Don't help people sit on there Butts.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:06 pm

Today I Read a bumper sticker that made me think.

It said,"Go too work today-Welfare needs you.

So I think:

I have a question,not only for my state but the whole country.

like a lot of folks in this state,I have a job.

I work,they pay me,I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit.In order for me to get that pay check,I am required to pass a random urine test.Which I have no problem with.

What i do have problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have too don't have too pass a urine test.Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check?Because i have too pass one to go earn it for them?

Please understand,I have nothing against helping people get back on there feet.I do, on the other hand,have a problem with helping people sit on there butt.

Could you imagine how how much money the state/country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:10 pm

I think it's a brilliant idea.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:18 pm

That's one terrific idea, and perhaps it's something to speak to our representatives about. As you say, it's one thing to help those in need , which of course is the purpose of welfare, but it's another thing entirely to enable people to continue milking the system for no other reason than they want to.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:33 pm

The idea works for me, Tater.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:44 pm

Ya got my vote President Tater.

abortretryfail · Post by **abortretryfail** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:03 pm

That's ridiculous. That's an invasion of privacy. The answer to this question is that YOU should not be tested, and public assistance should be curtailed even further. It would cost more money to administer those tests and have the lab run the results than you would save in public assistance, you realize.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:22 pm

Tater

I understand your point, and I also understand the cost factor to screen the welfare recipients. I'm sure others(government) have thought about all aspects of screening.

Be thankful you have a good job, and a boss who cares.

Patsy

cars · Post by **cars** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:40 pm

Excellent idea Tater! Those screening costs wouldn't amount to a hill of beans in relation to those "monthly" millions in Welfare checks. That seems to be for many, a hand me down from generation to generation as a god given right!

Your employer Pays you, so they make the rules, & if one of those rules is unine testing, then that's their privilidge. And since you are helping to "pay" those Welfare reciepents checks, then you should have a say in the rules to be able for them to qualify & collect those checks! :-3

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:56 pm

I've seen a license plate frame that says "GET IN, SIT DOWN, SHUT UP And HOLD ON! ?I love that one, because I put people on rides at Disneyland. IT would be a perfect one for me. :wah:

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:10 pm

jesse b;506416 wrote: pay them in food not cash drug dealers dont like being payed in ham egg and beans

IM sure they would find a way. Remember the Katrina refugees in Atlanta that bought crack with their FEMA visa cards?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:21 pm

cars;506390 wrote: Excellent idea Tater! Those screening costs wouldn't amount to a hill of beans in relation to those "monthly" millions in Welfare checks.

You're right, but if I'm not mistaken it would cost health-care facilities money, or at least some sort of facility to run the tests through, that in which are not governmentally owned...It would work however if upon a welfare recipient tests positive for drug use for their money to then go the the facility conducting the tests instead of the person striving for welfare...although I'm afraid they would only make money on those that test positive, and to be honest that doesn't seem like it would be far from realistic given my own experience. But all in the same it would be a gamble and no one wishes to take that risk, not even health-care. (Way I see it)

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:23 pm

DesignerGal;506423 wrote: IM sure they would find a way. Remember the Katrina refugees in Atlanta that bought crack with their FEMA visa cards?

I think jesse was speaking literally.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:32 pm

I found this site to be very interesting read on the costs, and how effective drug testing is.

http://www.ohsinc.com/DRUG_TESTING_COST ... _COST2.htm

Tater Tazz · Post by **Tater Tazz** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:54 pm

I do agree!!!!!! Idid personnel for awhile and it really does not cost that much to test people when you set it up with a doctor they give big discounts if you test alot of people. I think they should test people this why I know my tax dollars are not going to junkies.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:32 pm

Tater Tazz;506589 wrote: I do agree!!!!!! Idid personnel for awhile and it really does not cost that much to test people when you set it up with a doctor they give big discounts if you test alot of people. I think they should test people this why I know my tax dollars are not going to junkies.

They would have to increase taxes to be able to pay for those tests...and even then it would be uncertain if you(tax payers) would save money in the long run...The amount of people on welfare using drugs would have to be overwhelmingly more than those that aren't, otherwise you would be wasting more tax dollars in testing, while at the same time still giving out welfare checks...

Trust me, if it were profitable, it would have been attempted.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:52 am

Excellent feed back from all of you,Even those who don't think it's a good idea,Your input is valuable.

I know there is no fool proof plan,but I encourage every one too put some thought into it,and ask your Friends and who ever.

We need too be open too new ideas.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:56 am

Shweet tatersalad;507010 wrote: Excellent feed back from all of you,Even those who don't think it's a good idea,Your input is valuable.

I know there is no fool proof plan,but I encourage every one too put some thought into it,and ask your Friends and who ever.

We need too be open too new ideas.

I'm for whatever works,..but I see more tax money being waisted in the effort than what is already being done...

If it were up to me, I would cut all of the welfare checks out, and invest it into our schools,..but then again, that would be the sensible thing to do.

Tater Tazz · Post by **Tater Tazz** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:50 am

K.Snyder;507019 wrote: I'm for whatever works,..but I see more tax money being waisted in the effort than what is already being done...

If it were up to me, I would cut all of the welfare checks out, and invest it into our schools,..but then again, that would be the sensible thing to do.

i agree with you 100% about the schools!

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:12 am

Eliminating the checks completely is not a good idea.Because there are people out there that truly need the help.Lost there jobs because of down sizing,moms with children due too dead beat dads,Or just plain being stuck in a place where work is just not available.

Problem is separating the cream from the crap.

Another thought i had was it does not have too urine,it could hair samples,If peeing in a cup in not your thing.It is how my work prescreens now.

We don't have too test every one,just put them on notice,when they apply they sign a agreement that tells them that are subject too random testing so please be sure you have the time set aside too do so if asked,They can't be that busy.

And only test say five percent.Pull the five aside at random,test only one.

Word will get out that it is a crap shoot and I think it is fair way aswell as a cost effective.

If you test positive,your money stops,you are set for a hearing if you wish too state your case.There might be some folks out with a good reason too test pos.I.E. prescription drugs,cold meds etc.

All in all we need too form a plan.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:07 pm

Shweet tatersalad;507170 wrote: Eliminating the checks completely is not a good idea.Because there are people out there that truly need the help.Lost there jobs because of down sizing,moms with children due too dead beat dads,Or just plain being stuck in a place where work is just not available.

Problem is separating the cream from the crap.

Another thought i had was it does not have too urine,it could hair samples,If peeing in a cup in not your thing.It is how my work prescreens now.

We don't have too test every one,just put them on notice,when they apply they sign a agreement that tells them that are subject too random testing so please be sure you have the time set aside too do so if asked,They can't be that busy.

And only test say five percent.Pull the five aside at random,test only one.

Word will get out that it is a crap shoot and I think it is fair way aswell as a cost effective.

If you test positive,your money stops,you are set for a hearing if you wish too state your case.There might be some folks out with a good reason too test pos.I.E. prescription drugs,cold meds etc.

All in all we need too form a plan.

I'm just curious, assuming one did test positive for drugs, how long if at all would be an appropriate time span for them to be denied welfare?

Tater Tazz · Post by **Tater Tazz** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:25 pm

I personally think that it should be a year with them having to go to rehab and being tested on a monthly basis.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:43 pm

I think it's definitely workable, Shweet. Of course, startup costs would have to include court costs for the inevitable ACLU lawsuit.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:57 pm

personally i would like to see the naacp dismantled...it is unconstitutional to me....along with black history week.....i think it has outlived it's time and whatever good it may have brought in the beginning is gone....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:04 pm

guppy;507725 wrote: personally i would like to see the naacp dismantled...it is unconstitutional to me....along with black history week.....i think it has outlived it's time and whatever good it may have brought in the beginning is gone....
The NAACP is a private organization, not a government department.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:06 pm

Accountable;507730 wrote: The NAACP is a private organization, not a government department.

i know that, it was started in direct response to the kkk. i would like to see both groups dismantled.......

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:11 pm

guppy;507731 wrote: i know that, it was started in direct response to the kkk. i would like to see both groups dismantled.......
Me too, but they aren't unconstitutional because they are private organizations.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:48 pm

K.Snyder;506992 wrote: The amount of people on welfare using drugs would have to be overwhelmingly more than those that aren't, otherwise you would be wasting more tax dollars in testing, while at the same time still giving out welfare checks....

The only way this would be true is if the cost for the testing were the same or more than the total cost of keeping that person on the dole. That's not the case. Drug tests cost a few tens of dollars - if the idea is that one positive test disqualifies a person from receiving welfare, then that one test for a few tens of dollars has saved potentially years of paying that person welfare.

You said that if it were profitable it would already be happening; I don't agree. This is the government we're talking about here - hardly a good money manager, and certainly overburdened with inertia. It's not being done because nobody in the affected agencies is invested enough in making a change.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:07 pm

Erinna1112;507764 wrote: The only way this would be true is if the cost for the testing were the same or more than the total cost of keeping that person on the dole. That's not the case. Drug tests cost a few tens of dollars - if the idea is that one positive test disqualifies a person from receiving welfare, then that one test for a few tens of dollars has saved potentially years of paying that person welfare.

You said that if it were profitable it would already be happening; I don't agree. This is the government we're talking about here - hardly a good money manager, and certainly overburdened with inertia. It's not being done because nobody in the affected agencies is invested enough in making a change.

What I meant was, you would have to test everyone in order to find the one that is doing the drugs...and this would be extremely expensive, and the only ones that would be paying for it would be the citizens through taxes, because the one on welfare surely isn't. And that in order for it to equal out in expenditures, there would have to be an overwhelming amount of people on drugs vying for welfare upon any cancellation of the benefit altogether.

You might be right about the government and it's more so emphasis on law than it is business oriented, but anything involving a profit surely isn't run by the government, and I was speaking more or less in regards to companies taking the initiative in the matter.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:35 am

K.Snyder;507384 wrote: I'm just curious, assuming one did test positive for drugs, how long if at all would be an appropriate time span for them to be denied welfare?

I think one month or until they test negative.

And by all means,if they complain about bills then gather the names and Addy's of there creditors and inform them of why the person(s) will not be receiving a hand out this month,and let THEM deal with the fallout.Hey wait,I think there is a job in there some where.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:18 am

Make it where the bill for the DS is up to the recipient, and they aren't eligible to recieve initial benefits (unless it's deemed an emergency) until they provide a negative DS. If one fails a DS after they've started benefits, then cancel them, mandate them to receive a substance abuse evaluation and follow any and all recommendations of the substance abuse professional, in terms of any needed treatment. My agency tests dozens of people per week (clients), but we also have arrangements with several other agencies that we conduct drug screens for. Some of those agencies do pay however many require the client to pay, and the cost is not that much at all, as we have a contract with a lab and get them at a discount. Also, it would need to be lab screens for sure, as those dipstick tests are not always accurate IMO. Hair follicle is a good idea, but that is expensive. And trust me, the number of people on welfare that do test positive is staggering.

abortretryfail · Post by **abortretryfail** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:09 am

I have a better idea - how about we legalize and tax marijuana. Last year's cannabis revenues in this country were 38.4 billion dollars. If taxed, this would keep us from ever having any of our paychecks cut for public assistance. Not only that, it would reduce drug testing as the most common positive result is for marijuana.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:02 pm

abortretryfail;508160 wrote: I have a better idea - how about we legalize and tax marijuana. Last year's cannabis revenues in this country were 38.4 billion dollars. If taxed, this would keep us from ever having any of our paychecks cut for public assistance. Not only that, it would reduce drug testing as the most common positive result is for marijuana.
How would that hold welfare recipients to the same standard that Shweet is being held to?

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:23 am

abortretryfail;508160 wrote: I have a better idea - how about we legalize and tax marijuana. Last year's cannabis revenues in this country were 38.4 billion dollars. If taxed, this would keep us from ever having any of our paychecks cut for public assistance. Not only that, it would reduce drug testing as the most common positive result is for marijuana.

If we were too do that the quality of the weed would be very bad and the underground weed would still be marketed.So it would be all a waste.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:14 pm

Shweet tatersalad;509094 wrote: If we were too do that the quality of the weed would be very bad and the underground weed would still be marketed.So it would be all a waste.

Now all we have to do is substitute the word "weed" with that of "drugs" and that would be my entire point...but that's a whole another thread.

abortretryfail · Post by **abortretryfail** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:18 pm

Accountable;508193 wrote: How would that hold welfare recipients to the same standard that Shweet is being held to?

If they were really held to the same standard they would have to work. They aren't held to the same standard, that's the point of welfare. I propose Shweet not be drug tested at all. Plus I propose none of his tax money should go to welfare - instead let's pay for it by taxing luxuries such as drugs. And sugar - which we currently subsidize rather than tax.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:29 am

Alas,I don't mind being tested,I work in the snack food industry and i am responsible for the Food safe part of it.Children eat the product.

I am no less accountable then a school bus driver,or a Doctor.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:20 am

Erinna1112;507764 wrote: The only way this would be true is if the cost for the testing were the same or more than the total cost of keeping that person on the dole.

The cheapest test available is through urine tests I do believe, and in such cases urine testing has a higher susceptibility to being cheated...In order for them to be effective, the company conducting the tests would have to have staff members present in witnessing the tests, and then you're talking about an extreme increase in funds. That's not accounting for the fact that urine testing has a detection window of no more than about a week,..and when you get into trying to discover different types of drugs, some may be detected and some may not, increasing the sufficiency of it all altogether...ultimately waisting more tax dollars...

As for urine testing, as Accountable has already stated...the ACLU would have a field day.

As for other more effective drug tests, you also have an increase in the amount of money needed to produce an effective drug testing program...

Random drug screening would take an extreme amount of luck in finding those that do abuse drugs, and it could work both ways...You could either be lucky enough to choose a numerous amount of people who happen to use drugs, or you could find many whom do not, ultimately waisting more tax dollars in the process...This goes back to my comment about no one wishing to take that gamble,..it's just not financially stable. Not to mention random drug screening never having the potential in abolishing everyone on welfare whom happen to use drugs...it's just not statistically accurate.

As for sweat patches and blood samples, you might as well throw your paycheck in a bon fire, let alone having a few dollars a week taken out to support welfare recipients...

abortretryfail · Post by **abortretryfail** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:25 pm

Shweet tatersalad;509733 wrote: Alas,I don't mind being tested,I work in the snack food industry and i am responsible for the Food safe part of it.Children eat the product.

I am no less accountable then a school bus driver,or a Doctor.

Please tell me you aren't serious. Whatever is in that processed "snack" (junk) food (hydrogenated oils? High fructose corn syrup? Potassium benzoate?) is probably worse for the children than anything you could do.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:23 pm

abortretryfail;512798 wrote: Please tell me you aren't serious. Whatever is in that processed "snack" (junk) food (hydrogenated oils? High fructose corn syrup? Potassium benzoate?) is probably worse for the children than anything you could do.
worse than e coli on the hands?

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:01 pm

abortretryfail;512798 wrote: Please tell me you aren't serious. Whatever is in that processed "snack" (junk) food (hydrogenated oils? High fructose corn syrup? Potassium benzoate?) is probably worse for the children than anything you could do.

Yea thats it.It don't take much brain power too make chips.

We have come a long way from chewing the masa in your mouth and frying it in spit.

I started a good thread about a good subject and it was going good for a while,but now we have too take shots at each other.

Go have a mac attack.

abortretryfail · Post by **abortretryfail** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:02 pm

Accountable;513420 wrote: worse than e coli on the hands?

If children weren't fed sterile food such as "snack food" their colonic bacteria would be intact and readily able to deal with a little e coli. It's overuse of antibiotics in livestock and humans coupled with this odd obsession with sterility we have that is actually increasing the amount and virulence of bacterial strains that we don't do well with. Plus the average child eats 175 pounds of sugar per year, which encourages their gut bacteria to be made up solely of obligate sugar feeders, which provide zero defense against things such as e coli. A small amount of e coli is actually NECESSARY in the gut. It would be better for these kids not to eat anything processed whatsoever, that will overall reduce their chances of having bacterial issues. Food should be made by plants, not by a factory.

I'm not sure how using drugs would lead to more e coli on the hands, either.

Tater Tazz · Post by **Tater Tazz** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:23 pm

But I like the free snacks !!!!!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:46 am

abortretryfail;514169 wrote: It would be better for these kids not to eat anything processed whatsoever, that will overall reduce their chances of having bacterial issues. Food should be made by plants, not by a factory.

I agree absolutely...

My father used to tell me about how when he was a kid you didn't hear as much about things like cancer, and other types of illnesses because a great majority of people grew their own food, and preservatives weren't excessively used...Being "fair minded", I would argue that this was do in large part to not being so exposed to world wide news coverage and things like that, but all in all I do believe that there is some truth to that notion...

It's hard to walk into a grocery store without most of the products in it not being relatively fresh and in packages that you know contain preservatives. But I think that's a whole another thread.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:05 am

I absolute agree,that no one should snack foods including kids.

But they do,I am responsible for the effort too make them as healthy as possible in my plant.We clean the processing equipment that makes these products.Every piece has too be literally spotless,6 fryers,trim tables,peelers,(potato's)soak tanks(corn) everything packaging packaging.

Much of this cleaned and sanitized with chemicals and what not,We use high pressure hoses and we work together.You do not some stoner cleaning the fryer you get your chips from.

The oil we use is of the best possible quality.Tested for purity and cleanliness.

On start up every thing that come in contact with the product is tested for microbes and must be clean of any cross allergen contamination.Peanut oil,milk allergens etc.All these are tests that take up about 8 too 10 hours even before the fryer sees oil.

Too be clear headed and sober too do this is a understatement.

Think about this next time you pull a hair out of your WHOPPER.

THIS is why it is important that no one be under the influence of drugs and alcohol In a food plant.

Asking me too over look a simple food safety procedure is asking me too over look the value of your life.

Tater Tazz · Post by **Tater Tazz** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:44 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:55 am

This is one of my real pet hates . People who sit on their arse while claiming benefits . There's plenty of work out there if people would only look . I think governments (certainly here in the uk) make it to easy . Some people spend their whole life on benefits with no intention of ever getting job - it really makes me mad .