Mississippi governor signs welfare drug-testing bill | Fox News

Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 1 month ago to News
22 comments | Share | Flag

Hmmmm this is not what it sounds like and me thinks this will end up costing more in the end. Seriously, what's the point?

All Comments

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Robbie53024,
    I agree. Local is always better. The best option is local charities. No gov't involved. Nowadays when so much is taken from one's paycheck, people have the misguided belief that the gov't will take care of everything as well as private charities would. When so much is taken why should they donate twice? Charities have lost much help because people are strapped by gov't. taxation for redistribution. The gov't is much more wasteful.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The whole culture of looting and mooching is like a pimp and his prostitutes. Does that make the looter-in-chief .... Well, I better not finish that previous sentence that lest I get investigated by the NSA.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I have a very libertarian view on this. Like you, I don't care whether they are on drugs or not, just as long as they are allowed to feel the consequences of their self-abuse and as long as we are not condemned to pay for it. This is the really vile part of nObamacare. We are condemned to pay for it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Gov't programs do not help people. They only keep people dependent upon gov't. At best (or worst depending on your perspective) any assistance should be block granted to the local community which would allocate any assistance. Your neighbors are more likely to know whether you really need help or not.
    And, I would insist on any child support only being provided upon DNA confirmed parentage. And that parentage would be subject to reimbursement from either parent that has the ability to pay. And each successive child receiving less aid, since hand-me-downs and economies of scale on food preparation should apply.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't really give a rip whether they are on drugs or not. So long as they aren't taking from me, either directly or indirectly from government programs. The government programs are the issue, not the drug use.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I think if someone wants to get off drugs it has to come from them...not you, not me, and certainly not the gov. Maybe removing the funds altogether, that might work. We shouldn't have to fund ANY of it. Actually most drug addicts are on SSI and fain mental illness to get a check to help support their habit. I heard this from an excellent source. A drug addict...who decided on her own to get clean. She lived among many of them for a decade and that was the game. Just sayin'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 1 month ago
    I think it's adding another layer to an already flawed system. A good start would be to reactivate the welfare reforms passed under Clinton that the current president removed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    From the local town Supervisor to the POTUS it is always somebody else's money... too bad tarring and feathering went out of vogue...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    It's different because it's somebody elses money that's being spent on ALL of it. Keep coming up with lame and ideas and spend spend SPEND.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 1 month ago
    I agree with richrobinson, "if it works it would..." I don't want to pay for someone's drug habit, but I don't want to pay for someone's sloth either. If one is able bodied then let them do something useful for the money. Sweep the streets, pick up litter, etc. If they can't function on the job because of drug abuse then cut off their aid and send them to rehab. When they get out let them pay the bill or work it off. If they refuse, then they should be on their own. I would fire a drunkard. I don't need them to pee in a cup to demonstrate what any competent manager can witness. Why is this different?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 1 month ago
    If it works it would be great. It is being run by government so it won't work. I support drug testing for anyone on public assistance. Providing rehab is fine as long as a second positive test would end or reduce benefits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tpatter4 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, roll back to the work requirement. Also, I wonder if it would be far too easy to just figure out how to answer the questionnaire without being flagged.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo