Michigan Senate passes bill on drug test for welfare receivers

dmbrhs said:
Typical "blame the system" argument. Education starts and ends at home. The government can (and will) only do so much. Parents need to take an active role in their kid's (or kids') education. Without that, there is no hope. We're so far gone, that what you say about education and climbing the socio-economic ladder is just not a reality. We'd have to start over at this point, and we can't.
Click to expand...

Whether we are talking about the system or the parents educating kids, we're still talking about education.

The classroom is not the only place for learning in the world.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day this really isn't thread worthy as this isn't the first state to pass something like this. In a few years people will prolly be saying how much of a failure this was just like in Arizona, Utah, and Florida
 
LIONBLOOD said:
Finally.


The next step is limiting the number of children you can have if you're on welfare. Yea that sounds harsh but I went there. These people having 9 kids and can't afford to feed them makes no damn sense. :smh:
Click to expand...

i been saying this for a minute ... if you have more than 3 kids you need to get your "benefits" taken from you. like why are you draining public resources to feed kids that you continue to have when you cannot care for them properly ...
 
cRazy dav0 said:
i been saying this for a minute ... if you have more than 3 kids you need to get your "benefits" taken from you. like why are you draining public resources to feed kids that you continue to have when you cannot care for them properly ...
Click to expand...
Tell me about it, I have my baby moms 2nd child.. She aint worked after that, we broke up and now she have 7 kids and on disablility ,food stamps and welfare..

And I work every day and she got the nerves to say i dont do anything for my kid bla bla bla.. I said you got to be joking, you dont even take care of your kids welfare does and technically me since i pay taxes

She Smokes weed also..

As soon as this law take place, I'm ratting her out ASAP!!!!
 
Last edited:
Superb said:
Tell me about it, I have my baby moms 2nd child.. She aint worked after that, we broke up and now she have 7 kids and on disablility ,food stamps and welfare..

And I work every day and she got the nerves to say i dont do anything for my kid bla bla bla.. I said you got to be joking, you dont even take care of your kids welfare does and technically me since i pay taxes

She Smokes weed also..

As soon as this law take place, I'm ratting her out ASAP!!!!
Click to expand...

7 kids ... damn

like if you want to be lazy whatever.... that's on you ... but to have kids and not give them the best quality of life while being reliant on getting more benefits from having even more kids ... i have a real issue with that ...
 
Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results
CATHERINE WHITTENBURG The Tampa Tribune
Published: August 24, 2011 | Updated: March 20, 2013 at 07:27 PM

TALLAHASSEE -

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

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.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

http://tbo.com/ap/politics/welfare-drug-testing-yields--positive-results-252458
Click to expand...

In Florida this was a money making scheme by Rick Scott. His wife owned/owns the company that is/was testing the applicants. Florida tax payers paid "X" amount of dollars to only find 2%?



Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state's net loss? $45,780.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721
Click to expand...

$46k isnt a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but talking about waste and allocating resources? Drug testing people is a waste of time, and who says they wont use the money after they get tested?
 
Last edited:
***a5in11 said:
Why do people blame the government for everything? The parents are the issues here.
Click to expand...

Because it's convenient. Everyone knows what the real problem is, but too few are afraid to say it (especially politicians, because if they target terrible parents, they won't get re-elected). You and I are not those types of people.
 
ohmygosher said:
 
green rhino123 said:
 
ohmygosher said:
What exactly makes it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

am guessing he means it violates the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Click to expand...
Yea, but no one is forcing you. It's an inducement. If you want government assistance, you play by their rules. The government doesn't have to shell out any type of assistance.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. The government can't mandate abstinence or birth control. It's an invasion on privacy. The ninth amendment protects against it.

It's why the government can require you get an invasive screening or test, and can limit when and how you get one, but they can't deny your right to an abortion. The bill of rights forbids the government from limiting how or when you have children. They will never be able to.  Regardless of their reasoning.

And government assistance is a right when you are in need. The government exists because of, and to serve, you. They probably wouldn't even be able to discriminate against you for having a lot of kids -- it'd be an equal protection violation.
 
LIONBLOOD said:
 
Wr said:
The best unnecessary child deterrent is education and social mobility. Especially for impoverished women.
Click to expand...
Wait correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying you need education to understand that having 10 kids you cannot take care of isn't wise? Or am I reading this wrong?

I know there is a definite correlation between socioeconomic status and how many children people have. Educated people are moving more toward a trend of not having children or having less children, while the woman from the projects on welfare is having 6 or 7.  I suspect many of these women use their children either as chips to get what they want whether it be govt assistance or child support. If we put an end to policies that promote these benefits we will see a drop in the birth rate.
Click to expand...
This is just ignorance.
 
Again, it is an inducement. The government can add any type of stipulation they see fit.

And government assistance is not a right. They could do away with every social welfare program tomorrow and they'd be well within their right.
 
Last edited:
ohmygosher said:
Again, it is an inducement. The government can add any type of stipulation they see fit.

And government assistance is not a right. They could do away with every social welfare program tomorrow and they'd be well within their right.
Click to expand...
OK, again, no.

They can't add any stipulation they want if it violates the constitution, which what you're suggesting would. It's not even arguable.

Secondly, sure, they COULD do away with every social welfare program tomorrow if they wanted to. How long do you think the government would stand after that?

So because the programs exist, every single person has a RIGHT to them if they fit the parameters of need.
 
Last edited:
Your government has people who snort cocaine smoke weed ,buy hookers ,run up 100,000 liquor tabs eat at five star restaurants and have personals stylist and get 5,000 dollar suits to be bought on your dollar and waste millions on wars with no end in sight .
 
AK Nako said:
ohmygosher said:
Again, it is an inducement. The government can add any type of stipulation they see fit.


And government assistance is not a right. They could do away with every social welfare program tomorrow and they'd be well within their right.
Click to expand...

OK, again, no.

They can't add any stipulation they want if it violates the constitution, which what you're suggesting would. It's not even arguable.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you think the legal drinking age was set to 21?
 
ohmygosher said:
 
AK Nako said:
 
ohmygosher said:
Again, it is an inducement. The government can add any type of stipulation they see fit.


And government assistance is not a right. They could do away with every social welfare program tomorrow and they'd be well within their right.
Click to expand...
OK, again, no.

They can't add any stipulation they want if it violates the constitution, which what you're suggesting would. It's not even arguable.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you think the legal drinking age was set to 21?
Click to expand...
Because the federal government offered individual states incentives to make their local laws uniform and 21.  And in almost every state you can still drink under the age of 21 if you have parental consent.

And alcohol consumption is nowhere close to sexual reproduction and marriage.

The government can not mandate abortions or birth control.  Pick a different argument. Or go research every supreme court ruling on marriage, sex, and abortions and then come back and pick a different argument.
 
Last edited:
You say:


They can't add any stipulation they want if it violates the constitution
Click to expand...

And when I prove that wrong you say it doesn't count? Lulz.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. An inducement is NOT a mandate.
 
Last edited:
ohmygosher said:
You say:
 
They can't add any stipulation they want if it violates the constitution
Click to expand...
And when I prove that wrong you say it doesn't count? Lulz.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. An inducement is NOT a mandate.
Click to expand...
i'm not arguing with you anymore.  the government can not force people to get abortion.  the government can not induce abortions by withholding federal aid. it's unconstitutional.

your argument about the drinking age in each state didn't prove anything.  people don't have a fundamental right to consume alcohol. they have a fundamental right to bear children.  hence the ninth amendment.

and the fact that you're comparing incentives regarding alcohol/drug/food regulation to governing reproduction shows that YOU have no idea how the law works.

the fact that i cited a constitutional amendment to you to explain why the government can't do something and told you what series of court rulings to read that further supports and explains what i said, and that you either didn't go and read them or didn't understand them further proves you don't know anything.

it also shows you don't understand how the constitution works.

i should have never engaged you in this conversation.  i have a law degree.  you don't.  you're wrong.  go on being wrong.  i just hope everyone knows better than to follow you down this rabbit hole of misinformed speculating.

the problem with this law and society in general is some people don't know anything and don't take the time to research the things they want to speak and rule on, and are too stubborn to concede that they don't know everything.
 
Last edited:
AK Nako said:
ohmygosher said:
You say:

 
They can't add any stipulation they want if it violates the constitution
Click to expand...


And when I prove that wrong you say it doesn't count? Lulz.


You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. An inducement is NOT a mandate.
Click to expand...

i'm not arguing with you anymore.  the government can not force people to get abortion.  the government can not induce abortions by withholding federal aid. it's unconstitutional.

your argument about the drinking age in each state didn't prove anything.  people don't have a fundamental right to consume alcohol. they have a fundamental right to bear children.  hence the ninth amendment.

and the fact that you're comparing incentives regarding alcohol/drug/food regulation to governing reproduction shows that YOU have no idea how the law works.

the fact that i cited a constitutional amendment to you to explain why the government can't do something and told you what series of court rulings to read that further supports and explains what i said, and that you either didn't go and read them or didn't understand them further proves you don't know anything.

it also shows you don't understand how the constitution works.

i should have never engaged you in this conversation.  i have a law degree.  you don't.  you're wrong.  go on being wrong.  i just hope everyone knows better than to follow you down this rabbit hole of misinformed speculating.

the problem with this law and society in general is some people don't know anything and don't take the time to research the things they want to speak and rule on, and are too stubborn to concede that they don't know everything.
Click to expand...


Go make a thread crying about the way Kanye is treated. This is over your head.

:lol: @ the thought of you having a law degree.
 
Last edited:
Why not everyone who gets money from the government. Be tested I'm talmabout dod, elected officials, government contractors .. Etc...
 
ohmygosher said:
 
AK Nako said:
 
Click to expand...

Go make a thread crying about the way Kanye is treated. This is over your head.

laugh.gif
@ the thought of you having a law degree.
Click to expand...
You sound like a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom