Kansas Crimson

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:31 pm I dont see a need to support drug abusers lifestyles. That is the only issue.

As i said, im not even anti drug necessarily. Im anti drug abuse while also dependent on the government for monetary support.

Do as many drugs as you want as long as it doesnt negatively impact others. Taking welfare money while abusing is impacting others and straining an already thin system.

I would rather let the druggies slip through and get some money if it costs less in the end, which I believe is what was found.

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:22 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:31 pm I dont see a need to support drug abusers lifestyles. That is the only issue.

As i said, im not even anti drug necessarily. Im anti drug abuse while also dependent on the government for monetary support.

Do as many drugs as you want as long as it doesnt negatively impact others. Taking welfare money while abusing is impacting others and straining an already thin system.

I would rather let the druggies slip through and get some money if it costs less in the end, which I believe is what was found.

I think I agree with this after seeing some numbers of the costs of drug testing, the effectiveness of the testing (not the tests themselves, but the % of users that are able to pass them thru various ways), compared to the money it saves, and compared to the negative impacts/costs in other areas of society that occur as a result. I do see both sides of it, but it's a tough situation.

I think it helps keep crime down...and also I don't think the current money going to drug treatment programs is spent effectively or efficiently....or the idea that more dollars spent towards government drug treatment programs would make enough difference to offset the negatives that will come from kicking the druggies off programs...we'd probably find a way to make it a net loss.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:31 pm I dont see a need to support drug abusers lifestyles. That is the only issue.

As i said, im not even anti drug necessarily. Im anti drug abuse while also dependent on the government for monetary support.

Do as many drugs as you want as long as it doesnt negatively impact others. Taking welfare money while abusing is impacting others and straining an already thin system.

Do you support drug testing anyone who receives federal CRP money?

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:39 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:31 pm I dont see a need to support drug abusers lifestyles. That is the only issue.

As i said, im not even anti drug necessarily. Im anti drug abuse while also dependent on the government for monetary support.

Do as many drugs as you want as long as it doesnt negatively impact others. Taking welfare money while abusing is impacting others and straining an already thin system.

Do you support drug testing anyone who receives federal CRP money?

Sure. And politicians.

(I've got an explanation above why I'm not really in favor of drug testing welfare recipients...or CRP landowners.....truthfully I'd be most in favor of the drug testing being part of legally buying a gun if I had to pick from the list as most important . )

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:42 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:37 am

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:33 am

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

never said that

you want to continue to throw money at a failed system?

No. I want to end the supply of welfare to people that are abusing the system and to people who are spending that money on drugs and alcohol.

Are you cool with welfare recipients spending money gambling?

Grandma wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:27 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:42 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:37 am
never said that

you want to continue to throw money at a failed system?

No. I want to end the supply of welfare to people that are abusing the system and to people who are spending that money on drugs and alcohol.

Are you cool with welfare recipients spending money gambling?

Not particularly. But that would be impossible to regulate.

The myth of the welfare queen dies hard.

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:39 pm The myth of the welfare queen dies hard.

It looks to me like if we cleaned up the waste then the welfare abusers would be relatively insignificant.

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:20 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:58 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:34 pm

Seems like the same mistake that Democrats regularly make.

If you're saying the ticket should be reversed, I agree.

Uninspiring former Senator along with Veep that is intended to appeal to moderates. It's Clinton/Kaine. It's Kerry/Edwards. Just like those, it's a losing ticket, won't generate turn-out.

I think you underestimate Kyrsten Sinema. Among other things, I think she helps keep New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada blue, while delivering Arizona and possibly Utah.

Besides, I hardly think the Senate's first openly bi-sexual and avowedly non-theist member is exactly "appealing to the moderates."

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:25 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:20 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:58 am

If you're saying the ticket should be reversed, I agree.

Uninspiring former Senator along with Veep that is intended to appeal to moderates. It's Clinton/Kaine. It's Kerry/Edwards. Just like those, it's a losing ticket, won't generate turn-out.

I think you underestimate Kyrsten Sinema. Among other things, I think she helps keep New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada blue, while delivering Arizona and possibly Utah.

Besides, I hardly think the Senate's first openly bi-sexual and avowedly non-theist member is exactly "appealing to the moderates."

And, she's the current senior senator from Arizona.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:28 pm Because i dont want tax dollars going to support drug users habits i am somehow punishing women?

You can't have one without the other. There's little-to-no proof that there is a correlation between people on public assistance and drug use. You need to accept that as fact. We get that you don't like tax dollars going to people who use drugs, but you must first point out that this is an issue. It's not.

And since the majority of people on assistance are single mothers, yes, you are punishing women.

Did i say i was cutting funding? Is taking a drug test punishment? I have had to take several drug tests for employment. Employment allows me to NOT be on welfare. Were those drug tests punishment to me? Seems pretty simple to pee in a cup, i didnt consider that a horrible punishment in return for my ability to go to work and get paid.

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:33 am Did i say i was cutting funding? Is taking a drug test punishment? I have had to take several drug tests for employment. Employment allows me to NOT be on welfare. Were those drug tests punishment to me? Seems pretty simple to pee in a cup, i didnt consider that a horrible punishment in return for my ability to go to work and get paid.

You can't seem to get past the flaw in your original argument - that there is little-to-no proof that welfare recipients abuse drugs or alcohol. You want to test for a problem that, statistically, is not there.

So it's natural for people to move past this point and wonder why you are so adamant about testing these folks. Again, statistically speaking, you're throwing government money away.

My guess is that you have already convinced yourself that those on public assistance are drug and alcohol users. Doesn't matter that there's no proof to your argument - you just know.

All he is saying is he doesn't think those on welfare SHOULD be drug users.

I think it would be costly and relatively ineffective to drug test welfare recipients, mostly because it's easy to pass drug tests...so you'd spend a lot to only catch a few....but I understand what TDub is saying. I used to take a similar stance, but have sort of changed my mind after seeing some statistics and estimated costs.

I'd rather they use those resources and money to reduce the fraud and waste. I think that would save us more in the short and long term.

I am wondering how often welfare recipients should/would be drug tested. Someone abuses drugs each and every day but is able to quit for a month and gets a clean test - that's cool but the guy who smokes a single joint once every 6 months gets tested a week after he smokes the joint and he gets denied?
Here is another thought, a welfare recipient is an alcoholic. Should they be excluded from collecting welfare?
How do we prove if a welfare recipient who failed a drug test spent their welfare money on drugs or if the drugs were given to them for free?
There are a lot more questions when it comes to drug testing ultimately deciding on if someone receives money to survive.

Money is fungible, Gutter.

Grandma wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:44 pm I am wondering how often welfare recipients should/would be drug tested. Someone abuses drugs each and every day but is able to quit for a month and gets a clean test - that's cool but the guy who smokes a single joint once every 6 months gets tested a week after he smokes the joint and he gets denied?
Here is another thought, a welfare recipient is an alcoholic. Should they be excluded from collecting welfare?
How do we prove if a welfare recipient who failed a drug test spent their welfare money on drugs or if the drugs were given to them for free?
There are a lot more questions when it comes to drug testing ultimately deciding on if someone receives money to survive.

Valid points. And my personal belief is alcohol abuse ruins people's lives a lot more frequently than weed.

Rick Scott made a lot of money in Florida drug testing welfare recipients. Did catch many at all.

Warren is done.
Mayor Pete is done.

It's down to you and me, Bernie. Therefore...












...I shall fuck it up!

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:43 pm Warren is done.
Mayor Pete is done.

It's down to you and me, Bernie. Therefore...












...I shall fuck it up!

Lulz. Bernie and President Trump debating would be a hoot.