can choose to not receive aid.

The most rigorous drug testing is employed by the government for their federal employees. It's not a matter of Constitutional Rights under the 4th Amendment since the employment process, just as the welfare application process, is consentual.

[Mr_Jet]

SecondHandJets, on 15 September 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

That's not accurate. Drug testing is a condition of employment and should be a condition of public assistance. In order to receive public assistance, there are several conditions that have to be met by the applicant, and drug testing should, and will be one of them. Just like you said, a "condition" is a choice. You can take a drug test, or you can choose to not receive aid.

The most rigorous drug testing is employed by the government for their federal employees. It's not a matter of Constitutional Rights under the 4th Amendment since the employment process, just as the welfare application process, is consentual.

SMH, this from the ACLU of Michigan's website.

Quote

ACLU Wins Drug Testing Lawsuit in Court of Appeals

Court Rules Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients is Unconstitutional

April 9, 2003 - Press Release

DETROIT – In a victory for privacy rights, the ACLU of Michigan announced today that a special 12-member panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has halted the State’s attempt to impose mandatory drug tests on all welfare recipients. Michigan is the only state in the country to require drug testing without reason to suspect drug use.

“It was a long time coming, but this ruling affirms that being poor is not a crime. Low-income parents should not be required to choose between providing for their children and relinquishing their privacy rights,” said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the Michigan ACLU and an attorney in the case.

The ruling affirms District Court Judge Victoria Roberts’ opinion that random drug testing violates welfare recipients' privacy rights.

“This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state’s limited resources,” said Graham Boyd, director of National ACLU Director of the Drug Policy Litigation Project, who argued the case before the en banc panel in Cincinnati.

The estimated cost of the Michigan program is $7 million. Currently, Arizona and Vermont are considering similar legislation. Other states that have some form of drug-testing for welfare recipients include Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon, but none of these states test without reasonable suspicion.

The ACLU filed the class-action lawsuit in September 1999 on behalf of all Michigan welfare recipients who would be denied income support and other benefits for other children if they refused to submit to random drug testing or failed to comply with a mandatory "substance abuse treatment plan." The law has not been enforced since 2000.

Selma Goode, the director of Westside Mothers, a plaintiff in the case, said of today’s decision, “We’re glad that justice prevailed. I work with welfare recipients every day and it’s simply unfair to assume that people in dire need use drugs.”

The ACLU argued that the State’s pilot program violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement that people not be subjected to "searches and seizures" without probable cause or suspicion that illegal activity has occurred. Federal District Court Judge Victoria Roberts agreed with the ACLU, but the State appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Roberts’ ruling was reversed by a 3-judge panel of the Court. When the Court decided to re-hear the case, the appeals court decision was vacated.

In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only 8% of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but 3 were for marijuana.

Also from the ACLU's website.

Quote

Random drug testing of welfare recipients is scientifically and medically unsound:

Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

• According to a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant.[2]
  
• Before the Michigan policy was halted, only 10% of recipients tested positive for illicit drugs. Only 3% tested positive for hard drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines[3] – rates that are in line with the drug use rates of the general population.[4]
  
• Seventy percent of all illicit drug users (and presumably a much higher percentage of alcohol users), ages 18-49, are employed full-time.[5]

Science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients.

• The Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) recommended against implementing random drug testing of welfare recipients. CAMH believes that there was little benefit to testing and that the stigma associated with testing impacted those on welfare negatively. They recommended that resources be allocated towards better training for government workers to detect signs of substance abuse and mental disorders, as well as to greater assistance and treatment to those who need help.[6]
  
• In addition, mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is opposed by the American Public Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, Inc., National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project, National Association on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability, Inc., National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Black Women’s Health Project, Legal Action Center, National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, and National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.[7]

Random drug testing of welfare recipients is fiscally irresponsible:

Drug testing is expensive.

• The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested,[8] not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.
  
• Another way to measure the cost is by counting what it costs to “catch” each drug user. Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%.[9]

Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.

• An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.[10]
  
• Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients, but the process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than less invasive, cheaper methods.[11]
  
• Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days.[12]
  
• Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.
  
• For example, New York and Maryland each considered a program to randomly drug test those receiving welfare, but abandoned the plan as not cost-effective, given that urinalysis is almost exclusively a barometer of marijuana use and that welfare recipients are required to undergo regular supervision, allowing for effective monitoring absent the cost and intrusion of mandatory drug testing.[13]
  
• Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law found more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire to be more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.[14]
  
• Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.[15]
  
• Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions:
  
• Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.[16]
  
• At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.[17]
  
• In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.
  
• Some states’ constitutions actually offer greater privacy protection to individuals than does the U.S. Constitution. It is very possible that random drug testing schemes for welfare recipients will run afoul of these state-specific protections as well.

But I'm just making all this up of course.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 10:32 PM, said:

Okay now you prove it would be inexpensive to administer drug tests to EVERY person on gov't assistance.

Ummm The $68 is the max cost. That is what I pay. I cant show a reciept if that is what you are after. I wouls assume it would be random. Probably 3 times a year and they would pay for it out of there check. Problem solved.

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 10:32 PM, said:

. I hope that paragraph wasn't too long for you since you know you're being forced to read this. I don't know why you're bitching about how much I write when you wanted me to contribute to this thread.

Congrats You are being more direct. No need to talk about a friends brothers aunts twice removed dick.

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 10:32 PM, said:

Companies that drug test their employees are privately owned that's why they can do it. A person has a choice not to take a job with a company that drug tests and work for one that doesn't drug test if they want. But we only have one federal government and that government must follow the constitution especially since gov't employees take an oath to support that constitution. But if you still want to think I'm just pulling shit out my ass then go read the 4th amendment.

My company is not privately owned. We are doing it. People do have a choice work or dont. You can interperate the 4th to make you think you are right if you want.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 15 September 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

Ummm The $68 is the max cost. That is what I pay. I cant show a reciept if that is what you are after. I wouls assume it would be random. Probably 3 times a year and they would pay for it out of there check. Problem solved.

Read my last post.

Quote

Congrats You are being more direct. No need to talk about a friends brothers aunts twice removed dick.

Hey if you don't like what I have to say then don't call me out.

Quote

My company is not privately owned. We are doing it. People do have a choice work or dont. You can interperate the 4th to make you think you are right if you want.

It doesn't matter how I interpret the 4th amendment. It matters how federal judges interpret the 4th amendment. And the ones that have had this very issue brought before them in court have ruled it to be unconstitutional. It's precedent. I'm sorry if you don't like it but there is nothing I can do about it.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 15 September 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

Read my last post.

I did. Again the fee can come out of the benifit if needed.

Mr_Jet, on 15 September 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hey if you don't like what I have to say then don't call me out.

You are the one who responded to the thread.

Mr_Jet, on 15 September 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

It doesn't matter how I interpret the 4th amendment. It matters how federal judges interpret the 4th amendment. And the ones that have had this very issue brought before them in court have ruled it to be unconstitutional. It's precedent. I'm sorry if you don't like it but there is nothing I can do about it.

Florida just passed this law. Welfare benifits will require drug testing. I am sure a liberal Judge will over turn it then it can go elsewhere and waste more money going from court to court.

[SecondHandJets]

I don't understand why it's such an uproar for people receiving government aid to be drug tested. What are the arguments against it? That it's inconvenient? So is having a job. I'd love to not have to work. What else? That the majority of people on welfare aren't on drugs? Great. That's how it ought to be. Just in case they decide to start doing drugs, here's an incentive to stay clean. The cost? Please. $100 every 4 months is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other things taxpayers are paying for. My favorite is that it's Unconstitutional. People who contribute nothing to society are going to turn into legal scholars when their rights are threatened. That's great. I wish some clever judge would go as far as to extrapolate that under the 8th Amendment, a person is not eligible to draw from public funds if he or she has not paid into them a predetermined amount.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 15 September 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

I did. Again the fee can come out of the benifit if needed.

And if the person passes the drug test does he or she get reimbursed (like the Florida law would)?

Quote

You are the one who responded to the thread.

No you called me out.

azjetfan, on 08 September 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

By the way I thought MR. Jet would be all over this. Where you at?

I'm here.

Quote

Florida just passed this law. Welfare benifits will require drug testing. I am sure a liberal Judge will over turn it then it can go elsewhere and waste more money going from court to court.

But but but I was making all that up, I was just pulling shit out of my ass remember? The Florida law will have the same fate as the Michigan law did. Whether you like it or not the gov't can not invade a person's privacy without having a reasonable cause to do so. What reasonable cause does any welfare recipient have to require them to get drug tested? What have they done to make themselves suspect of using drugs? Being poor? Only poor people use drugs? I mean if this weren't unconstitutional we could start drug testing anybody we want for anything. Let's make a law requiring kindergarteners to get drug tested before they can attend a public school. They're using a gov't service funded with tax payer money. Let's drug test people who call the fire department before the firefighters go out to help that person. Let's start drug testing people who use public transportation. I don't want my tax dollars going to the kindergarteners that are high on meth. I don't want my tax dollars going to put out a fire for somebody who snorts cocaine. I don't want my tax dollars to benefit some pot head that rides a public bus. Let's start drug testing people who use public roads and bridges. I'm not going to be happy until every man, woman, and child in America has pissed in a cup.

[SecondHandJets]

Mr_Jet, on 16 September 2011 - 12:24 AM, said:

Whether you like it our not you can not invade a person's privacy without having a reasonable cause to do so. What reasonable cause does any welfare recipient have to require them to get drug tested? What have they done to make themselves suspect of using drugs? Being poor? Only poor people use drugs? I mean if this weren't unconstitutional we could start drug testing anybody we want for anything. Let's make a law requiring kindergarteners to get drug tested before they can attend a public school. They're using a gov't service funded with tax payer money. Let's drug test people who call the fire department before the firefighters go out to help that person. Let's start drug testing people who use public transportation. I don't want my tax dollars going to the kindergarteners that are high on meth. I don't want my tax dollars going to put out a fire for somebody who snorts cocaine. I don't want my tax dollars to benefit some pot head that rides a public bus. Let's start drug testing people who use public roads and bridges. I'm not going to be happy until every man, woman, and child in America has pissed in a cup.

See I was with you until this bullshit. Education, fire dept. etc are all public goods the provision of which is needed and is beneficial to society. Prolonged support of poor people is not. Whether you like it or not, poor people aren't equivalent to other societies problems like education and emergency services. You're comparing apples to screw drivers. As far as the "personal privacy", that' understandable. If you don't want to piss in a cup, that's your choice. You shouldn't be subject to it... you just shouldn't get a check every month from Uncle Sam. Just like if your job decides to start drug testing, you can opt out and have your privacy uninterrupted... just don't show up to work on Monday.

Why is this a big deal?

[Mr_Jet]

SecondHandJets, on 16 September 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

See I was with you until this bullshit. Education, fire dept. etc are all public goods the provision of which is needed and is beneficial to society. Prolonged support of poor people is not. Whether you like it or not, poor people aren't equivalent to other societies problems like education and emergency services. You're comparing apples to screw drivers. As far as the "personal privacy", that' understandable. If you don't want to piss in a cup, that's your choice. You shouldn't be subject to it... you just shouldn't get a check every month from Uncle Sam. Just like if your job decides to start drug testing, you can opt out and have your privacy uninterrupted... just don't show up to work on Monday.

Why is this a big deal?

We're talking about tax dollars going to a public program that is beneficial to society. I can argue that welfare benefits society. As you talked about earlier in this thread, if you take away the little bit these poor people do get in income, it will lead to chaos. I believe it is in my best interest that poor people have some income because it will likely keep them from breaking into my house and stealing my shit. And if we are not going to get serious about fixing the jobs problem in this country (#1 being our trade deficit) then we will have as Santana mentioned a permanent underclass in this country where people who were born into poverty will remain impoverished. And if it was just about limiting the amount of time a person can receive welfare I'd be fine with that. I don't mind this 48 month law. But I also know what else is on the agenda for Snyder and really almost every Republican in office. They want things like cutting funding for sex education in public schools to appease faux-Christian conservative voters. Something that is especially needed in poor communities. They do things like cutting funding to school districts to the point that teachers (who already get shitty salaries) are paying for school supplies or parents who are already cash strapped themselves. They want to privatize state prisons which leads to prisons that make the general public less safe and doesn't really save the state money. They want to limit people's ability to vote with their voter ID laws that would allow a gun owner ID but not a student ID. But yet they oppose a national photo ID card.

But SecondHand I would think you'd be smart enough to know that piss tests are one of the easiest tests to cheat. I know plenty of people who smoke weed on a regular basis and have jobs that drug test their employees. That's another reason why it shouldn't be done. We're going to have almost as many people on welfare that use drugs after a law like that goes into effect as we do now. Because they're going to cheat the test. It will be a waste of money and time and won't change anything. Anybody who uses drugs and fails a piss test (especially when they know it's a requirement) is an idiot. That's why we say when NFL players get caught they're stupid for getting caught.

But most importantly is what cause does the gov't have to drug test people who apply for gov't assistance? What makes them so suspect to point that the gov't should be allowed to invade their privacy? Being poor and applying for gov't assistance does not mean a person also gives up their right to privacy. That's what makes it against the 4th amendment. The gov't would have to have a reason to suspect that a person is using drugs and they can't get that from just a having a person apply for gov't assistance. What has also been overlooked in this discussion is what about alcohol abuse? How is the gov't going to drug test for that? IMO alcohol is abused a lot more than hard drugs are in this country. Alcohol abuse can destroy families and communities, alcohol abuse can kill people. So what's to stop alcoholics from getting welfare?

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 15 September 2011 - 11:24 PM, said:

And if the person passes the drug test does he or she get reimbursed (like the Florida law would)?

No. Its part of the claim process.

Mr_Jet, on 15 September 2011 - 11:24 PM, said:

No you called me out.

OK your right. I do enjoy the points of view and bickering.

Mr_Jet, on 15 September 2011 - 11:24 PM, said:

The Florida law will have the same fate as the Michigan law did.

You are probably right. Just sucks for the other 90% of us.

[FlyHiJets]

Mr_Jet, on 13 September 2011 - 12:31 AM, said:

So if you're a father with a wife and school aged children who was laid off and has been out of work for over a year, he needs to take his family and move in with roommates? You're looking at it as if the only unemployed people are single people in their 20s with no responsibilities beyond their own needs. I really doubt a married man in his 40s or 50s is going to move him and his family in with some roommates, that might've worked on Full House but I don't see that idea working well in the real world.



Their is so much bullshit in that paragraph I just got to focus on one part of it and move on. So crime would only go up temporarily, why just temporarily? I mean no jobs and no gov't assistance for a long period of time...I don't see crime going up just temporarily. I see it going up permanently until it stays at a certain rate and then it expands to neighboring areas. But I'll say it once again most of the people committing welfare fraud have jobs. Again most of the people committing welfare fraud have jobs. Once more most of the people committing welfare fraud have jobs. And if you still didn't hear me most of the people committing welfare fraud have jobs.

Yes. If you need to, you move your entire family in with more people in order to support yourselves rather than continue to be a bum living off of everyone else in the country. f*** your self respect. Get out of my wallet. I have news for you.....I've been unemployed in the past with a wife & 2 kids at the time (I'm now on my second marriage). I didn't go on any form of public assistance. I got a job as a security guard making 6.50 an hour & worked my ass off 75 hours a week to support my family.


Where'e the bullshit in the paragraph? PLEASE tell me where. Oh....my bad. SCUMBAG Tony Mack didn't lay off 111 cops. He only laid off 108 because he got shot down for laying off 3 that are currently in active duty overseas. Unless you live in Trenton like I do, please don't try to call bullshit on anything happening here.

[FlyHiJets]

Mr_Jet, on 13 September 2011 - 01:45 AM, said:

And that's where I stop you. Ummm Federal Pell Grants is government assistance. So basically it's welfare. The government giving tax payer money to an individual for their personal use. That's why I said "Heck how are you going to even pay for those classes just on the income you get from those two jobs since you're not taking any gov't assistance?" Pell grants = gov't assistance (welfare). But no worries since the Republicans in congress have cut funding for Pell grants too. BTW Claiborne Pell and Robert Stafford were liberals.

I'd rather the money be spent on an education than them getting free rides their entire lives on welfare.

Quote

Alright we can do that. But ummm who's going to pay for this birth control. You know since we can't have a national health care system like Canada's because it's evil socialism. So who's going to pay for the birth control since the people you want on birth control likely don't have health insurance (because I'm sure if you don't want them to have cash assistance you don't want them to have Medicaid either)? Guess that means the tax payers are going to have to pay for this mandated birth control. What if a woman forgets/or chooses not to use the birth control and gets pregnant? Are we then going to force her to get an abortion? Hey there have been times when I thought the same way you do on this and I'm sure there will be moments when I feel the way you do again in the future. But then I always remember we kind of have that pesky thing called the United States Constitution that kind of frowns on making laws like that. A law like that kind of infringes on a person's civil rights and makes us look a lot like China where the gov't tells it's citizens how many children they're allowed to have. I know you don't want the U.S. acting like communist China, do you?

Do you really think it's cheaper to raise numerous kids on welfare than it is to put these people on birth control? I think not.

Quote

Again who's going to pay for this mandated drug testing considering we can't raise taxes on the rich and state and the federal governments are so worried about debt now to the point that they're already slashing the budget with a butcher knife? See this is what I find funny about middle class conservatives. They do so much to protect the rich (who could care less about the middle class) and bitch and moan about taxes, then turn around and say things like the gov't needs to mandate birth control and drug testing on certain people and oh yeah the gov't is incompetent and spends too much money. So basically the incompetent gov't needs to do all these new things I want but it can't generate any revenue to pay for these things and it has to cut it's budget, all at the same time. Yeah all that's a piece of cake.

And too many people on welfare are driving around in Cadillacs and BMWs? What neighborhood is this happening in? Got any pictures or video to back up that claim? Do you have the names of the many people who are doing this? Because I'll report them myself.

I say it should be part of an application cost to the recipient. It should come out of every month's check regardless if they're tested that month or not. The amount of people getting knocked off of the welfare rolls would be more than enough to cover the cost of the tests.

As for the Cadillacs, BMW's, Lexus, etc., go to Woolverton St in Trenton on any given day other than Saturday or Sunday of course.

[azjetfan]

Mr Jets has a very socilist view, probably as strong if not stronger than Obama. He is a man and has a right to an opinion and I can respect that. I just strongly disagree. Socialism has one major flaw. Someone has to pay for it all. At the end of the day money dictates everything. Like it or not it is and always will be true

[Mr_Jet]

FlyHiJets, on 30 September 2011 - 07:40 PM, said:

Yes. If you need to, you move your entire family in with more people in order to support yourselves rather than continue to be a bum living off of everyone else in the country. f*** your self respect. Get out of my wallet. I have news for you.....I've been unemployed in the past with a wife & 2 kids at the time (I'm now on my second marriage). I didn't go on any form of public assistance. I got a job as a security guard making 6.50 an hour & worked my ass off 75 hours a week to support my family.

So it was less like Full House and more like The Waltons. Now what if a person wants to do what you suggest but their family member says "no I don't have enough room for you and your family?" What if that person has no family? What if they're estranged from their family. See I'll let you in on a little secret, there are people with jobs who are homeless. If it were all as simple as just moving in with Aunt Martha for a while, we wouldn't have homelessness. I'll tell you this I have family members I love dearly, but I would not want them living with me.

Quote

Where'e the bullshit in the paragraph? PLEASE tell me where. Oh....my bad. SCUMBAG Tony Mack didn't lay off 111 cops. He only laid off 108 because he got shot down for laying off 3 that are currently in active duty overseas. Unless you live in Trenton like I do, please don't try to call bullshit on anything happening here.

Prove it. Prove that there are people anywhere that are using welfare money to buy BMWs. If you give me evidence (names, receipts, check stubs, car titles, anything), I'll call the New Jersey DHS myself and report them and give them all the evidence you gave me. But then again since you know for a fact that people on welfare are buying expensive luxury cars, why don't you report them? If this upsets you so much and you know they're using your tax dollars to buy these luxury cars, report them.

[Mr_Jet]

FlyHiJets, on 30 September 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

I'd rather the money be spent on an education than them getting free rides their entire lives on welfare.

He was talking about a person should work two jobs and not take government assistance. Then you chimed in and said if a person can't pay for school they should get a Pell grant or Stafford loan. Then I reminded you that those things are gov't assistance programs (in other words welfare). Now you're saying you'd rather the money be spent on something you believe is good (education) rather than on something you believe is bad (welfare). I don't think my tax dollars should be spent to fund corporate welfare. But sadly I don't get to decide what my tax dollars are spent on since I can't afford a lobbyist to "influence" my congressman and senators to legislate in my favor, or give thousands of dollars to their re-election campaigns. I don't know maybe if I got a second job I could afford that lobbyist I need. Next time I go to McDonald's I'll have to get an application.

I'm sorry but I really did LOL when you said people who can't afford college should get a Pell grant or Stafford loan. Considering the two senators those programs are named after (Claiborne Pell and Robert Stafford) were liberals or as some people would now call them socialists.

Quote

Do you really think it's cheaper to raise numerous kids on welfare than it is to put these people on birth control? I think not.

Like I said this ain't China and the U.S. government can not tell people how many children it's citizens are allowed to have. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's the price you pay to live in a country that was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. That knife cuts both ways. Maybe if the Republicans in congress would stop trying to destroy things like Planned Parenthood, we could continue to try to prevent children from being born to parents who are unable to take care of them.

Quote

I say it should be part of an application cost to the recipient. It should come out of every month's check regardless if they're tested that month or not. The amount of people getting knocked off of the welfare rolls would be more than enough to cover the cost of the tests.

As for the Cadillacs, BMW's, Lexus, etc., go to Woolverton St in Trenton on any given day other than Saturday or Sunday of course.

Please read post number 47 in this thread.