A great idea for people on welfare or public assistance?

Question

I can't take the credit for this idea I got it as an email. I thought it was a GREAT idea, what do you think??


Like a lot of people, I have a job. I work, they pay me, I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order for me to get that paycheck I am required to pass a urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t people have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? I have to pass one to go earn it for them.

Please understand, I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Answer 1

If a problem exists, and if this is the solution, why not reveal it to our elected officials? They are the ones that can make things happen.

And, incidentally, I worked from age 17 to age 66 (I'm retired now) and paid taxes too. The thing that made me scratch my head about the email text you received is the fact that during all my years of employment, I never had to take a urine test. Not even once.

My thoughts are that the person who authored the email text you received has a hidden agenda. He's probably not interested in getting people who are on welfare or public assistance to take urine tests. He's probably interested in getting rid of the urine tests where he works so that he can freely indulge in drug use. People like that are in denial about the danger they pose to themselves and others in the workplace when they use drugs.

I met a guy who was run over by a guy driving a fork lift on the late shift. The accident crushed his legs. The fork lift driver was on drugs, recognized he had done wrong, but instead of getting help, he just ran. Left the guy there to suffer for hours before someone found him the next morning.

So, I guess, my answer is that I think the guy who wrote the text is a manipulator with a hidden agenda. Otherwise, he would be presenting his text to elected government officials rather than peddling it on the internet hoping to find sympathizers who won't see through him.

Answer 2

While I agree that a bit of welfare reform wouldn't hurt, I think that mandatory urine testing isn't the way to go, while it is however a funny concept.
Here are my reasons:
1) Expensive. I can't confirm these stats, but I believe that about 4 million Americans receive welfare, and I can't even begin to imagine what the total number of Americans also receiving food stamps and unemployment is. But let's say the average drug test costs 30 dollars (going off the home test kits at Wal-Mart - I'm sure the government would be spending several times that price). That's $120 million right there. Now say we test those people on welfare every month before they get their checks. That turns into $1.44 billion a year. I think a lot more people get food stamps than welfare, and add in unemployment, and say we have to drug test 15 million Americans 12 times a year before we give them money - that's $450 million a month or $5.4 billion a year - all of this for drug tests. Imagine if we used that money for schools or college scholarships - we could actually help this country and the people receiving government handouts, which could help them get their feet back on the ground and become self dependent.

Also, do we just test the recipients or do we also test all of those dependent on that welfare or unemployment check, or those food stamps? That would be 10s of millions of drug test every month. My very rough costs estimates account for just the tests - what about paying thousands of people to administer the tests and running the tests?

2. Government Bureaucracy. Can you imagine having to administer a drug test to an 80-year-old woman on welfare?
Or a guy in a coma who got injured on the job - better make sure he's not taking rails of cocaine in his persistent vegetative state. Or what about people who are legally on medication like painkillers or ADHD medication that would should up on drug tests? Would they be ineligible? What about the medical resources this would take? How many kids can't get flu shots because our state government had to order a million drug tests instead of a million flu shots? Can you imagine the paperwork involved in testing all these people? And what do we do with the 15 millions plastic cups used to collect **** every month?

--------
While this is an interesting idea, I would be extremely opposed to it based on the very high costs, the logistics and the waste in resources. There are always going to be people abusing the system, but the costs of exposing these people via drug tests will definitely outweigh the costs of giving them welfare.

Only a fraction of your taxes go towards welfare anyway, and I really don't mind because I know it helps a lot of people. Now, how about a $500 billion dollar pointless war? That's what pisses me off. I lose money from my paycheck so people can die! What a bargain!

Answer 3

You would love the Howard government in Australia.

They are up for punishing parents on welfare for actions beyond their control such as when a child wags school. However, this government refuses to do anything to force middle class parents to take control of their children.

Yep, according to the Howard government, only those on welfare have problems with drugs, alcohol, wagging, etc.

Such is the way of people today. Anything that isn't money, just doesn't matter at all.

Answer 4

Sounds fair, but you also have to consider how many millions of dollars it would take for the government to implement drug tests on such a large scale, and every few weeks (or however often they distribute welfare cheques).

Who's going to pay the drug test bills? I think it would take too much time and money, even though it's a good idea.

Answer 5

Actually I heard the government does pay for methadone for people trying to come off drugs so they'd probably flunk urine tests. Also the ones on public assistance quite often are known drug users to the government and it's an attempt to curb crime.

Answer 6

ya but whos gonna pay for their urine tests and plus, after welfare got up and going it has pretty much paid for itself, which sounds odd but hear me out,when you purchase things you have to pay taxes, and as soon as monet goes through roughly 11 hands it all goes straight back to the government, and this is a very quick process, and for ppl who live check to check, like ppl on welfare do, every single dollar they get goes straight back to the government, so it pretty much pays for itself, but at one point tax payers did get this program up and running

Answer 7

for my area, i don't think of it is honest. There are truthful human beings on welfare. i'm considered one of them. i'm chronically sick and have not been in a position to artwork. I lost my job in January as a results of lacking too many days. i attempted to dangle onto that job with each thing that I had and became not in a position to. I even have been to Drs on suited of Drs and it seems there is not the rest which would be carried out for me. collectively as i became working they helped me with a Medicaid card and food stamps because of the fact i did not artwork too many hours because of the ailment. incredibly, it incredibly is all i'm getting now yet my factor is i might do something to not might desire to remember on welfare. If i might desire to be healthful sufficient to artwork it would be astonishing. i'm only asserting there are lots of human beings doing all that they might do yet I do comprehend too what you assert approximately people who abuse the equipment and it seems people who elect it get denied lots. My pal and her kin lost fairly some reward because of the fact she has a 401K account the place she works. she would be ready to't get this funds until she is 60 years previous and retired or provided that she quits her job. they have taken advantages from them they actually do elect. that would not look honest to me. ok, so i'm rambling. i'll stop. only needed you to hearken to my opinion.

Answer 8

Absolutely agree! I don't think there could possibly be anything wrong with that! It would also be a good way to keep parents on assistance to stay off the drugs as well!

Answer 9

Na. Run them into a pit, shoot them all, and cover them up. It's unpleasant for a moment, but we'd get people to do that. Next, we could round up all those who don't do the job very well....the slackers...the inexperienced...and run them into a pit and be done with them too. Think of the jobs this would create at the pits! Unless, of course, you wern't good at it... after that, maybe all those rich people who have never worked and will never work. They are dead weight too. Into the pit. Next, those who are not of the right party....the unfaithful, the unpatriotic, then those not patriotic or blindly faithful enough...into the pit.

See you in the pit. Pray your job never runs out...that you have no where to turn....and let's hope they haven't decided to arbitrairly say you've flunked your test to save a few bucks.

Answer 10

This reads like one of those e-mail "pass it on" letters. Stop being jealous of the down trodden and be glad you have a good job. Do you realize how many labs we would be paying for and they would employ people on Public Assistance!