Quote:
Originally Posted by TFord
I understand where your coming from...and I understand why you can't understand where Im coming from. And thats understandable...lol Like I said I agree that there needs to be something done with those who abuse the system. That proposed method to me means that It would have to be assumed that all welfare recipients are drug abusers and you need to prove that your not to get assistance....If thats the case based on my life experience most police officers are crooked. So how about we have mini cameras, and recorders on police at all times to be reviewed daily, to ensure their performing their jobs properly? (Tag this isn't a jab at you...I'm just trying to explain my reasoning in a way it relates to you better  ) essentially your punishing those who are doing the right thing as well as those who are in the wrong.
And on your point with education, low income areas dont have the same assets at their disposal as those areas that have higher income. I know first hand! There was a study on the news here and the said that "a person from chicago who graduates from high school in a low income area in chicago in the top 10% of his or her class and wants to become a doctor, on average will take 4 years longer because of the education gap." I personally worked 2 full time jobs in high school and pretty much was never there because I was at work. Luckilly I was blessed with some smarts, and Ive never failed any classes. But what about those who are in my situation what weren't as intelligent naturally? (not boasting at all, just being truthful)
What you see, or know of low income/welfare people isn't nearly the entire picture |
I think I understand where you're coming from better than some as I a spent a decent amount of time living in the worst part of Miami. I'm not gonna give my life story as I tend to get long winded, but I get you (I think). The problem with your reasoning as i see it is that you think we're assuming that all people or even most people on welfare do drugs. We're saying that if even 20% do and we were able to remove them from the system, it would be better for everyone.
Exp. 100 welfare recipients.
Since you gave the figure of 15k we'll use that. That's $1250 per month to each person or a total of $125,000 given out to those 100 people per month. Say we drug test them all one month and spent $13,500 for the hair test. 20 of them fail. No checks for them for the next 3 months which would've been $75,000. That's a saving of $61,500. The people who pass didn't pay anything out of pocket, and weren't
punished in any way. In fact we can probably give them a bit more since we're saving all this money anyway.
And eventually with the ineligibility after so many fails we'd begin to save money on the tests. Since we'll have to give out less of them.
The people who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to worry about, and I think the minor inconvenience of stopping by a facility once every few months in negligible. In fact with all this drug testing the companies will need more workers which might create more jobs for some of those who need it.
My major issue is that tax payer and government money is being used to support the drug trade. This will help to slow that up a bit.
I really can't see the downside. If you do please tell me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XanthosV6
So... is this thread really about the liquid waste products of a bunch of random dead beats?
- Xanthos
|
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG UR IT
First off, AMEN! Drug test or no welfare check!!! This does not include the needy...those who are in need should get it.
|
SO you're saying that as long as someone NEEDS the money it's okay for them to do drugs?
