Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUownsU on April 24, 2013, 08:39:45 PM
-
http://www.local15tv.com/news/local/story/Alabama-Senate-approves-welfare-drug-testing/0hMrhtcYs02aqGW8jU5siA.cspx
The Alabama Senate has approved legislation providing for drug testing of welfare recipients suspected of using illegal drugs.
The Republican leader of the Senate, Del Marsh, moved to pass the bill while all Democrats were out of the Senate chamber Wednesday afternoon. He also asked to have it passed using the roll call from a previously passed bill. No one objected, and the bill automatically passed 22-10. Democrats opposed to the bill rushed to the chamber to complain about Marsh using a quick procedural move. Marsh says they should have been in the chamber when the Senate was supposed to be meeting.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Sen. Trip Pittman of Daphne, now goes to the House for consideration.
And while we are drug testing all those that leach off the taxpayer money, why don't we go ahead and randomly drug test politicians as well?
-
I see no problem with this at all. I can tell you from the short stint my family and I did in Eufaula, this needed to be done.
-
I hope the costs are deducted from the welfare checks. This should not cost the TAXPAYERS a dime. AND THIS>>>>>>>>>>>>
And while we are drug testing all those that leach off the taxpayer money, why don't we go ahead and randomly drug test politicians as well?
You do realize that politicians leach off of the taxpayers as well?
-
I have nothing against this, other than the cost of administering the drug tests. If I recall correctly, Florida instituted this type of law and found that a very small number of people on welfare used drugs...or they knew enough to beat the tests. Either way, it was relatively ineffective.
This is especially considering that if you really want to catch people with a drug test, you'd need to periodically and randomly administer them. Otherwise, people would just stay clean for their initial test and then go back to using once they're approved for welfare.
If we really want to reduce the number of people on welfare, then we need to vet applicants better and have regulations in place which allow the state to tell them to go fuck themselves if they're not trying to earn money on their own.
-
I have nothing against this, other than the cost of administering the drug tests. If I recall correctly, Florida instituted this type of law and found that a very small number of people on welfare used drugs...or they knew enough to beat the tests. Either way, it was relatively ineffective.
This is especially considering that if you really want to catch people with a drug test, you'd need to periodically and randomly administer them. Otherwise, people would just stay clean for their initial test and then go back to using once they're approved for welfare.
If we really want to reduce the number of people on welfare, then we need to vet applicants better and have regulations in place which allow the state to tell them to go fuck themselves if they're not trying to earn money on their own.
Agree 100% with that. Also don't like the fact that it hasn't been successful in other places that it was tried. I am going to assume that the cost of the testing will be passed along to the tax payer that already pays into the system that supports the ones being tested?
-
Agree 100% with that. Also don't like the fact that it hasn't been successful in other places that it was tried. I am going to assume that the cost of the testing will be passed along to the tax payer that already pays into the system that supports the ones being tested?
I can't find the wording of the bill online to see if it indicates where the funding will come from, but the Montgomery Adviser says that the state will pay for the test, which means that it will be funded by taxpayers (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/viewart/20130424/NEWS/130424015/Alabama-Senate-approves-welfare-drug-testing-).
I also noticed that the testing will only be done for welfare recipients/applicants who have had a drug related conviction in the past five years. And the first positive test only results in a warning. And the drug testing would only affect a couple hundred people per year. Also, the Montgomery Adviser article suggests that if they pass the test, then they won't be tested again.
So, in reality, this proposed law will likely do very little, if anything at all.
-
I have nothing against this, other than the cost of administering the drug tests. If I recall correctly, Florida instituted this type of law and found that a very small number of people on welfare used drugs...or they knew enough to beat the tests. Either way, it was relatively ineffective.
This is especially considering that if you really want to catch people with a drug test, you'd need to periodically and randomly administer them. Otherwise, people would just stay clean for their initial test and then go back to using once they're approved for welfare.
I think a lot of that is that it is a deterrent. They know they could be tested. Same as with most major corporations.
-
I think a lot of that is that it is a deterrent. They know they could be tested. Same as with most major corporations.
It's as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Florida 86'd the program, as have other states.
It's bullshit political posturing that the citizens will pay for.
-
It's as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Florida 86'd the program, as have other states.
It's bullshit political posturing that the citizens will pay for.
Death penalty yes.
I do know in the corporate world that many would partake in the recreational use of certain things if not for fear of being tested. I don't do drugs but even if I wanted to I wouldn't because of randoms. Not to say the same applies for welfare testing but I have seen this in my world. My general thought was just the idea or possibility of someone being tested would be the deterrent, not the actual test itself. That idea wouldn't cost a dime.
-
It's as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Florida 86'd the program, as have other states.
It's bullshit political posturing that the citizens will pay for.
Yeah. So do nothing. That works just as good.
This is the same as most plans. It need to have more teeth and random testing. There is a standing community of people who share information among themselves. If there is away to beat the test, it will be known immediately. But at least the state will have the program in place if it feels the need to use it. And if you are on welfare and commit a drug related crime, shouldn't there be a system in place to address it?
-
And to add, while we are talking of bullshit political posturing that does nothing but costs taxpayers money - the welfare system itself is the biggest, most costly "bullshit political posturing" of them all. Say it ain't so.
-
It's as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Florida 86'd the program, as have other states.
It's bullshit political posturing that the citizens will pay for.
And it buys votes and if I had to bet, I'd bet that they're going to ask for more money for the program than they actually need. Then spend it in other areas.
-
And it buys votes and if I had to bet, I'd bet that they're going to ask for more money for the program than they actually need. Then spend it in other areas.
And welfare? Never been used to buy votes has it? Doesnt cost taxpayers Billions does it? No one is calling for its head though. The fact that you guys are more outraged at what the drug tests cost and the "political posturing" involved as weskie calls it, than you are at the big picture of the welfare system and what it costs is ludicrous. The fraud and waste that occurs in this system could probably pay for these drug tests 10 times over.
-
And welfare? Never been used to buy votes has it? Doesnt cost taxpayers Billions does it? No one is calling for its head though. The fact that you guys are more outraged at what the drug tests cost and the "political posturing" involved as weskie calls it, than you are at the big picture of the welfare system and what it costs is ludicrous. The fraud and waste that occurs in this system could probably pay for these drug tests 10 times over.
You're off topic. This has nothing to do with eliminating or reducing available welfare benefits.
It's about implementing a drug test to see if someone is disqualified for welfare benefits. The test is going to cost more than it saves. It's ineffective, and I doubt that the government will actually turn people away because they tested positive for an illegal substance. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they offer more money to someone that tests positive and then promises to go to rehab.
"I need som etra cash ta get on my rehab."
-
You're off topic. This has nothing to do with eliminating or reducing available welfare benefits.
It's about implementing a drug test to see if someone is disqualified for welfare benefits. The test is going to cost more than it saves. It's ineffective, and I doubt that the government will actually turn people away because they tested positive for an illegal substance. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they offer more money to someone that tests positive and then promises to go to rehab.
"I need som etra cash ta get on my rehab."
No not really. You guys are arguing pennies when the system is wasting Benjamins ALREADY. Waste is waste. I'm not really saying I'm for or against the testing. I can def see the principle in it. It's just hypocritical to me what people want to cut vs what they careless about. I wish people got this outraged over all the other things that were useless govt spending and "didn't save money".
-
No not really. You guys are arguing pennies when the system is wasting Benjamins ALREADY. Waste is waste. I'm not really saying I'm for or against the testing. I can def see the principle in it. It's just hypocritical to me what people want to cut vs what they careless about. I wish people got this outraged over all the other things that were useless govt spending and "didn't save money".
Personally I am outraged at all the wasteful spending. How about we worry about what we are wasting now and fix it without adding more on top of it?
-
No not really. You guys are arguing pennies when the system is wasting Benjamins ALREADY. Waste is waste. I'm not really saying I'm for or against the testing. I can def see the principle in it. It's just hypocritical to me what people want to cut vs what they careless about. I wish people got this outraged over all the other things that were useless govt spending and "didn't save money".
I agree that the system is already wasteful, but I don't see the need to spend any additional money, no matter how small, if it's not going to fix any problems. It's like saying that burning a $5 bill should be acceptable if I'm already spending $100 a day.
The bill that they're proposing is so narrow that it would only affect a couple hundred people. Aside from that, it allows them one warning upon failure of the first test, and doesn't require random testing after they pass a drug test. Of the small number of people that this bill might affect, most will be able to cheat the system unless they're fully retarded or extremely addicted and can't be clean for one test.
I just don't see the need to spend any money on such a flawed proposal. I'm all for fixing the welfare system, but this won't even begin to do that.
-
How bout' we create jobs here for all the welfare recipients by telling China to go fuck itself. We can make our own fishing poles and fireworks and sunglasses and ash trays and staplers and toasters and..........
There's where I'd be in favor of far more government involvement. No, you are not going to have your picture frames made in China. You're going to build a big ass factory here and put several hundred Americans to work making those cheap ass frames and pay them a fair wage.
-
How bout' we create jobs here for all the welfare recipients by telling China to go fuck itself. We can make our own fishing poles and fireworks and sunglasses and ash trays and staplers and toasters and..........
There's where I'd be in favor of far more government involvement. No, you are not going to have your picture frames made in China. You're going to build a big ass factory here and put several hundred Americans to work making those cheap ass frames and pay them a fair wage.
You can't. Nobody to take care of the babies.
Besides, that would be called bringing slavery back.
Although, I think in Australia welfare is called "the dole". And to be on the dole, you have to perform so many hours of community service. Or at least that is what I was told years ago. I have not checked lately.
But i like the idea.
If the new law said that you get one more test after the fail, if you fail that you are out for at least 3 years, then I would be super in favor of it.
As it stands, it sets the table for future laws with more teeth. Or maybe it will get scrapped. But at least this says the welfare subject is getting attention. But until you actually start dropping people from the rolls, nothing will help. Its a game that worth the gamble for many of them.
-
How bout' we create jobs here for all the welfare recipients by telling China to go fudge itself. We can make our own fishing poles and fireworks and sunglasses and ash trays and staplers and toasters and..........
There's where I'd be in favor of far more government involvement. No, you are not going to have your picture frames made in China. You're going to build a big ass factory here and put several hundred Americans to work making those cheap ass frames and pay them a fair wage.
Sounds great but there is no way that we can meet demand. I think that's primarily the reason for NAFTA and GAAT (which is a joke) in the first place. Well, that and a way to neuter the unions but it's difficult, imo, for American companies that make low margin product to pay the American worker (or even find enough willing to work) what they would demand in order to produce these products. Most would rather live off of the gov't rather than take a low wage job and I might add that I damn sure don't blame them. I used to blame them but not anymore. It's a smart business decision. That's what the incentive to do is. Milk the tit.
Joe Bob down the street has seemed to live well off of unemployment/ss disability/welfare and he goes fishing every day, so hell, so will I.
We seem to be damned if we do or don't. And that goes for small businesses as well. The influx of gov't intrusion and control deters business in a major way.
Not as much as trial lawyer but close.
-
Sounds great but there is no way that we can meet demand. I think that's primarily the reason for NAFTA and GAAT (which is a joke) in the first place. Well, that and a way to neuter the unions but it's difficult, imo, for American companies that make low margin product to pay the American worker (or even find enough willing to work) what they would demand in order to produce these products. Most would rather live off of the gov't rather than take a low wage job and I might add that I damn sure don't blame them. I used to blame them but not anymore. It's a smart business decision. That's what the incentive to do is. Milk the tit.
Joe Bob down the street has seemed to live well off of unemployment/ss disability/welfare and he goes fishing every day, so hell, so will I.
We seem to be damned if we do or don't. And that goes for small businesses as well. The influx of gov't intrusion and control deters business in a major way.
Not as much as trial lawyer but close.
I see your argument there and I might add......wait...what the? Why you sonofa...
-
...and he goes fishing every day, so hell, so will I.
So WTH you got against fishing? You PETA pecker!
-
So WTH you got against fishing? You PETA pecker!
Fish have feelings too, ya know. So, here's the catch. I was a Reagan supporter and proud libertarian (I guess) but there's this babe in one of my classes who was a big PETA supporter that invited me to a "environmental" meeting.
Her tits were as big as your head and she had the most luptious lips outside of a camel that I'd ever seen.
I went to a Greenpeace meeting. It was a pm in the Haley center. I did not get laid and did not go back.
-
Picture says it all. Idiots politicians and their ilk.
-
As it stands, it sets the table for future laws with more teeth. Or maybe it will get scrapped. But at least this says the welfare subject is getting attention. But until you actually start dropping people from the rolls, nothing will help. Its a game that worth the gamble for many of them.
I can't say that I agree with this line of thinking.
Why do we need to set the table for an acceptable law in the future with an unacceptable law now? Why not just attempt to pass a more logical and effective law now, instead of an illogical and ineffective law?
It would be like saying the lock on my front door is broken, but instead of fixing it, I'm going to duct tape the door shut. It won't keep anyone out, but at least I'm giving my broken door some attention and maybe the tape will remind me to actually fix it some time in the future.
-
Wow.
Rorschach was on to something.