posted on October 23, 2011 10:48:30 AM new
From what I read here, most, if not all people here do believe in social programs if they are allocated properly.
Some people try to project themselves as hard nosed, throwing out absolute quotes about stealing from the rich to pay for the poor. The problem with this is that there are always exceptions to the rule, but does that quote by Dr. Southern Baptist Minister address that??? No.
Ironically, the same people who agree with quotes like that are in some way on the receiving end of government subsidies. My point isn't to cast negativity on them, but to point out that there is a matter of hypocrisy in pointing fingers at one group who receive assistance while you are on a different form of assistance yourself, no matter what the circumstances are.
We can agree there are people that have no business being on government assistance because they abuse the system. Will this new law resolve this issue? No, only a small fraction of the problem. Instead of creating a new program to kick off a small group of people while giving away millions to corporations in the process, how about just enforce the frickin' laws that are on the books to kick ALL of them off.
[ edited by shagmidmod on Oct 23, 2011 10:50 AM ]
Since the law was implemented 2.5% of the 2000 applicants for welfare tested positive for drugs. Another 2% declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that the national average of people above the age of 12 who use drugs: 6%.
So, how much will this program cost to administer and just how effective will it be?
What will Floridians think about crime rates increasing when these drug users start breaking into homes to steal valuables to pay for their drugs? I'm not justifying Florida paying drug users, but pointing out another unintended consequence of such a law.
posted on October 23, 2011 07:51:23 PM new
Shag I agree with you on most points but....agreeing with a quote means someone is somehow on the receiving end of government subsidies? Where did you come up with that? I started with nothing and have been given nothing and I have WORKED (oh that nasty little word) my butt off and have done well. So check yourself.
OK I did get 2 weeks of unemployment when I first got of our socialist military back in 1983. Funny, socialism doesn't come to mind when I think back on my time in the service. FYI discipline, hard work and dedication makes the miltary work. Maybe the Air Force did things differently then the branch you served in.
You zero in on the fact that the quote was made by some Southern Baptist Minister... who cares. You got a problem with Baptist too? Good grief. I don't care who said it the fact remains that I believe it to be true.
Good call Florida! Want a check, here's your cup, filler up!
[ edited by ggardenour on Oct 23, 2011 08:21 PM ]
[ edited by ggardenour on Oct 23, 2011 08:33 PM ]
posted on October 24, 2011 08:42:42 AM new
Everyone who has made any money in or through the USA is the beneficiary of government subsidies. Sorry, but you didn't make your money on your own. Every tax payer helped you make your money.
Just curious, but have you received any government subsidies as a Foster Parent? I have worked with several foster parents as a supervisor for court ordered visitations for the children with their "drugged out" biological parents. They all received government subsidies for providing a foster home. Most of the Foster Parents were responsible, then there were the handful who were obviously doing it for the subsidy. They weren't spending the money on the actual child. They would spend it on their own kids and then give the foster child second hand clothes that their kids wore out. Sad.
[ edited by shagmidmod on Oct 24, 2011 08:52 AM ]
posted on October 24, 2011 09:55:20 AM new
As for "Dr" Baptist Minister... I have nothing against Baptists or Ministers, however I do think people should know who he is and a real doctor he is not. He received numerous Honorary Doctorate degrees of Divinity from small Evangelical colleges, unfortunately he never completed coursework or a dissertation to qualify him as a doctor of divinity, theology, or anything else for that matter.
You can argue whether this qualifies him as a doctor, but would you go see a medical doctor who only has an honorary degree???
posted on October 24, 2011 01:51:57 PM new
"Since the law was implemented 2.5% of the 2000 applicants for welfare tested positive for drugs. Another 2% declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that the national average of people above the age of 12 who use drugs: 6%. "
These percentages mean nothing. Everyone in Florida knew about this law YES even the ones on drugs. People on drugs did not apply for welfare. Since we are making up numbers I say 25% did not apply added to the 2.5% and 2% makes 29.5% off welfare.
posted on October 24, 2011 02:09:39 PM new
toolhound - maybe you should apply to FOX News as a statistician. grabbing numbers from thin air is the top job requirement for them.
posted on October 24, 2011 03:54:16 PM new
"toolhound - maybe you should apply to FOX News as a statistician. grabbing numbers from thin air is the top job requirement for them."
Oh yeah, now this thread reads just like one from the RT.
There was always an attack on Fox News from a Democrat. Now, we need someone to counter with remarks against MSNBC.
Further, be sure to throw in some remarks for/against Pres. Obama and then crank out Helen for good measure.
It will be just like the good old days, but in the wrong place.
posted on October 24, 2011 04:07:05 PM new
The kids do receive government assistance along with another 300-500 a month of our money to cover what these kids need. They come here with the clothes on their backs unless they came from a meth house then it’s a paper gown from the hospital after they have been decontaminated, no toys of their own, the Toys r Us trips are always a blast. I suppose if we were doing it for the money we could do away with that, all day early education, tutors and pocket some change but that's not why we do it. We've been blessed and it's a great way to give something back.
Shag you wore me out regarding the quote you win. I don't really get what you’re saying about "Every tax payer helped you make your money." Do tell more. Did I just get lucky and get more taxpayer money then most?
This Florida welfare issue isn't going to solve the woes of this country. We are broke, flat a$$ busted and nobody in Washington can pull their heads out long enough to do anything. Here is a simple solution come election time fire them all every last one of them and have them take the lobbyists with them. Just a thought.
posted on October 24, 2011 05:00:51 PM new
Sorry about that Kozersky. I didn't realize this would create such an uproar. Should have put it on RT from the beginning.
I wonder if the folks on Vendio can transfer the threat over ??????
posted on October 24, 2011 05:18:54 PM new
What I mean is that nobody makes money on their own. We have roads that transports us, transports goods, transports our goods all across the country. We have bridges that were built across rivers and ravines. We have cable lines, phone lines, etc that make it possible for us to communicate with one another. We have the internets (a jab at Bush) thanks to Al Gore (a jab at Gore). We have fire departments, emergency response, police departments that protect us and our goods. Anyone can argue that they would be successful without these things, but that isn't what I am arguing. I am saying that we have an infrastructure in place that benefits the good of society and it is paid for by taxpayers. And yes, this is the basis for socialism.
I have a problem with the notion that we are broke when we as a country also tout that we are the wealthiest nation in the world. Seems a bit ironic.
I am glad you help children as a Foster Parent. That is a great gift to provide an opportunity for these children. I am also glad that we live in a society that is willing to pay to assist in this.
posted on October 24, 2011 05:21:43 PM new
Looks like we'll be waiting to see whether this law will stick or not. A bit of irony is that this lawsuit is brought by a Navy vet.
Just on the wire:
Federal judge blocks Florida’s new law requiring that welfare applicants pass drug test
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, October 24, 3:44 PM
ORLANDO, Fla. — A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida’s new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Judge Mary Scriven ruled in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test. The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from being unfairly searched.
The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it “troubling” that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.
“This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a ‘far more substantial’ invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases,” Scriven said.
The judge also said Florida didn’t show that the drug testing program meets criteria for exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
The injunction will stay in place until the judge can hold a full hearing on the matter. She didn’t say when that hearing will be scheduled.
More than two-dozen states have also proposed drug-testing recipients of welfare or other government assistance, but Florida was the first state to enact such a law in more than a decade. Should any of those states pass a law and face a court challenge, Scriven’s ultimate ruling would likely serve as a legal precedent.
The law’s proponents include Gov. Rick Scott, who said during his campaign the measure would save $77 million. It’s unclear how he arrived at those figures. A spokesman for the Florida Department of Children and Families deferred all comments to the governor’s office.
“Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for Scott. “The governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal.”
Earlier this year, Scott also ordered drug testing of new state workers and spot checks of existing state employees under him. But testing was suspended after the American Civil Liberties Union also challenged that policy in a separate lawsuit.
Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren’t required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.
State officials said Monday that applicants previously denied benefits for testing positive or refusing the test could reapply immediately. The Department of Children and Families will also approve all pending applications that await drug test results.
Supporters had argued applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It’s unclear if the state has saved money.
Under the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program, the state gives $180 a month for one person or $364 for a family of four.
Those who test positive for drugs are ineligible for the cash assistance for one year, though passing a drug course can cut that period in half. If they fail a second time, they are ineligible for three years.
Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he’s “happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can’t act without a reason or suspicion.”
The ACLU says Florida was the first to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. Michigan’s random drug testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.
posted on October 24, 2011 07:58:22 PM new
If it was going to save the state any money the costs of these lawsuit will more then negate that. So what is the answer?
You keep bringing up socialism but I don't think so. Example: I walk into the ER with another man with the same ailment. We are treated by the same Dr. and each given equal care. Cost of ER vist $750.
I pay for health insurance with a $250 co-pay and a 10k deductible so I have to pay the $750 out of pocket. He on the other hand is on welfare (which I help fund) with no co-pay nor deductible so he pays $0. Under socialism would I not be entitled to the same?
posted on October 25, 2011 01:46:57 AM new
I grew up in a house that belived public assistance was for the disabled. Everyone capable worked for a living no matter what job you had to take. Hard work would not kill you it made you stronger. You lived within your means.
Today kids are being taught that the more you spend the better things will be and sucking off the system is the way to live. Beating the system like taking drugs and still getting public assistance is a good thing.
It is a sad world we live in.
Socialism works fine as long as there is Capitalism to pay for it, but sooner or later, Socialism runs out of other people's money.
posted on October 26, 2011 08:28:22 AM new
Same at our house Toolhound, but we live in a society were win or lose everybody gets a trophy. Now its work or not everybody gets a paycheck. By doing so we marginalize those who are ambitious, work hard and put forth extra effort. Why bother with all that nonsense? I’m going to get a trophy anyway.
Basic needs such as food, shelter and health care should be available to the disadvantaged in a civilized society. It's a moral obligation from my viewpoint.
It's wrong to disrupt a system in an effort to deny a few applicants who are from your perspective unqualified.
posted on October 26, 2011 10:42:04 AM new
I agree we have a morale obligation to those that are truly in need. I never stated otherwise. The keyword here is truly and also how one defines in need.
I am willing to concede that making someone take drug test is not going to weed out the slackers (pun intended).
posted on October 26, 2011 11:06:33 AM new
I may appreciate your opinion when those 15 year old halloween goblins start knocking on my door for a handout.
posted on October 26, 2011 12:52:08 PM new
This thread is ridiculous.
"What I mean is that nobody makes money on their own. We have roads that transports us, transports goods, transports our goods all across the country. We have bridges that were built across rivers and ravines. We have cable lines, phone lines, etc that make it possible for us to communicate with one another. We have the internets (a jab at Bush) thanks to Al Gore (a jab at Gore). We have fire departments, emergency response, police departments that protect us and our goods. Anyone can argue that they would be successful without these things, but that isn't what I am arguing. I am saying that we have an infrastructure in place that benefits the good of society and it is paid for by taxpayers. And yes, this is the basis for socialism."
There's a big difference between socialism and the obligations of a government. Our government never was designed to offer a lifetime of leisure to a growing number of people that know how to work the system.
posted on October 27, 2011 10:25:04 AM new
Max- I am certain an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with you, and ironically some of those people are also the same people who are the dole.
The problem I have is that this isn't the outrageously huge problem that most people make it out to be. The idea that HALF the people are getting a free ride on the backs of the other half is so outrageous it is absurd.
On top of that, people blather on and on about how evil socialism is when they are pretty much clueless what socialism is. They focus on the very smallest denominator (the people who abuse welfare), but they pretend that is all that socialism is (the steal from me to pay you mentality). The reality is that America has very socialistic programs in place for the good of the whole.
Imagine if every person had to build a road in front of their house, or bury cable lines for internet, or had to protect their own property against fire or theft. It would chaotic. So, for the social benefit of society our government takes on this roll. I hate to break it to people, but that is socialism. That doesn't mean that the USA is completely socialist either.
posted on October 27, 2011 07:15:45 PM new
There have been four requests to have this thread moved to the Round table, as this thread is inappropriate for the eBay Outlook.
How about customer service moving this thread out of here.
posted on October 29, 2011 05:59:16 PM new
Kozerski, previously, you wrote in this thread, "Further, be sure to throw in some remarks for/against Pres. Obama and then crank out Helen for good measure."
Now, you ask...."Helen, what items do you have listed on eBay? Do you have any? Just curious."
The inference is that you believe that I'm here only to promote a heated political debate.
The truth is that I do have an Ebay/Vendio related interest in reading this board.
posted on October 29, 2011 07:34:17 PM new
Thank you so much for sharing that with me. I do note that you have a feedback of 1 as a buyer in 2002, and 0 as a seller with 0 listings. That might answer any questions regarding your presence here.
Welcome aboard. It is nice to read posts by someone further to the left than shagmidmod. Are you out occupying somewhere?
Where is profe51? He is the last missing ingredient for a liberal fun fest. Might just as well crank him out also.
