PDA

View Full Version : They stole my idea!



Kein Haar
26th March 09, 01:29 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings

Drug testing welfare recipients.

It's about -f-ing time.

This is also a step in the right direction for drug legalization. The crisper we can make a legal distinction between appropriate times and places for manufacture, sales, possession and consumption, the better off we'll be.

Responsible users can use. People spending MY money...better be spending it on diapers and food.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th March 09, 01:36 PM
With more and more municipalities facing a sea of red ink, I see more and more of support of these programs.

Cities, counties and states are facing difficult decisions and are forcing workers to voluntarily cut back on their hours or face lay-offs. Hell, where my wife works are making them all shut off half the lights and turn off the lights in some areas completely. The discussion for people to actually bring their own toilet paper has been broached.

I see no problem whatsoever in the above and agree it is a step in the right direction. As the topic of legalization of some drugs for taxation purposes has been floated, the assurance that it isn't on my dime needs to be had as well.

Aaranar
26th March 09, 01:39 PM
Sounds great. Now we need to work on getting people holding public office tested as well.

fes_fsa
26th March 09, 01:42 PM
it's a good idea.

now if they can just require that welfare recipients wear those subdermal contraceptive implants, things would be peachy.

Phrost
26th March 09, 01:45 PM
Your idea? Shit, I had that idea 15 years ago.

Actually I don't care, good ideas are good ideas.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 09, 01:51 PM
So the guy who got a debilitatibng brain injury in Iraq should have to pee in a cup in front of a minimum wage federal employee in order to get his check? Or is it just "them."

Zendetta
26th March 09, 01:59 PM
Of course its just "them". The wounded soldier was serving his country, "they" are just parasitizing it.

Zendetta
26th March 09, 01:59 PM
'Course you can't piss test for booze, cigarrettes, and cable TV.

danniboi07
26th March 09, 02:12 PM
Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.
They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Drug tests can get a bit pricey. If our tax dollars aren't being spent on drugs, then they're being spent on the drug tests.

The idea for social workers to interview the welfare recipients seems like a more financially acceptable alternative, but it runs the risk of people lying in the interviews.

Perhaps they could subject all recipients to inverviews and have the social workers prescribe drug tests for those they deem potential drug users. That way drug tests are aimed and not totally at random. If I'm paying for drug tests I'd like to know that they're being successful at weeding out the drug users.

Kein Haar
26th March 09, 04:29 PM
Last bitch we arrested for drug possession (she was white, HOG, so unclench your fists, unfurrow your brow, and take a second Lipitor)...

-Lived with parents
-Collected child support from TWO fathers
-Collected benefits from the state
-Did not work

By the way, her degree of possession/packaging indicated drug sales as well.

According to her, had a $150.00/day cocaine habit.

It's a nice little invisible source of income to have, ain't it?

I was finding welfare paperwork in the trunk of another bitch who had a brick of cannabis.

Every so often I'll say fuck cost....even if it's more expensive, it's worth it to fuck with cheats.

Phrost
26th March 09, 04:32 PM
The trick is that you don't test them all, just a random sampling. The ones who get popped, face penalties strong enough to outweigh the risk of playing the odds.

Kein Haar
26th March 09, 04:33 PM
So the guy who got a debilitatibng brain injury in Iraq should have to pee in a cup in front of a minimum wage federal employee in order to get his check? Or is it just "them."

Yeah, cuz that demographic would be the FIRST to complain about it...you bleeding-heart douche. You truly are. No wonder I had you on ignore for so long.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 09, 04:35 PM
Yeah, cuz that demographic would be the FIRST to complain about it...you bleeding-heart douche. You truly are. No wonder I had you on ignore for so long.

So that's a yes then?

HappyOldGuy
26th March 09, 05:24 PM
Last bitch we arrested for drug possession (she was white, HOG, so unclench your fists, unfurrow your brow, and take a second Lipitor)...

-Lived with parents
-Collected child support from TWO fathers
-Collected benefits from the state
-Did not work

By the way, her degree of possession/packaging indicated drug sales as well.

According to her, had a $150.00/day cocaine habit.

It's a nice little invisible source of income to have, ain't it?

I was finding welfare paperwork in the trunk of another bitch who had a brick of cannabis.

Every so often I'll say fuck cost....even if it's more expensive, it's worth it to fuck with cheats.

Sowaitaminute. You mean poor women with drug problems sometimes deal drugs to support their habit? Alert the fucking nobel committee, I've got me a nominee!

WarPhalange
26th March 09, 06:11 PM
The trick is that you don't test them all, just a random sampling. The ones who get popped, face penalties strong enough to outweigh the risk of playing the odds.

No. Studies show that certainty of punishment > severity of punishment when it comes to crime deterrents. You'd still have people risking it. Better off just testing everybody, or at least, making it look like you're testing everybody.

Cullion
26th March 09, 06:20 PM
So that's a yes then?

I think there's some unecessary contention here. Doesn't your welfare system seperate people who are incapable of working for medical reasons from people who simply don't have a job?

Ours tries to. It doesn't do it very well yet, but I think once that distinction is made, your dude with his legs blown off and most of his vision gone can be allowed a little home-grown and dungeons and dragons without it being a licence for people who just don't give a shit to blow Keinhaar's money.

Zendetta
26th March 09, 06:23 PM
THey do make that separation: Welfare vs Disability.

People cheat the holy hell out of both.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 09, 06:23 PM
I think there's some unecessary contention here. Doesn't your welfare system seperate people who are incapable of working for medical reasons from people who simply don't have a job?

Ours tries to. It doesn't do it very well yet, but I think once that distinction is made, your dude with his legs blown off and most of his vision gone can be allowed a little home-grown and dungeons and dragons without it being a licence for people who just don't give a shit to blow Keinhaar's money.
If this had anything to do with our actual welfare system instead of keins wierd welfare mom fetish, we would have started with the simple fact that in our actual welfare system, any felony drug conviction=automatic lifetime ban on all forms of cash assistance and food stamps.

Cullion
26th March 09, 06:28 PM
Do people get felony drug convictions for being users? Or is that something that happens to more serious dealers or producers ?

Most people with substance abuse problems I've been/met aren't really involved in anything like that. They're just people on that jagged path from 'party animal' to 'broken down addict' who don't really ever try and make serious money from their hobby. They're the ones taking up most of the welfare money going to drug users.

Sun Wukong
26th March 09, 06:32 PM
I think this is a fantastic idea. They need to do it for every adult receiving benefits in every ghetto in America. See how fast the crime rates drop in government housing after that shit.

I'm all for legalization of pot, but tax dollars spent on recreational substances is complete bullshit.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th March 09, 06:33 PM
wierd welfare mom fetish

ON THE NEXT MAURY POVICH SHOW......

Spade: The Real Snake
26th March 09, 06:34 PM
I think this is a fantastic idea. They need to do it for every adult receiving benefits in every ghetto in America. See how fast the crime rates drop in government housing after that shit.

No, no, no, no, no.
NO.

Didn't you learn anything from Quarantine?

Truculent Sheep
26th March 09, 06:37 PM
As long as testing is applied in cases where a reasonable suspicion is demonstrated, I can't see the problem. Making some poor bastard who can't work due to epilepsy (or the drugs he has to take) piss in a jar once a month is going a bit too far though.

Kein Haar
26th March 09, 07:43 PM
To continue tea-bagging, HOG, ZOMG WUT ABOUT THE STRUGGLING SINGLE MOTHER WHO HAVE TO PERVIDE f0R0 HER KIDS??? HOW HUUMOIALIATING!!!

Yeah...the same fucking bitch we arrested, HOG.

I feel the same distaste for men too, ya know. They just tend not to be baby collectors who accumulate a disproprtionate amount.

A friend who works for the phone company has to go to shit neighborhoods in the course of his duties. He was recently making small talk with a single mother...talking about his own infant.

She says: "Yeah, I come from a big family. 15 brothers and sisters."

My cracker-ass friend: "Whoa! Your mom had 15 kids??"

"Oh, no, no. MY mother only had one child."

"Oh...so....OH!" Riiiiight. Papa was a rollin' stone....

Sheep, I'm not hung-up on the particulars. The theme, however, is important.

Quikfeet509
26th March 09, 07:52 PM
Sounds fabulous. After the first few rounds of testing, the money saved by not supporting those that tested positive could probably pay itself.

Phrost
26th March 09, 07:56 PM
Add in mandatory birth control and I wouldn't even be opposed to expanding the social safety (hammock) net.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 09, 08:01 PM
I'm really sensing a money making opportunity here. I just have to figure out how to capitalize on it. I'm thinking bukake shots of welfare moms. www.ihatepoorfolks.com

Phrost
26th March 09, 08:05 PM
You're a day late. Some other guy already invented Bumvertising (http://www.bumvertising.com/).

Spade: The Real Snake
26th March 09, 10:14 PM
I'm really sensing a money making opportunity here. I just have to figure out how to capitalize on it. I'm thinking bukake shots of welfare moms. www.ihatepoorfolks.com (http://www.ihatepoorfolks.com)

Hey you faygoat, that isn't a real site.



Not yet, anyhow....

nihilist
26th March 09, 10:37 PM
Those $400 tests are easily beat.
All you are going to be able to test for is pot.

Crackheads, tweakers, heroin addicts and coke heads will beat the test and you are going to deny unemployment to someone who went to a Fish concert a month ago.

Another way for the government to bilk it's citizenry in their failed War On Drugs.

mrm1775
26th March 09, 11:08 PM
I think it should be mandated in all 50 states. My tax money should not be handed out to people who will just use it to further screw up their own lives. Either clean yourself up or live on the street.

We also need to do a better job of distinguishing between people who really can't work and bums who just don't want to.

nihilist
26th March 09, 11:33 PM
What do you have to say about "your tax money" being used to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate the 30,000 marijuana users?

nihilist
26th March 09, 11:36 PM
If they are going to deny aid to drug users they should be consistent and include alcohol, tobacco and No-Doz

Kein Haar
26th March 09, 11:46 PM
you are going to deny unemployment to someone who went to a Fish concert a month ago.

So there's even more of an upside??

nihilist
26th March 09, 11:52 PM
Fish-heads suck but less so than tweakers and junkies.

mrm1775
27th March 09, 12:17 AM
What do you have to say about "your tax money" being used to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate the 30,000 marijuana users?I never said I was for it, but locking people up and denying them welfare are two different things.

If someone wants to do drugs, let them get a job and pay for it themselves.

nihilist
27th March 09, 12:26 AM
I never said I was for it, but locking people up and denying them welfare are two different things.

If someone wants to do drugs, let them get a job and pay for it themselves.

What if they want to spend the money on booze and hookers?

Are you willing to fund that?

WarPhalange
27th March 09, 02:11 AM
What is the quality of said hookers?

AAAhmed46
27th March 09, 02:13 AM
That chick who got elliot spitzer or spitser or whatever his name is......


No way she's worth that much money.

Now, Megan fox, THAT chick would be worth over 10 or twenty thousand dollars....

Kein Haar
27th March 09, 07:41 AM
What if they want to spend the money on booze and hookers?

Are you willing to fund that?

Yes, that's perfectly fine. Derrrr.

No.

It's like saying your insurance company can't ask if you smoke because everyone is going to lie anyway.

There are more than just blood tests, you know.

Truculent Sheep
27th March 09, 08:49 AM
Sheep, I'm not hung-up on the particulars. The theme, however, is important.

Indeed, but remember it's the details that decide whether this is a pragmatic, sensible idea or just a callous imposition on everyone who's on welfare/benefits through no fault of their own as well as all the druggies. Policing by consent of the law-abiding is the way to go.

And I must declare an interest here: anything that brings pain and humiliation to Stella-swilling, fake burberry clad scrotes is in principle A Good Thing.

Dagon Akujin
27th March 09, 09:41 AM
I've never had any fucking clue as to why it's considered "un-Uhmercan" to force welfare mothers to use birth-control. This is one of those crazy-conservative ideas that is long overdue.

The drug and even alchohol thing could also be a great idea. I mean, maybe the reason the guy can't get a job is because he's hammered all the time.

Speaking of poor people and their money, btw, I've heard that the thing no poor person will sacrifice for any reason is entertainment. There is a family in my apartment building who left the door open one day. I took a peek inside. There were toys all over the living room, but not one chair, couch, bench, loveseat, or anything to sit down on. There were 2 or 3 kids running around. There were no tables. An old blanket was crumpled up on the floor.

And a 46" flat-screen behemoth was installed on the wall with wires running down to some speakers on the floor, pumping cable tv.

Kein Haar
27th March 09, 09:43 AM
That's not even confined to "poor" people.

I've been to houses in the $500,000+ range...and fucking empty...a ghost town of furnishings. Hilarious!

Been in foreclosed homes (vacant) in which the previous owner left a waist-deep pile of DVD covers on the basement floor. Unbelievable.

TM
27th March 09, 11:03 AM
Sounds great. Now we need to work on getting people holding public office tested as well.

LOL! DC would shut down! Not that that's a bad thing.

Kein Haar
27th March 09, 11:06 AM
Not it is not!

Zendetta
27th March 09, 11:22 AM
you are going to deny unemployment to someone who went to a Fish concert a month ago.

You mean "Phish", right? Come off your hippie liberal ideals - you know as well as I do that we need to get those people off the street one way or another.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th March 09, 11:27 AM
You mean "Phish", right? Come off your hippie liberal ideals - you know as well as I do that we need to get those people off the street one way or another.

Dude.
He was totally skyin' off some awesome herb he scored by trading some macrame in the parking lot during one of the jams.

Zendetta
27th March 09, 11:35 AM
Dude, there's a piece of dredloks in my veggie burrito, Man.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th March 09, 11:40 AM
Dude, there's a piece of dredloks in my veggie burrito, Man.

Dude, Phish autta totally do like a communal meal for its concerts like Perry Farrell wanted when he was gonna do the ENID Festivals after he sold Lollapalooza.
Like everyone could share a meal together and you know hang out and share and stuff.

fes_fsa
27th March 09, 11:42 AM
I've never had any fucking clue as to why it's considered "un-Uhmercan" to force welfare mothers to use birth-control. This is one of those crazy-conservative ideas that is long overdue.


it's a good idea.

now if they can just require that welfare recipients wear those subdermal contraceptive implants, things would be peachy.

and the good thing about subdermal implants is that they provide 3 years of protection (http://contraception.about.com/od/prescriptionoptions/p/Implanon.htm). that's plenty of time for people who've hit rock-bottom to get back on their feet.

nihilist
27th March 09, 12:19 PM
Yes, that's perfectly fine. Derrrr.

No.

It's like saying your insurance company can't ask if you smoke because everyone is going to lie anyway.

There are more than just blood tests, you know.

So is the eventuality that if someone is found guilty of anything illegal (like going over the speed limit or parking tickets) that their unemployment benefits get withheld?

Also, what is the result of say forcing a family out into the street because the father happened to smoke pot occasionally?

It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment of not wanting to fund some asshole's drug habit. I just think that this type of reactionary legislation is usually ill-thought out.

The government does not have a track record of saving me money, quite the contrary.

nihilist
27th March 09, 12:22 PM
White trash hos totally don't know whut sub-dermal implants is, but they wount it.

Robot Jesus
28th March 09, 11:20 AM
and the good thing about subdermal implants is that they provide 3 years of protection (http://contraception.about.com/od/prescriptionoptions/p/Implanon.htm). that's plenty of time for people who've hit rock-bottom to get back on their feet.

Intrigue; is there a consequence if the implant is not removed after it has run its course?