NYJetsFan.com Forums: Mich. Governor Signs 48-Month Welfare Limit - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

New York Jets owner, Woody Johnson, named US ambassador to the UK
santana Icon : (02 January 2017 - 02:19 PM) but he would be ideal if the jets were to flush bowles out
santana Icon : (02 January 2017 - 04:36 PM) http://www.nj.com/je...trol_of_je.html
azjetfan Icon : (05 January 2017 - 09:54 PM) Sean Payton will get another HC gig. Obrien would be good.
azjetfan Icon : (09 January 2017 - 11:18 PM) Howard from Alabama seems legit. #88 TE
azjetfan Icon : (09 January 2017 - 11:20 PM) Williams the WR from Clemson looks like they are out to get him. He has taken some huge hits
vjdbbq Icon : (10 January 2017 - 07:12 AM) We'll take Williams in the first round .
Chadforpresi... Icon : (10 January 2017 - 10:48 AM) I'd love Howard in the 2nd round if he's still there. I like Williams a lot as well, but I just don't see WR being big enough of a need, and there should be better talent on the board at 6
Jetsfan115 Icon : (10 January 2017 - 07:21 PM) Raiders OC Musgrave not expected to return to OAK. what do you think about getting him? he did wonders with the oakland offense this year
Chadforpresi... Icon : (10 January 2017 - 07:39 PM) Definitely an appealing choice given with his history of progressing Carr. We need someone with a track record of grooming young QBs
MikeGangGree... Icon : (12 January 2017 - 12:36 PM) I want Watson now! after what he did Monday night I'm sold on him at QB. He moved the ball all night on Alabama and after hurts scored that TD he just told his team "Lets end this"
Jetsfan115 Icon : (12 January 2017 - 06:31 PM) An Ohio prosecutor says he wants to know what punishment Cincinnati Bengals player Adam "Pacman" Jones faces from the NFL before deciding how to proceed over Jones' latest arrest, Dan Sewell of the Associated Press reports..

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters tells WKRC-TV he's asking "what is the normal" for a player with multiple offenses and who's been suspended before.

An NFL spokesman said on Thursday that Jones' case is "under review" and declined to comment further.

Jones was jailed Jan. 3 on charges he head-butted police and spit on a nurse after his arrest for assault. Authorities say he was so combative he had to be placed in a restraint chair.

Jones says he anticipates the charges will be dismissed.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (12 January 2017 - 06:32 PM) we wont get watson. he's going 1st overall to the browns
azjetfan Icon : (12 January 2017 - 09:06 PM) Is Watson a product of Clemson's staff and supporting cast? Taj Boyd also put up some decent numbers if I remember correctly but he couldn't even make a scout team in the NFL.
azjetfan Icon : (12 January 2017 - 09:11 PM) From what I have read (although limited) he is not the highest ranked QB in the draft.
azjetfan Icon : (12 January 2017 - 09:11 PM) "No quarterback in this draft -- not Mitch Trubisky, not Watson, not DeShone Kizer -- is considered a sure thing. The folks at Scouts Inc. rank Trubisky, Watson and Kizer as the 21st, 38th and 46th prospects on their big board, respectively." ESPN
azjetfan Icon : (12 January 2017 - 09:12 PM) If we can get a decent return for Richardson we may be able to make a move into the mid teens to early 20s if the Brass really likes Watson.
azjetfan Icon : (12 January 2017 - 09:13 PM) Personally I don't think the jets have a clue on who they will take. We still have to hit FA and manage our roster
azjetfan Icon : (12 January 2017 - 11:46 PM) Jets to interview Broncos assistant Studesville for OC
Jetsfan115 Icon : (13 January 2017 - 01:28 PM) Why? seems like a weird choice
Jetsfan115 Icon : (13 January 2017 - 01:29 PM) Leonard Williams replacing Khalil Mack in Pro Bowl
Chadforpresi... Icon : (13 January 2017 - 09:49 PM) I'm not buying Watson, even after that championship game. Dude threw too many picks in his day
Chadforpresi... Icon : (13 January 2017 - 09:49 PM) I'm really curious to see what we get for Richardson, but I have a bad feeling his value is at an all time low between his crap season and bad attitude
azjetfan Icon : (14 January 2017 - 12:16 AM) I agree. He is a first round talent but a fourth round headache. We will be lucky to get a 2nd
Chadforpresi... Icon : (14 January 2017 - 08:41 AM) Yeah precisely. 2nd rounder would be a huge stretch. 3rd or 4th is more likely
vjdbbq Icon : (14 January 2017 - 02:18 PM) Send Sheldon someplace he will never see the playoffs ; like Jacksonville ; then he will have time to find da ho's .
azjetfan Icon : (14 January 2017 - 07:25 PM) R Sherman is getting torched by the Falcons.
vjdbbq Icon : (16 January 2017 - 09:37 AM) Pats vs Pitt - root for injuries
Jetsfan115 Icon : (16 January 2017 - 12:36 PM) GB-ATL game is gonna be a hell of a shootout. that throw rodgers made on 3rd and 20 with 12 seconds left in a tied game was ridiculous. 35 yards rolling out to his left a perfect placed ball on the sideline.
azjetfan Icon : (16 January 2017 - 10:50 PM) Winters resigned to 4 year deal. $7 million per year
Chadforpresi... Icon : (16 January 2017 - 10:51 PM) Seems like a slightly steep price but overall cool with it, he's turned into a good player and is still young. Just needs to stay healthy.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (17 January 2017 - 04:12 PM) seems like a good deal. they were saying he could have earned over 8 million in the open market
vjdbbq Icon : (18 January 2017 - 08:12 AM) Where's Rob ?
vjdbbq Icon : (18 January 2017 - 08:12 AM) Is he looking for a new ass ?
vjdbbq Icon : (18 January 2017 - 08:12 AM) :saythat:
vjdbbq Icon : (18 January 2017 - 08:13 AM) :trink39:
Jetsfan115 Icon : (18 January 2017 - 01:32 PM) 4 years 29 mil 15 mil guarenteed. so 7.25mil a year for winters. a nice bargain. he took a hometown discount. seems like a good guy. well done winters and mac
Jetsfan115 Icon : (18 January 2017 - 04:33 PM) Jets hire Dennard Wilson as defensive backs coach
Jetsfan115 Icon : (19 January 2017 - 04:01 PM) Trump to name Jets' owner Woody Johnson U.K. ambassador
vjdbbq Icon : (19 January 2017 - 06:04 PM) Maybe Woody will take the Jets with him to London . PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Jetsfan115 Icon : (20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM) Mark Gastineau says he has dementia, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease
vjdbbq Icon : (Yesterday, 07:54 AM) f***ing Pats again
vjdbbq Icon : (Yesterday, 07:54 AM) :sterb003: Tom Brady
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 03:00 PM) If the pats manage to win again I hope they cow tip goodell right at the podium
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 06:00 PM) in 2 weeks i'm gonna be the biggest falcons fan for a day LMAO
vjdbbq Icon : (Today, 08:13 AM) :sterb003: Bill Belicheat
Resize Shouts Area

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Mich. Governor Signs 48-Month Welfare Limit http://news.yahoo.com/mich-governor-signs-48-month-welfare-limit-23191

#61 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,203
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 03 October 2011 - 09:34 PM

View PostMr_Jet, on 03 October 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

Please read post number 47 in this thread.


In my opinion testing them is not about them being more likely to use but to insure they are not using while on our dime. I am not saying drugs are good but some people function and support themselves using while others cannot. As far as the finances section of the thread they are saying we would pay. I believe it should be the responsibility of the recipient.
Posted Image
0

#62 User is offline   Mr_Jet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,335
  • Joined: 31-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • NFL Team:

Posted 03 October 2011 - 11:38 PM

View Postazjetfan, on 03 October 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

In my opinion testing them is not about them being more likely to use but to insure they are not using while on our dime. I am not saying drugs are good but some people function and support themselves using while others cannot. As far as the finances section of the thread they are saying we would pay. I believe it should be the responsibility of the recipient.


I think what continues to be over looked by the supporters of drug testing is what I've brought up in this thread already and has been ignored. You guys are so focused on drug testing them to catch them using marijuana, crack, meth, heroin, etc. But again I ask (as I'm watching this documentary on Prohibition on PBS right now) what about alcohol use? What are you going to do about the people who are on welfare and are also alcoholics. IMO alcohol is just as bad as hard drugs are and I'd bet more often abused than hard drugs are. How are you going to test for that? How are you going to stop alcoholic welfare recipients from getting drunk off our dime? Plus we haven't even mentioned prescription drug abuse either. But like I said alcohol can destroy families and communities too. Look like I said I don't totally disagree with the idea. But I just see it as a big waste of money (because even if it's taken out of their welfare check it's still tax payer money) and it is un-American (we can't ignore the U.S. Constitution).


Also at what point do we stop attacking the poor just because they are easy targets and start focusing on the billion dollar corporations who are getting corporate welfare thanks to our dimes. Or are they still untouchable just because they are rich and powerful? While your guys are going around chasing poor people with little plastic cups, I hope these protest on Wall Street continue. It's about time we start focusing on the real problem, not that people at the bottom are stealing our tax dollars it's that the people at the top are stealing our tax dollars. Let's do something about that.

View PostFlyHiJets, on 01 June 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

You're the scumbag that thinks everyone should kiss the as$es of a bunch of criminals but I'm a dumbass. Yeah okay douchebag. Go give some illegal wetback or Revis another blowjob. But then again.....don't you live in an entirely different country but yet think you can tell us how to live? Go fvck yourself little boy. You're likely still living with mommy & daddy. Pu$$y.


View Postazjetfan, on 02 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

There are a few things I have realized about Mr. Jet over a few topics.

1) He is a racist. By constantly using race as a battling tool.
2) He is an extreme Liberal. If you are on either extreme you are probabaly more wrong than right.
3) He is one of those people who will never admit fault, error or defeat.
4)His life sucks and he takes it out on people who don't share in his views.
0

#63 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,203
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:19 PM

View PostMr_Jet, on 03 October 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

I think what continues to be over looked by the supporters of drug testing is what I've brought up in this thread already and has been ignored. You guys are so focused on drug testing them to catch them using marijuana, crack, meth, heroin, etc. But again I ask (as I'm watching this documentary on Prohibition on PBS right now) what about alcohol use? What are you going to do about the people who are on welfare and are also alcoholics. IMO alcohol is just as bad as hard drugs are and I'd bet more often abused than hard drugs are. How are you going to test for that? How are you going to stop alcoholic welfare recipients from getting drunk off our dime? Plus we haven't even mentioned prescription drug abuse either. But like I said alcohol can destroy families and communities too. Look like I said I don't totally disagree with the idea. But I just see it as a big waste of money (because even if it's taken out of their welfare check it's still tax payer money) and it is un-American (we can't ignore the U.S. Constitution).


Also at what point do we stop attacking the poor just because they are easy targets and start focusing on the billion dollar corporations who are getting corporate welfare thanks to our dimes. Or are they still untouchable just because they are rich and powerful? While your guys are going around chasing poor people with little plastic cups, I hope these protest on Wall Street continue. It's about time we start focusing on the real problem, not that people at the bottom are stealing our tax dollars it's that the people at the top are stealing our tax dollars. Let's do something about that.


Alchohol is a legal drug. Might be going to far there. I would not fight it but.... Tax payer money is paid either way. Would rather be sure money is going to the right people and not users. The country was founded on getting away from over taxation. We have already gone the wrong direction. Net taxes will be going up again next year. I heard that Obama wanted to take away the ability for people to write off there Home Equity loans. I dont know if thats true but it would hurt most home owners. Heard anything Mr. Jet? I am not "attacking" the poor because they are poor. It is because they are stealing my money. What "top people are you referring to?
Posted Image
0

#64 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,665
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:26 PM

View PostMr_Jet, on 03 October 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

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.


I agree and I too have family I wouldnt want living with me, but why should these people be my problem or yours to support? We have our own families to support. I feel bad that they'd be homeless but if four years of assistance isn't enough to help them find employment & housing, then they should move somewhere else to a location where they can find housing and a job. As for how they can do that, use the shoe leather express for all I care. If they have the energy to screw & have kids, they have the energy to walk their asses somewhere else.


Quote

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.


I have reported them and have assisted in prosecuting some of them. I have no problem with calling somebody out on fraud when it's my tax dollars going to allow them to get a free ride. People have told me to mind my own business. My answre is that as long as it's money coming out of my paycheck, it is my business. They generally don't like that and I've received empty threats, etc but life's a bitch. They need to stop being bums.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

#65 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,665
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:31 PM

View PostMr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

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.


It's also a person's choice to apply for welfare. They can be given the choice of taking the drug test for benefits, or not receive the benefits. That is still a choice no matter what. This is really no different than applying for a job that requires drug testing. It's obviously NOT unconstitutional or else it would have been rescinded in Florida & Kentucky where this practice is already in place. Of course the pussy ACLU is suing to challenge the laws but they should lose handily.

As for the cost of the tests....not as expensive as you think (at least not in Florida)......

"The law requires recipients to foot the bill for the drug test, which costs $30 to $35 per test. Those who test negative are reimbursed with their first payment."
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

#66 User is offline   santana Icon

  • I'm batman
  • Icon
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 8,004
  • Joined: 03-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Keeping this place from breaking... and titties.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 18 April 2012 - 08:15 PM

Quote

Last year Florida became the first state to pass and fully implement a bill mandating suspicionless drug testing of all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The law mandated that all applicants pay for the cost of the drug test themselves, and that they be reimbursed if their test came back negative. The law was in effect for a mere four months before the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit and a federal court blocked the law, saying it was unconstitutional.

Today the New York Times released the most comprehensive data yet on how the law fared during the short period of time it was in effect. We already knew that the law was a failure; what we didn't know was just how much of a failure it was.

In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants 3,938 to be exact who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases.

Despite the complete failure of this program to unearth anything other than the fact that there is no overwhelming drug problem amongst welfare applicants, the state of Florida continues to defend this law. And unfortunately, other states have followed Florida's ill-informed lead. Over 25 states introduced welfare drug testing legislation this year. You'd think that the court rulings and high costs might have logically stopped these bills, but they have not. In fact, just this Monday, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a bill into law that is very similar to Florida's, mandating all TANF applicants in Georgia be drug tested before being eligible to receive benefits.

As long as states keep fighting to pass and keep these unconstitutional and costly programs in place, the ACLU will be there to keep fighting back.

(Originally posted on Huffington Post.)

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post stated that TANF recipients were reimbursed for the cost of the drug test if the result was positive. That was incorrect. They are reimbursed if the result is negative. Thanks to @smirish for pointing this out on Twitter!

Learn more about drug testing: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.


So much for that saving a state money
Nyjetsfan.com Jets Fan Forum and Chat
0

#67 User is offline   HarlemHxC814 Icon

  • 06 Best Avatar Award / N.O.P. GUARD
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 5,173
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:54 AM

Lol I love how nobody who was behind this has said anything
Posted Image
0

#68 User is offline   Mr_Jet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,335
  • Joined: 31-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • NFL Team:

Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:34 PM

View PostHarlemHxC814, on 22 April 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Lol I love how nobody who was behind this has said anything



That is interesting. That's the problem when facts collide with opinion.

View PostFlyHiJets, on 01 June 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

You're the scumbag that thinks everyone should kiss the as$es of a bunch of criminals but I'm a dumbass. Yeah okay douchebag. Go give some illegal wetback or Revis another blowjob. But then again.....don't you live in an entirely different country but yet think you can tell us how to live? Go fvck yourself little boy. You're likely still living with mommy & daddy. Pu$$y.


View Postazjetfan, on 02 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

There are a few things I have realized about Mr. Jet over a few topics.

1) He is a racist. By constantly using race as a battling tool.
2) He is an extreme Liberal. If you are on either extreme you are probabaly more wrong than right.
3) He is one of those people who will never admit fault, error or defeat.
4)His life sucks and he takes it out on people who don't share in his views.
0

#69 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,203
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:07 PM

View PostHarlemHxC814, on 22 April 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Lol I love how nobody who was behind this has said anything


If you read my quote from earlier in the thread you will see my opinion is not in line with how the law was written. If it was done the way I thought it should have been done there would be $0 loss to us the tax payers. Hence the post did not apply to me and no response needed. Not to mention it just became nice here in WI and I am spending little time online. I do however love the fact that Harlem comes to the bar fight after everyone has gone home claiming some kind of victory he had no dealing in. Unless I am mistaken I believe that was his first post.


View Postazjetfan, on 03 October 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

In my opinion testing them is not about them being more likely to use but to insure they are not using while on our dime. I am not saying drugs are good but some people function and support themselves using while others cannot. As far as the finances section of the thread they are saying we would pay. I believe it should be the responsibility of the recipient.

Posted Image
0

#70 User is offline   Mr_Jet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,335
  • Joined: 31-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • NFL Team:

Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:41 PM

You know what, the drug test are a waste of time. I mean let's just cut out the middle man here. Instead of drug testing people on government assistance, let's just send DHS workers to their houses and search their homes for drugs. Have DHS workers look through every drawer, cabinet, and closet in their home. Search every inch of their homes and cars for drugs. Stop them when their outside of the house and make them empty their pockets. If necessary let's make a law that will force them to strip down, bend over, and make them spread their cheeks. As we all know people have been known to hide drugs there too. I mean why wait for the results of a drug test, when we can just make a law that says DHS can enter your house anytime they want and go through all your things to see if they find any signs of drug use. If they find any signs of drug use, you lose your assistance.

Like Governor Scott said "people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare." So let's search their homes and cars, because we're bound to find some drugs somewhere. You know since they're more likely to be on drugs than people who are not on welfare. Though we must remember to ignore the liquor and prescription drug bottles in the house of course since those are both legal. So screw the piss test. Let's just go into their homes and go through their things. If they're taking our hard earned tax dollars, they should be willing to let us search their homes.

View PostFlyHiJets, on 01 June 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

You're the scumbag that thinks everyone should kiss the as$es of a bunch of criminals but I'm a dumbass. Yeah okay douchebag. Go give some illegal wetback or Revis another blowjob. But then again.....don't you live in an entirely different country but yet think you can tell us how to live? Go fvck yourself little boy. You're likely still living with mommy & daddy. Pu$$y.


View Postazjetfan, on 02 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

There are a few things I have realized about Mr. Jet over a few topics.

1) He is a racist. By constantly using race as a battling tool.
2) He is an extreme Liberal. If you are on either extreme you are probabaly more wrong than right.
3) He is one of those people who will never admit fault, error or defeat.
4)His life sucks and he takes it out on people who don't share in his views.
0

#71 User is offline   HarlemHxC814 Icon

  • 06 Best Avatar Award / N.O.P. GUARD
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 5,173
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 23 April 2012 - 05:13 AM

View Postazjetfan, on 22 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

If you read my quote from earlier in the thread you will see my opinion is not in line with how the law was written. If it was done the way I thought it should have been done there would be $0 loss to us the tax payers. Hence the post did not apply to me and no response needed. Not to mention it just became nice here in WI and I am spending little time online. I do however love the fact that Harlem comes to the bar fight after everyone has gone home claiming some kind of victory he had no dealing in. Unless I am mistaken I believe that was his first post.


Lofl whaaaat??
Posted Image
0

#72 User is offline   santana Icon

  • I'm batman
  • Icon
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 8,004
  • Joined: 03-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Keeping this place from breaking... and titties.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:30 PM

View PostMr_Jet, on 22 April 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

You know what, the drug test are a waste of time. I mean let's just cut out the middle man here. Instead of drug testing people on government assistance, let's just send DHS workers to their houses and search their homes for drugs. Have DHS workers look through every drawer, cabinet, and closet in their home. Search every inch of their homes and cars for drugs. Stop them when their outside of the house and make them empty their pockets. If necessary let's make a law that will force them to strip down, bend over, and make them spread their cheeks. As we all know people have been known to hide drugs there too. I mean why wait for the results of a drug test, when we can just make a law that says DHS can enter your house anytime they want and go through all your things to see if they find any signs of drug use. If they find any signs of drug use, you lose your assistance.

Like Governor Scott said "people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare." So let's search their homes and cars, because we're bound to find some drugs somewhere. You know since they're more likely to be on drugs than people who are not on welfare. Though we must remember to ignore the liquor and prescription drug bottles in the house of course since those are both legal. So screw the piss test. Let's just go into their homes and go through their things. If they're taking our hard earned tax dollars, they should be willing to let us search their homes.


seems excessive of a response we got your point

one thing to point out about this article is that they only have a single year of data to work with. its a very insignificant amount of data to really reach a conclusion.
obviously getting a program like this going from the get go will cost some more money.
i'm not for the idea of testing everybody seems like it would make more sense to funnel money to a case worker program to get the people that needed help with whatever drug affliction they are facing.
Nyjetsfan.com Jets Fan Forum and Chat
0

#73 User is offline   Mr_Jet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,335
  • Joined: 31-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • NFL Team:

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:01 AM

View Postsantana, on 24 April 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

seems excessive of a response we got your point

one thing to point out about this article is that they only have a single year of data to work with. its a very insignificant amount of data to really reach a conclusion.
obviously getting a program like this going from the get go will cost some more money.
i'm not for the idea of testing everybody seems like it would make more sense to funnel money to a case worker program to get the people that needed help with whatever drug affliction they are facing.


I'm just saying how thin is the line between making laws allowing the state to search somebody's urine for signs drug use and allowing the state to search somebody's dresser drawers for signs of drug use. Especially considering that person has given no suspicion of using drugs.

The results from Florida do mirror the results from Michigan when Michigan had a law like this back in 2000. Like in Florida the number of people in Michigan who actually tested positive was very low. I think if this law were implemented in other states, those states would show the same results Florida and Michigan did. Hardly any welfare recipients getting caught using drugs and state governments wasting money just by testing in the first place. Since the number of drug users on welfare is not higher than the national average, the people who support testing should want that money used on more job training/placement and apprenticeship programs instead of drug tests.

View PostFlyHiJets, on 01 June 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

You're the scumbag that thinks everyone should kiss the as$es of a bunch of criminals but I'm a dumbass. Yeah okay douchebag. Go give some illegal wetback or Revis another blowjob. But then again.....don't you live in an entirely different country but yet think you can tell us how to live? Go fvck yourself little boy. You're likely still living with mommy & daddy. Pu$$y.


View Postazjetfan, on 02 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

There are a few things I have realized about Mr. Jet over a few topics.

1) He is a racist. By constantly using race as a battling tool.
2) He is an extreme Liberal. If you are on either extreme you are probabaly more wrong than right.
3) He is one of those people who will never admit fault, error or defeat.
4)His life sucks and he takes it out on people who don't share in his views.
0

#74 User is offline   A1elbow Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,892
  • Joined: 07-October 09

  • NFL Team:

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:01 PM

View Postazjetfan, on 22 April 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

If you read my quote from earlier in the thread you will see my opinion is not in line with how the law was written. If it was done the way I thought it should have been done there would be $0 loss to us the tax payers. Hence the post did not apply to me and no response needed. Not to mention it just became nice here in WI and I am spending little time online. I do however love the fact that Harlem comes to the bar fight after everyone has gone home claiming some kind of victory he had no dealing in. Unless I am mistaken I believe that was his first post.


Except your opinion is based on how you would write the law. You want to take money away from people who aren't abusing the system for drug testing because a minority of people are. That is dumb and a law like that won't get passed easily because anyone who isn't 100% in favor of drug testing won't try to protect that aspect of it.

Drug testing welfare recipients is more waste of time persecution that focuses on punishing people rather than preventing the ugly situations that cause it. Yet again, if some people in the government spent more time actually trying to brainstorm ideas to help people get out of the poverty cycle rather than punishing them because they don't believe in welfare in the first place more would be accomplished. Unfortunately, those people would rather try to undermine people that don't give a f*** in the first place than do anything about the actual problem.
Posted Image


Exterminate all rational thought, that is the conclusion I have come to
0

#75 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,203
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:36 PM

View PostA1elbow, on 24 April 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Except your opinion is based on how you would write the law. You want to take money away from people who aren't abusing the system for drug testing because a minority of people are.

Yes I want people to have to qualify to get money from my paycheck everyweek. It also should be a very limited time. Also who says people have not stopped using drugs who are recieving since they know they will be tested. I can make any report look the way I want. with a little info.
Posted Image
0

#76 User is offline   A1elbow Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,892
  • Joined: 07-October 09

  • NFL Team:

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:01 PM

View Postazjetfan, on 24 April 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Yes I want people to have to qualify to get money from my paycheck everyweek. It also should be a very limited time. Also who says people have not stopped using drugs who are recieving since they know they will be tested. I can make any report look the way I want. with a little info.


Your points of emphasis suggest you want to punish people for being on welfare, not to ensure people on it aren't abusing the system. Which is fine, but let's just call a spade a spade. You aren't calling for people receiving Pell Grants to be drug tested. You aren't calling for businesses that were bailed out to be tested.

You're calling for, specifically, welfare recipients to be punished, in their entirety, regardless of guilt or innocence of something that a minority of them have done. I bet some welfare recipients have acted as drug mules. The rate of drug mule-ing is significantly higher in those on welfare than the general population*. I purpose taking a $100 out of everyone on welfare's money to pay for rectal exams. If they refuse the rectal exam, they lose their money because obviously they are carrying drugs across the border.

*(see study: personal opinion)
Posted Image


Exterminate all rational thought, that is the conclusion I have come to
0

#77 User is offline   santana Icon

  • I'm batman
  • Icon
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 8,004
  • Joined: 03-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Keeping this place from breaking... and titties.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:41 PM

considering there seems to be 100 ways to cheat on a drug test (not that I would know)
also makes this kinda a waste of time
Nyjetsfan.com Jets Fan Forum and Chat
0

#78 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,203
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:33 AM

View PostA1elbow, on 24 April 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Your points of emphasis suggest you want to punish people for being on welfare, not to ensure people on it aren't abusing the system. Which is fine, but let's just call a spade a spade. You aren't calling for people receiving Pell Grants to be drug tested. You aren't calling for businesses that were bailed out to be tested.

I would love for all people or entities to qualify for funds from the tax payers regardless of what the funds are for.

Quote

You're calling for, specifically, welfare recipients to be punished, in their entirety, regardless of guilt or innocence of something that a minority of them have done. I bet some welfare recipients have acted as drug mules. The rate of drug mule-ing is significantly higher in those on welfare than the general population*. I purpose taking a $100 out of everyone on welfare's money to pay for rectal exams. If they refuse the rectal exam, they lose their money because obviously they are carrying drugs across the border.
*(see study: personal opinion)

We are talking about Welfare in this thread. If you would like to open the thread up to more I am OK with that.
Posted Image
0

#79 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,203
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:34 AM

Quote

In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants 3,938 to be exact who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases


I am not sure how they are calculating these numbers. If I google average welfare amount it comes up with $18K per year. If I take $18K times 108 people not recieving benifits it comes up with $1.95 million. If I prorate to the month it is $1500 times 108 per person $162K. The article is claiming $118,140 in testing costs. That is a net gain of $43,860.00. What am I missing here?
Posted Image
0

#80 User is offline   A1elbow Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,892
  • Joined: 07-October 09

  • NFL Team:

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:26 PM

View Postazjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I am not sure how they are calculating these numbers. If I google average welfare amount it comes up with $18K per year. If I take $18K times 108 people not recieving benifits it comes up with $1.95 million. If I prorate to the month it is $1500 times 108 per person $162K. The article is claiming $118,140 in testing costs. That is a net gain of $43,860.00. What am I missing here?


What do you do for a living? You don't have to be specific, just general is fine.
Posted Image


Exterminate all rational thought, that is the conclusion I have come to
0

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users