100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Missouri law requires drug tests for welfare recipients | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
this move is not just or fair to all those who follow the laws,, Those who follow the law will pass with no problem. I bet they aren't the least worried about failing. Go Barry. Support this Law. It will get more moneies opened up for your Illegals. 
thats false logic, that would be like assuming that white folks during jim crow times were not 'the least bit worried' about laws that affected non whites the point is not personal affect, the point is affect on community and sense of justice,,,, This is not a racial thang. Why make it one? As before, drug users came in all races. Preach it to Michigan also. For Release: June 8, 2012 Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or project21@nationalcenter.org or Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org Michigan Proposal Requiring Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients Hailed by Black Conservatives OMG!!! What racists!! 
"This is a Win for the Recipient, Their Children and Taxpayers," Says Michigan Activist Stacy Swimp "Drug Testing as a Condition of Receiving Tax-Funded Benefits Absolutely is Constitutional," Says Legal Expert Horace Cooper Saginaw, MI / Washington, D.C. - Stacy Swimp and Horace Cooper of the black leadership group Project 21 are applauding the Michigan House of Representatives for voting Thursday to require Michigan welfare recipients over age 18 to pass a drug test as a condition of receiving benefits. "The reality is that substance abuse is a prominent barrier preventing people from making the necessary transition from governmental dependence to self-reliance. Testing those needing welfare is not a matter of punishing them or their children. It is a way of liberating them," said Project 21's Stacy Swimp, a Michigan activist. "Once someone is found to have a substance abuse problem, the proper steps can be taken for treatment and recovery. This is a win for the recipient, their children and taxpayers. There is nothing unfair or inhuman about it." In an overwhelming 71-to-37 vote, the Michigan House approved legislation June 7 to create a program in which the state's Department of Human Services would screen certain Family Independence Program applicants and recipients for substance abuse problems. The pilot program, to be instituted by 2015, would apply only to those over 18 years old already suspected of having a substance abuse problem. To become law, the bill must now be pass 'proper steps' taken by whom? do you suppose those with a problem need a test to let them know so they can 'begin' taking steps? drug use a prominent barrier that in florida so far has affected a full TWO PERCENT of those tested whatever keep throwing money where you want to,,as people love to so repeatedly point out its 'your' money to spend,, or to waste,, but, but, but. What about the thousands that won't take the drug test at all because they know they are dirty and wouldn't pass...no cost to the taxpayers. there will be no way to discern what those numbers are and who is motivated to take a pass because they are on drugs or because they are offended (the way some people pass on random 'searches' done by the police).... Time will tell.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
always
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They don't work for that money. My parents didn't get free money to feed Us. I worked at a grocery store in high school. The people that bought the most food always had foodstamps. operative word is 'PARENTS' its a bit less taxing if there are TWO adults with the potential to earn income AND care for the children as opposed to ONE parent expected to do it alone,,,,, since AFDC became TANF, most applicants receiving FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Must be involved in work related activities to be on food stamps(which is no longer in stamp form but food 'credit' on a card), they only have to be below the poverty level and the amount of food permitted is determined by family size,,, Don't pretend to know my family situation. My mom was unable to work due to medical problems since before I was born. If you are parents you have a responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself you shouldn't be having kids. You make saceifices for the family. There were times my family wanted a divorce but stayed together and glad they did. Times i could have turned my father in for abuse but didnt as i knew my mom couldnt support us. Sometimes you just grit your teeth and do whats best for the family. many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, The point is, if you can't afford kids then don't have them in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 06/18/12 10:28 PM
|
|
They don't work for that money. My parents didn't get free money to feed Us. I worked at a grocery store in high school. The people that bought the most food always had foodstamps. operative word is 'PARENTS' its a bit less taxing if there are TWO adults with the potential to earn income AND care for the children as opposed to ONE parent expected to do it alone,,,,, since AFDC became TANF, most applicants receiving FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Must be involved in work related activities to be on food stamps(which is no longer in stamp form but food 'credit' on a card), they only have to be below the poverty level and the amount of food permitted is determined by family size,,, Don't pretend to know my family situation. My mom was unable to work due to medical problems since before I was born. If you are parents you have a responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself you shouldn't be having kids. You make saceifices for the family. There were times my family wanted a divorce but stayed together and glad they did. Times i could have turned my father in for abuse but didnt as i knew my mom couldnt support us. Sometimes you just grit your teeth and do whats best for the family. many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, The point is, if you can't afford kids then don't have them in the first place. things change raising kids is an ongoing process and what one is able to do financially and physically at any given point in the journey can change very suddenly,,,, its much deeper than the cliche above,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They don't work for that money. My parents didn't get free money to feed Us. I worked at a grocery store in high school. The people that bought the most food always had foodstamps. operative word is 'PARENTS' its a bit less taxing if there are TWO adults with the potential to earn income AND care for the children as opposed to ONE parent expected to do it alone,,,,, since AFDC became TANF, most applicants receiving FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Must be involved in work related activities to be on food stamps(which is no longer in stamp form but food 'credit' on a card), they only have to be below the poverty level and the amount of food permitted is determined by family size,,, Don't pretend to know my family situation. My mom was unable to work due to medical problems since before I was born. If you are parents you have a responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself you shouldn't be having kids. You make saceifices for the family. There were times my family wanted a divorce but stayed together and glad they did. Times i could have turned my father in for abuse but didnt as i knew my mom couldnt support us. Sometimes you just grit your teeth and do whats best for the family. many people who could 'afford to take care of themselves' saw their circumstances change I can more than easily take care of myself if I had noone else to worry about , noone else who needed my attendance and supervision I could work two or three jobs, but would only need to work one because I dont 'require' much sometimes getting help IS whats best for the family, ,not everyone has the same circumstances when it comes to opportunities or support systems,,, The point is, if you can't afford kids then don't have them in the first place. things change raising kids is an ongoing process and what one is able to do financially and physically at any given point in the journey can change very suddenly,,,, its much deeper than the cliche above,,,, The reality is that the poor have children they can't afford and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reality is that the poor have children they can't afford and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. At one time, I fell for this divisive tactic. The problem is it is unconstitutional, and you may notice that none of the banker bailouts required the same treatment, and those welfare recipients are significantly worse in terms of cost to the country. It's one thing to have probable cause, and ultimately, there will be if there is a problem with drugs. This particular problem isn't even close to becoming an allopathic solution. The real solution is to go after the drug traffickers that bring drugs into our country, which includes the military, CIA, and NGO's that work with the government. From my perspective, it's very clear that entitlement programs will soon become non-existant and it's more about preparing my community for that eventuality, by helping them become self-sufficient and grow their own crops, even in apartment complexes. With a 30% inflation rate for food, there really isn't much else to consider. The further we get away from the kleptocratic Federal Reserve Note, the better off we'll all be. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Tue 06/19/12 05:52 AM
|
|
The reality is that the poor have children they can't afford and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. At one time, I fell for this divisive tactic. The problem is it is unconstitutional, and you may notice that none of the banker bailouts required the same treatment, and those welfare recipients are significantly worse in terms of cost to the country. It's one thing to have probable cause, and ultimately, there will be if there is a problem with drugs. This particular problem isn't even close to becoming an allopathic solution. The real solution is to go after the drug traffickers that bring drugs into our country, which includes the military, CIA, and NGO's that work with the government. From my perspective, it's very clear that entitlement programs will soon become non-existant and it's more about preparing my community for that eventuality, by helping them become self-sufficient and grow their own crops, even in apartment complexes. With a 30% inflation rate for food, there really isn't much else to consider. The further we get away from the kleptocratic Federal Reserve Note, the better off we'll all be. All the libs who claim it's unconstitutional never post from the Constitution stating Welfare is a Right. Show me. Another question. You and your neighborhood grow enough food to sustain you and them. The mob that finds out ya'll have this food will demand their right to their share. Leaving ya'll with zilch. Will you and yours protect with all you have or give it up to the mob? I know the pacifists will roll over real easy. What about your group? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my perspective, it's very clear that entitlement programs will soon become non-existant and it's more about preparing my community for that eventuality, by helping them become self-sufficient and grow their own crops, even in apartment complexes. With a 30% inflation rate for food, there really isn't much else to consider. I'd like to think that entitlement programs WOULD go away and people would learn more about self-sufficiency. I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon - it is political suicide to eliminate programs and nobody on Congressional Hill wants anything more than another term! Thus, our country's economy continues to go from bad to worse and the debt piles up and up and up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The complaint is (I say again) that policy NOW affects her, and in the scuffle the rose colored glasses were broken. It seems that many want this to be a requirement, they have adopted it, and if anyone wants it changed they now must enjoin a battle many of us have been waging all along.... the abuse of power. Rail against it all you want, but it's business as usual in the political process to strip people of their liberties. Something you have not had a problem with until it touched you. Just like your glorious leader, it's all good until it comes back on you.... then blame someone else! WRONG, this wont affect me because I dont mind taking a damned test,, the point keeps getting missed apparently just like marijuana illegality doesnt affect me because I dont USE Marijuana,, I can still see the segregating and inconsistent application of policies that require one government funded group to be singled out to 'assure' they are not using any of the funds for any drugs or polices that label using one recreational drug as criminal while directly profiting from the use of other recreational drugs (such as alcohol and tobacco) ..this is not about being upset at what 'affects me', this is about seeing the discriminatory element of certain policies,,, Mandatory drug testing is very discriminatory. It violates the constitution and treats poor people as lessor citizens. I don't use Marijuana either, nor have I used any mind altering substances in more than 9 years. There is a thing called due process, and this law is unconstitutional. The thing is, the poor have no one fighting for them. In fact, addicts have no one fighting for them. The only fighting being done is overseas, preserving opium interests for the elite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The complaint is (I say again) that policy NOW affects her, and in the scuffle the rose colored glasses were broken. It seems that many want this to be a requirement, they have adopted it, and if anyone wants it changed they now must enjoin a battle many of us have been waging all along.... the abuse of power. Rail against it all you want, but it's business as usual in the political process to strip people of their liberties. Something you have not had a problem with until it touched you. Just like your glorious leader, it's all good until it comes back on you.... then blame someone else! WRONG, this wont affect me because I dont mind taking a damned test,, the point keeps getting missed apparently just like marijuana illegality doesnt affect me because I dont USE Marijuana,, I can still see the segregating and inconsistent application of policies that require one government funded group to be singled out to 'assure' they are not using any of the funds for any drugs or polices that label using one recreational drug as criminal while directly profiting from the use of other recreational drugs (such as alcohol and tobacco) ..this is not about being upset at what 'affects me', this is about seeing the discriminatory element of certain policies,,, Mandatory drug testing is very discriminatory. It violates the constitution and treats poor people as lessor citizens. I don't use Marijuana either, nor have I used any mind altering substances in more than 9 years. There is a thing called due process, and this law is unconstitutional. The thing is, the poor have no one fighting for them. In fact, addicts have no one fighting for them. The only fighting being done is overseas, preserving opium interests for the elite. All the libs who claim it's unconstitutional never post from the Constitution stating Welfare is a Right. Show me. Another question. You and your neighborhood grow enough food to sustain you and them. The mob that finds out ya'll have this food will demand their right to their share. Leaving ya'll with zilch. Will you and yours protect with all you have or give it up to the mob? I know the pacifists will roll over real easy. What about your group? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reality is that the poor have children they can't afford and then expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. At one time, I fell for this divisive tactic. The problem is it is unconstitutional, and you may notice that none of the banker bailouts required the same treatment, and those welfare recipients are significantly worse in terms of cost to the country. It's one thing to have probable cause, and ultimately, there will be if there is a problem with drugs. This particular problem isn't even close to becoming an allopathic solution. The real solution is to go after the drug traffickers that bring drugs into our country, which includes the military, CIA, and NGO's that work with the government. From my perspective, it's very clear that entitlement programs will soon become non-existant and it's more about preparing my community for that eventuality, by helping them become self-sufficient and grow their own crops, even in apartment complexes. With a 30% inflation rate for food, there really isn't much else to consider. The further we get away from the kleptocratic Federal Reserve Note, the better off we'll all be. All the libs who claim it's unconstitutional never post from the Constitution stating Welfare is a Right. Show me. Another question. You and your neighborhood grow enough food to sustain you and them. The mob that finds out ya'll have this food will demand their right to their share. Leaving ya'll with zilch. Will you and yours protect with all you have or give it up to the mob? I know the pacifists will roll over real easy. What about your group? Your claim of me being a liberal is a bit off the mark. I'm actually more of an anarchist than anything else. To require drug testing assumes guilt without evidence. It's well documented in the Bill of Rights. As to self-sufficiency, you probably missed the mayor's involvement in this effort. I Agree with you that self-sufficiency is an oxymoron and puts a bullseye on any one person who actually is. However, I'm expecting at least in this small town, that we will be successful, and are already well armed. If you like, I can describe to you how, with substances commonly available, to force evacuation of an armored vehicle. I myself do not own guns, but am well armed with something much more powerful, a brain. The rest of my neighborhood has guns and thousands of rounds. That being said, I'm sure there will be room for charity even through the roughest of winter months. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Tue 06/19/12 06:14 AM
|
|
Drug laws are unconstitutional, testing is just a furtherance of the abuse of them.
Instead of complaining about the abuses, FIX THE REAL CAUSE! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my perspective, it's very clear that entitlement programs will soon become non-existant and it's more about preparing my community for that eventuality, by helping them become self-sufficient and grow their own crops, even in apartment complexes. With a 30% inflation rate for food, there really isn't much else to consider. I'd like to think that entitlement programs WOULD go away and people would learn more about self-sufficiency. I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon - it is political suicide to eliminate programs and nobody on Congressional Hill wants anything more than another term! Thus, our country's economy continues to go from bad to worse and the debt piles up and up and up. When the Euro fails, so will the Federal Reserve. It's not about political suicide. Simply put, we saw this happen in Germany's monetary system in the first great depression. After 40+ years of a similar corrupt and kleptocratic monetary system, it's happening again. From what little I understand of gardening, we have less than 3 months to be prepared for it, but thankfully, we also have the Summer months to grow outdoors and it already is a farming community in many areas. It's the apartment complexes and poor parts of town that concern me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drug laws are unconstitutional, testing is just a furtherance of the abuse of them. Instead of complaining about the abuses, FIX THE REAL CAUSE! The Taliban tried to, and actually succeeded in Afghanistan, and it would have been fixed except for those pesky democracy bombers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as there is profit in the trade, the cause and effect will continue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Tue 06/19/12 06:53 AM
|
|
If, across the board testing is thought to be unconstitutional, a Politician will contest it.
Barry might. As being one of his goals is making the majority of the US dependent on him and his generosity. Sorry. The other one had phuck in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under current drug laws everyone is a victim! Taxpayers and users. The only ones who profit are the govt and the cartels. Some would say gangs, but that's a falsehood as they are the targets used by the money fed govt machine to sell the need for such laws to the people! Without the laws, the gangs would have to find another source of profit and nothing pays like drug dealing! Take that away from them, you take away the cash and the appeal it has on our young! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's all end this trend. Test for drugs and give Barry th' boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under current drug laws everyone is a victim! Taxpayers and users. Perhaps if people understood the full scope of this statement they wouldn't be arguing over crimes against self. Darwin's law is the only necessary law. http://www.darwinawards,com The only ones who profit are the govt and the cartels. Some would say gangs, but that's a falsehood as they are the targets used by the money fed govt machine to sell the need for such laws to the people! Without the laws, the gangs would have to find another source of profit and nothing pays like drug dealing! Take that away from them, you take away the cash and the appeal it has on our young! Name one gang that profited on drugs prior to 1971. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard, a while back that enabling drug users/addicts does them more harm than we might believe is doing them good.
Enabling also gives the enabler a strong sense of control. It allows them to believe they have rights to do things such as, stalk them. Not real familiar with stalking but, wouldn't pinpointing someone, (using phone GPS), who doesn't want to be in my life, stalking? The answer to a drug user/addict taking personal responsibility is; Stop enabling them. One way we can all stop the enabling is, stop the aid till they are clean. |
|
|
|
|
