"no, YOU pee in the cup..."

cincybearcat

brandon10 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

You want my hard earned money, so you can sit on your azz in the hood playin Xbox and smokin da chronic?

Pee in da cup, homie.

hahaha.

Ya, cause there aint no white trash pieces of shit layin around on welfare milking the system........ :roll: :roll: :roll:

Kinda racist of you to immediately assume he was talking about non-whites.

brandon10

cincybearcat wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

You want my hard earned money, so you can sit on your azz in the hood playin Xbox and smokin da chronic?

Pee in da cup, homie.

hahaha.

Ya, cause there aint no white trash pieces of shit layin around on welfare milking the system........ :roll: :roll: :roll:

Kinda racist of you to immediately assume he was talking about non-whites.

It was 100% obvious in the language provided and you know it.

gimmesometruth27

brandon10 wrote:

It was 100% obvious in the language provided and you know it.

+1

usamamasan1

I understand the desired effect (cost savings and increased labor pool quality) might not happen (drug testing food stamp recipients and the like) and could hurt children in the process. But having a dad who is not a dope head might increase this childs propects of having a better life. Maybe this doper dad could say no to the dope and yes to looking for work or a training program.
Drug testing isnt cheap. I just read urinalysis runs from $25 to $44 per test and hair follicle testing costs $75 to $150 per test. BUT

I say make them work AND make them drop if they want my monies!

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

It was 100% obvious in the language provided and you know it.

+1

Look, another racist.








Hahahaha, lighten up guys, I'm messing with you. Your white guilt is showing though, might want to put some clothes on.

usamamasan1

drug abuse does not discriminate.

JonnyPistachio

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The whole idea of drug testing people on welfare seems like people trying to apply logic and rationality to a situation where a person may not act rationally. I mean I suppose the logical idea is that if a drug addict on welfare doesn't pass the drug test you cut off his benefits and without that money he won't be able to buy drugs. Except I am not sure the brains of drug addicts work that way so that if a guy really needs his fix and he is no longer getting money from the government to cover his food/shelter and his drugs, I imagine that instead of giving up the drugs he is just going to find a way to get the money elsewhere. So instead of giving a really poor person a few hundred bucks a month to keep them happy, now all the sudden you are spending way more on cops as small time property crimes are going up and the cost of things in stores is going up to cover the added costs of theft.

Plus it seems like a kind of shitty think to do for welfare receipents with kids. I mean if you are the kid of a drug addict on welfare, you are already living in a pretty crappy situation, where maybe that cheque from the government is the only think keeping you from living on the street, or going hungry. And now the government is going to take that away because your parent is on drugs. And then what if your parent decides that with what little money he or she has he is going to use it to keep getting high rather than feeding you. If just seems that for what tiny amounts these people get is nothing compared to the crime it keeps from happening and the people it keeps from starving, even if those people are drug users.

:thumbup:

MayDay Malone wrote:

You want my hard earned money, so you can sit on your azz in the hood playin Xbox and smokin da chronic?

Pee in da cup, homie.

hahaha.

This is just so pathetically sad.

JonnyPistachio

usamamasan1 wrote:

Drug testing isnt cheap. I just read urinalysis runs from $25 to $44 per test and hair follicle testing costs $75 to $150 per test.

This is also a big problem. In my state of Florida, this is what is going on:

"Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month."

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/

MayDay Malone

brandon10 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

You want my hard earned money, so you can sit on your azz in the hood playin Xbox and smokin da chronic?

Pee in da cup, homie.

hahaha.

Ya, cause there aint no white trash pieces of shit layin around on welfare milking the system........ :roll: :roll: :roll:

Who said ANYTHING about white or black?

If only you could lift weights with your brain.

JonnyPistachio

MayDay Malone wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

You want my hard earned money, so you can sit on your azz in the hood playin Xbox and smokin da chronic?

Pee in da cup, homie.

hahaha.

Ya, cause there aint no white trash pieces of shit layin around on welfare milking the system........ :roll: :roll: :roll:

Who said ANYTHING about white or black?

If only you could lift weights with your brain.

You must be a politician in training...you have perfected the art of inferring something without using specific words, so you can always get off the hook! :?

brandon10

It's quite an art to be able to troll in the way he does.

Back on topic: I'm all for welfare recipients being tested as long as all recipients of government money are tested. Including the heads of the banks receiving bailout money.

cincybearcat

brandon10 wrote:

It's quite an art to be able to troll in the way he does.

Back on topic: I'm all for welfare recipients being tested as long as all recipients of government money are tested. Including the heads of the banks receiving bailout money.

He really got to ya huh? But in the future, please don't post pm's, that's pretty bad. In case you didn't know, pm = PRIVATE MESSAGE.

Again, no one has addressed the fact that some people are working for this money while others expect it in return for nothing. Big difference in my mind.

But as I said, really no point in it anyhow, because if someone loses their welfare, what are they going to do? All of a sudden be a working, productive part of society? Not likely. You may simply create a criminal...well, since they are already a drug user they are already a criminal, but you will likely create an incentive for them to steal, etc.

gimmesometruth27

i will address it. i will boil it down into the simplest form to understand. if you receive government funding, whether working or not, you are still receiving government money. if we are going to give some people money to rape our financial system through bailouts and not give money to a legitimately poor and unable to work person who is not taking drugs and is just taking money to get by and live, i think i would rather give it to the second guy. there is a difference between not working, working, and working in a manner that is detrimental to our country... so that is why i say if you test one poplulation then all should be tested.

and i completely agree with you about creating criminals when you cut them off.

cincybearcat wrote:

Again, no one has addressed the fact that some people are working for this money while others expect it in return for nothing. Big difference in my mind.

But as I said, really no point in it anyhow, because if someone loses their welfare, what are they going to do? All of a sudden be a working, productive part of society? Not likely. You may simply create a criminal...well, since they are already a drug user they are already a criminal, but you will likely create an incentive for them to steal, etc.

usamamasan1

I think the more important issue with regard to welfare assistance should be having it coupled with a work requirement. Earning something for yourself provides a sense of dignity.

he still stands

usamamasan1 wrote:

I think the more important issue with regard to welfare assistance should be having it coupled with a work requirement. Earning something for yourself provides a sense of dignity.

I agree. And this is what happens. It varies by state because the federal government was largely taken out of the equation by Clinton with his welfare reform in the mid 90s. I think that at the very least receipients are required to start working again after two (?) years of receiving benefits.

I don't know why people think that it is an entitlement program that just endlessly hands out money to people who don't want a job. oh yeah, I do, it is because that is what the talking heads like Rush and Beck say.