Texas Senate OKs drug testing for welfare applican

FreedomFan

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
Texas Senate OKs drug testing for welfare applicants | Texas Legislature | News from For...

Rick Perry almost had me fooled during the last election cycle. I could have sworn he said he was for limited government.

Who would have guessed it: another Republican hypocrite.

AUSTIN -- Legislation to require drug testing for Texas welfare applicants unanimously passed the Senate on Wednesday with provisions designed to encourage drug treatment and protect dependent children from an abrupt cutoff in benefits.

The bill drew support from Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst but provoked an outcry from civil liberty and social advocacy groups after it was introduced by Sen. Jane Nelson more than four months ago.

Nelson has since modified the measure to address concerns that it could hurt the families of welfare recipients who flunked a drug test. SB11 would enable benefits to continue to flow to dependents through a third party known as "a protective payee" if an adult applicant tested positive for drugs.
Click to expand...
 
Dontel58

Dontel58

New Member
FreedomFan said:
Texas Senate OKs drug testing for welfare applicants | Texas Legislature | News from For...

Rick Perry almost had me fooled during the last election cycle. I could have sworn he said he was for limited government.

Who would have guessed it: another Republican hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Less Government handouts for scum equals more Government intrusion. I'm sorry I don't get your point. Really, you liberals are a joke. Why do I say anything we are being taking over by the Low information crowd.
 
Pushrod

Pushrod

Patriot
Sounds like a great idea to me, you want to be on the Government teat (with my money), you need to be drug free.
 
cwo_ghwebb

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
FreedomFan said:
Rick Perry almost had me fooled during the last election cycle. I could have sworn he said he was for limited government.

Who would have guessed it: another Republican hypocrite.
Click to expand...

You're correct! Perry should have abolished welfare payments in his state. That would save a ton of money, and get rid of those government jobs that administer the program.
 
FreedomFan

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
Statist logic is so adorable. I just wish I could reach out and pinch your Cheerio-stuffed cheeks.

Does no one see a very short path from demanding drug testing for welfare recipients to "behavior checks" for other forms of government handouts? Like, oh, I don't know. How about the tax deduction for dependent children?

That's a "right" granted by the goobermint, a privilege if you will. How about making a rule that if you want that deduction, you have to grant the goobermint access to your house so we can make sure you're raising them to the correct standard. What's that? You're homeschooling? Nope won't do. You want the deduction, you send them to goobermint schools.

Oh, and how about the mortgage interest deduction for owing a house? Again, another gooberming-invented privilege. That's not a God-given right. You want that deduction? Then you have to let us into your house so that we can make sure you don't have any guns. Oh, you didn't know about that rule? Yeah, that was stuffed into the defense authorization bill last year. Sorry, now let us in. Now.

Oh, but you think that'll never happen, right? You're a "law-abiding" citizen, and you have nothing to hide, therefore you have nothing to fear.

There is nothing about this that is "limited government".
 
MMM_donuts

MMM_donuts

New Member
It's my understanding that drug testing welfare recipients is not cost effective.

Not only do you have to pay for the drug tests, but also the additional paperwork, manpower, someone has to come up with the criteria and a database for recording this stuff. I think Florida, but I could be wrong, did this for a little while and found that so few people were testing positive and/or refusing the tests that it ended up costing their state a lot of money.

I, personally, don't think it's necessary. It's ok for someone to consume alcohol but not smoke weed? I don't really understand that reasoning since alcohol seems to be so much more detrimental. Some say that a welfare recipient shouldn't ever have any alcohol either but it's ridiculous to tell someone that lives in poverty that they can't have an occasional beer or couple of drinks. That would be similar to saying that no one should ever drink because ultimately someone else has to pay for your lack of loyalty to a perfect diet and health maintenance. Of course it is/would be abused by some. Does that sample size speak for everyone so much so that we need to impliment another broken program to further default a current increasingly bankrupt program? I'd like to see the data on that.

Why don't we just get rid of welfare as a federal or state program and take care of it at a local level?
 
FreedomFan

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
MMM_donuts said:
It's my understanding that drug testing welfare recipients is not cost effective.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the other aspect of it that makes no sense.

Why don't we just get rid of welfare as a federal or state program and take care of it at a local level?
Click to expand...

If by "local level" you mean voluntary contributions of money, labor, etc. to what some might call "mutual aid societies" instead of theft of output at the point of a gun, then yes. A thousand times yes.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
FreedomFan said:
Does no one see a very short path from demanding drug testing for welfare recipients to "behavior checks" for other forms of government handouts? Like, oh, I don't know. How about the tax deduction for dependent children?
Click to expand...


Excellent Point ..... :buddies:

[and I used to get yelled at for drawing out potential long term consequences]
 
FreedomFan

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
GURPS said:
Excellent Point ..... :buddies:

[and I used to get yelled at for drawing out potential long term consequences]
Click to expand...

Well the invoking the "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy, just because Y doesn't automatically mean Z. I do try and be mindful of that.

But that's not necessarily what I'm arguing here. I'm just saying if society embraces this it just makes it that much more difficult to resist this stuff in the future. Fine line I realize, but I will stick with it for now until I can find better rhetoric.
 
D

daileyck1

New Member
MMM_donuts said:
It's my understanding that drug testing welfare recipients is not cost effective.

Not only do you have to pay for the drug tests, but also the additional paperwork, manpower, someone has to come up with the criteria and a database for recording this stuff. I think Florida, but I could be wrong, did this for a little while and found that so few people were testing positive and/or refusing the tests that it ended up costing their state a lot of money.

I, personally, don't think it's necessary. It's ok for someone to consume alcohol but not smoke weed? I don't really understand that reasoning since alcohol seems to be so much more detrimental. Some say that a welfare recipient shouldn't ever have any alcohol either but it's ridiculous to tell someone that lives in poverty that they can't have an occasional beer or couple of drinks. That would be similar to saying that no one should ever drink because ultimately someone else has to pay for your lack of loyalty to a perfect diet and health maintenance. Of course it is/would be abused by some. Does that sample size speak for everyone so much so that we need to impliment another broken program to further default a current increasingly bankrupt program? I'd like to see the data on that.

Why don't we just get rid of welfare as a federal or state program and take care of it at a local level?
Click to expand...

It was costing Florida 30-40k per MONTH. 96% passed, 2% failed, 2% gave up with all the paperwork involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top