Yes, it is too much..............because it costs too f'n much. Aren't you the guy who's looking to save taxpayer money? What do you figure it would cost to implement and administer a drug-testing program for every welfare recipient? I bet if it is streamlined, we'll only spend $1.25 for every dollar we save,

According to your employer, you owe them a clean urine sample. Since they're paying you, and you are cashing their checks, you apparently agreed to those terms. Don't snivel about it now, you entered into the contract voluntarily.

A welfare recipient hasn't agreed to those terms, and forcing them to agree to it to receive benefits is punitive and ridiculous.

No, you're not alone in your thinking. Congratulations?

First - I did say the following above "The argument on the other side of my position is that nobody is forcing me to take a job with a company that requires one nor is anyone forcing someone to take umemployment or welfare. I get that too...". This is an acknowledgement that nobody forced me to into anything. I don't have to take a job that requires drug testing.

Saying that a welfare recipient hasn't agreed to the terms is not always the case. How much fraud and waste is in the system? How many ladies claim more kids than they have? How many people choose to quit a job or were fired for misconduct? How many people don't actively look for work because the system pays those more to NOT work? Sure, there are those folks that did not choose to be in their situation (probably the majority) and those folks should be taken care of. It is an imperfect system, but not one that cannot be optimized for better results.

Welfare fraud is at an all time high. Fix the fraud and there would be plenty of money to go around to the remaining people that truly need it. This is how you control costs and save the taxpayers money WHILE helping the needy and pulling the leeches off of the system. It would pay for itself!

So..............I was pretty sure we were talking about drug-testing welfare recipients, not welfare fraud.

Did I give the impression that I'm OK with welfare fraud?

Dan, we all know that anyone who smokes pot commits fraud.

Look up the numbers on the places where they've drug tested welfare recipients...it's already been done...and you'll find the same thing every time...it costs far more to come up with a bunch of tests (overwhelmingly negative tests, too) than they save by cutting off the ones who fail.

Another case of "big government waste" being championed by those who claim to hate big government waste. They don't hate waste...they typically are the biggest cheerleaders for it...they just don't like people who need to get welfare.

Fish on...

Todd

What we need is a balanced approach.

How about we balance the approach by not doing ridiculously wasteful things like drug testing welfare recipients, and stop giving away billions in subsidies and tax breaks to mega-corporations who don't need them?

If anyone is actually serious about saving money there's an easy way to do it.

For those who think that we need to give gigantic corporations tax dollars to congratulate them and waste money on testing regular people, you should never...ever...say you are for limited government and no waste...you are for exactly the opposite and saying differently doesn't make it so.

Fish on...

Todd

Uh oh, Todd's being logical and that won't go over good here.


Fishy

JFC guys...I said cut it ALL like 100 posts ago. What part of all don't you understand? Don't peg me as a big government guy, when I want a much smaller government than you do. All is all. You guys were the ones who got all hung on up my comment to drug test welfare, so we went down that road. Rampant fraud exists in multiple forms - whether its an off shore account or a drunk buying beer with food stamps and we should do everything in our power to seek it out and stop it wherever and whenever it occurs. Again, we are BROKE.

It will pleasure you to know that I smoke buddah myself on occasion and that I was on welfare last year (unemployment and food stamps) due to a job loss. I didn't smoke when I was receiving benefits as I was looking for another job and I didn't want to be "that guy" who was using and abusing the system. Yeah - I'm a Boy Scout like that and I would have gladly have taken a DT if it meant I got to eat.

When they start taxing corporate jets, off-shore money and stop the welfare tax cuts to corporations making billions and stop asking to cut grandmas SS and medicare then we should look into wastage in these public social programs. Asking Grandma to not take her meds or keep her hear above 50 is ridiculous while the Romney's of the world get tax breaks for their "income" or so that some lame azz can get a tax break for a corporate jet.

Fishy

I suppose the GOP senators were jumping up and down in anger trying to stop the corporate fat cats from their jet tax welfare!


Fishy

Mooching Off Medicaid

Consider the case of Florida, whose governor, Rick Scott, made his personal fortune in the health industry. At one point, by the way, the company he built pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and paid $1.7 billion in fines related to Medicare fraud. Anyway, Mr. Scott got elected as a fierce opponent of Obamacare, and Florida participated in the suit asking the Supreme Court to declare the whole plan unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Mr. Scott recently shocked Tea Party activists by announcing his support for the Medicaid expansion.

But his support came with a condition: he was willing to cover more of the uninsured only after receiving a waiver that would let him run Medicaid through private insurance companies. Now, why would he want to do that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/opinion/krugman-mooching-off-medicare.html?hpw

Fishy

Health Insurance
Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us

Dozens of midpriced items were embedded with similarly aggressive markups, like $283.00 for a “CHEST, PA AND LAT 71020.” That’s a simple chest X-ray, for which MD Anderson is routinely paid $20.44 when it treats a patient on Medicare, the government health care program for the elderly.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/print/


Fishy

The health care industry seems to have the will and the means to keep it that way. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and health-care-product industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health services and HMOs, have spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington. That dwarfs the $1.53 billion spent by the defense and aerospace industries and the $1.3 billion spent by oil and gas interests over the same period. That’s right: the health-care-industrial complex spends more than three times what the military-industrial complex spends in Washington.

We spend two or three times that much on durable medical devices like canes and wheelchairs, in part because a heavily lobbied Congress forces Medicare to pay 25% to 75% more for this equipment than it would cost at Walmart.

Fishy

Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below

President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he’s been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Fishy

The year 1913 marked the first time a Big Oil subsidy was written into the tax code. The Revenue Act of 1913 allowed oil companies to write off 5 percent of the costs from oil and gas wells beginning March 1 of that year. (For reference, see pages 172-174 of the Act.) A century later, oil companies can now deduct three times this rate, at 15 percent, although the very largest companies no longer qualify. The percentage depletion subsidy also increases when prices are high, at the same time that oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.

A Center for American Progress report estimated that closing this tax break would save $11.2 billion over 10 years.

fishy

We spend two or three times that much on durable medical devices like canes and wheelchairs, in part because a heavily lobbied Congress forces Medicare to pay 25% to 75% more for this equipment than it would cost at Walmart.

Fishy [/quote]

How is this NOT corporate welfare?


Fishy

And this?

Fishy

Some people cannot afford the cost of purchasing one.


Fishy

This one, again.

Fishy

You first!


Fishy