We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Unfortunately, the right wing propaganda sites, like Breitbart, continue to feed the Welfare Queen ripping off the government stereotype because it drives traffic to their sites and helps with ad revenue. The actual statistics aren't nearly as interesting and so they just get ignored and the stereotype continues to persist.
This reminds me of the debacle in Florida where the "drug testing for welfare" idea ended up costing more money than it actually saved.
Well, it at least it transferred taxpayer $ to Scott's cronies at the state-contracted drug-testing company.... so that was the point of the whole silly program, right?
You don't really know that since you can't say how many people stopped buying drugs so they could pass their test. If the goal of the program was to reduce the welfare rolls then it may have failed. But if that was the goal then there's better ways to do that. A more likely goal was to get people on welfare to stop using drugs - thus making them more employable. If it wasn't just about saving money its not a big surprise when it didn't actually save any.
Different drugs stay in your body system (and stay detectable) for different lengths of time. Months, for some. Passing a drug test isn't a simple as just not taking them on the day you're tested.
That, and depending on how addictive the drug is, most people simply don't have the capacity to stay clean long enough to pass. There's a reason it is so hard for smokers to quit smoking.
I see. It stopped all the imaginary drug users. Like the imaginary fraudulent voters. we can't see 'em because they're so slick. There's one now! .....too late, you missed him.
Yet they all could go get a bottle of Night Train. It is not helping, it is just favoring one drug for the poor over another.
Being poor sucks big time, we should include an ounce of weed with every check, have a fricken heart man, even the bible says let those suffering have a damned drink.
"Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Proverbs 31:7
Also the stuff you'd really want to catch runs out of your system pretty quick. Meth is out in 3-6 days, crack/cocaine 48-72 hrs and heroin 1-2 days.
And how long can users of those drugs go without them. 3-6 days sounds easy but it would be extremely difficult for an addict.
This only proves that the testing methodology employed was inefficient, not that 'drug testing for welfare' is inherently a bad idea.
It proves nothing of the sort. Let's shave with Occam's Razor, shall we? Hypothesis #1: people applying for welfare don't tend to be drug addicts because they can't actually *afford* drugs. Hypothesis #2: people applying for welfare tend to be drug addicts, but they're so slick that they almost always manage to pass the drug test required of welfare applicants in Florida. Hypothesis #3: people applying for welfare tend to be drug addicts, but the testing methodology--which is identical to the one used by any number of actual *employers*--fails to detect them, even though the exact same testing methodology detects drug addicts for the aforementioned employers.
Me, I'm going with hypothesis #1. Not only is it simpler, it actually makes sense.
Steriotypes sell. Just go to Google news and read the headlines. Do this for a while and eventualy you'll be able to tell which one is the headline for a story on Fox or a story on the Huffington Post.
Sterotypes exist for a reason. I have seen people buying luxury items with food stamps (these days the card, not stamps) at stores, then hop into a really nice car and drive off. You may think there are not people cheating welfare but I've seen it for myself first hand. There are lots of people out there using food stamps who obviously do not need them.
OK, this has got to be some kind of meme or a paid troll for Crossroads GPS because I have seen this exact same post so many times! Almost with the exact same words! Sometimes a specific make or model of car, sometimes listing the luxury items purchased- caviar, lobster, etc.
Oh, and BTW, stereotypes, by definition, do not "exist" per se, they are a creation of the mind, like unicorns or dragons, such that yeah, we all know what that is, but no sane person for one sweet minute believes they actually "exist"
Maybe that really nice car was paid for in full before the main breadwinner lost their job. Maybe those luxury items (interesting that you won't specify what "luxury items" you're talking about) were a special treat for somebody's birthday that they saved up for. But hey, if you're so disgusted by this food stamp fraud that you claim is such an epidemic, you can always report them and see what happens.
But I'm guessing you haven't actually seen this sort of thing happen in person. I'm guessing you're just trolling an article with a "liberal" bent because you don't have anything better to do with your time.
Really, stupid? Because you see them in a nice car you just know what their situation is, Mr. Clairvoyant?
Yes. I was just about to suggest the same article. You cannot know a person's every circumstance just from looking at them--you just can't.
Florida should know a thing or two about fraud. Their governor Rick Scott lead a company which committed the largest known medicare fraud in US history. Columbia/HCA plead guilty, payed over two billion dollars in fines and penalties.
And folks worry about a few EBT cards...
That's not fraud. That's called returning taxpayer money to the taxpayer. In this case, to Rick Scott.
or OTHER taxpayers' money to Rick Scott.
Good point. Because there is nothing more helpful to good governance than reminding people of what the last administration did wrong and ignoring what the current administration is doing wrong.
By the way, how is it not fraud when an able bodied person refuses to work, procreates like a rabbit, and expects everyone else to pay for her (or his) leisure?
Yup the greedy and ignoble always go for the big bucks, that $11,000 a year in food stamps. That's where the big score is.
I'll give you that about 5% of humanity is lazy and for the most part useless to human progress, but there is another 5% that is sociopathic, and they are after the big bucks at all other's expense. So spend your time chasing after the lazy, not the over achieving greedy fraudsters. Let the truly damaging materialists take all the real money while you call lazy people a threat. Seriously, how threatening can they be, they're lazy?
Trust me, Dr. Evil is not collecting food stamps, he's at your bank, and he is so glad you are taking the heat off him by chasing the lazy and un-lucky.
$11,000.00 a year? Most people are lucky if they get more than $2,000.00 A year unless children are involved, Then it might cost a few hundred more, but, maybe, those are the no good lazy bums he is talking about
And do you honestly think that most people (or even many people) on welfare are "able bodied people refusing to work, procreating like rabbits, and expecting everyone else to pay for their leisure?" That's wrong on so many levels. Why the heck would ANYONE choose to be on welfare and live in constant, abject poverty? You think that they live in leisure? Are you serious? That doesn't make much sense at all.
I said leisure not luxury. People who do not work by definition are rich in leisure, Why they would choose to live that way is beyond me. But they do. Even the liberal bastion of Denmark recognizes this happens which is why they are reforming their welfare system.
As reported in the NY Times:http://mobile.nytimes.com/2...
It seems like American liberals will be the last in the world to recognize there is a relationship between offering to pay people not to work and people choosing to to take the government up on that offer.
If there's one thing I'm sick and tired of in this world it's intentional misinformation. Our government does it. Corporations do it. Media outlets do it. And people like you do it. Who's offering to pay people not to work? What dark recesses did you pull THAT out of? Because it doesn't happen here.
Maybe you should reread this article. Yes, you can always find exceptions to give validity to any claim, but as this article points out, you can always find exceptions and it's dishonest to use the exceptions to paint a picture of a widespread problem that doesn't exist. It's the same thing Republicans are doing with these voter i.d. laws. What they're proposing does far more harm than any original problem.
Unless people are disabled, our system requires people to seek work in order to remain qualified to receive government assistance. Perpetrating this picture of blacks living it up on welfare (No, you didn't have to mention race. We know where you're coming from. ) is a kind of fraud in itself. Most people who don't work but are capable of working are miserable.
We, like most civilized societies, don't believe in letting people starve to death or that people should go without necessary medical treatment just because they don't have thousands of dollars lying around in case of illness or an accident. The problem with America's conservatives is that too many have become uncivilized.
I have no objection to giving money to people who don't work. But I do object to giving money to people on condition that they don't work. Which is the way our current welfare system operates.
You are very wrong about this. You cannot receive welfare unless you are willing to work or you have a child under school age at home. You can receive SNAP benefits but not cash benefits. Even if you do have a child under school age you must sign up to work a certain numbers of hours a week either at your local welfare office or through other government volunteer work.
Listen to this and see how wrong he is... http://safeshare.tv/w/csrqs...
Re: your thought on "the way our current welfare system operates." Have you ever been on welfare? Do you know anyone personally who has been on welfare? Do you have a friend of friend who has been on welfare? Etc. Where do you get get your information on "our current welfare system operates." Please don't say talk-radio and/or fox news.
Actually, my brother is a special needs adult who worked as a janitor. When he went in to try to qualify for a housing subsidy, they told him it would be easier to get if he quit work and went on disability. We said "forget it", and he eventually got the subsidy. We really need to make it worthwhile to work.
I have been on welfare and have had friends and family on it. I have a true story for you. It happened some years back and I don't know if it is still the same or not. My friend was on welfare. They got a check and food stamps and section 8 paid most of their rent. They also got medicaid. He got a job it didn't pay much and wasn't 40 hours but it was all he could find. The way it worked is that with the government programs allowed you to make half the amount you got then took dollar for dollar after that.Sounds reasonable right? except each program except medicare did it that way separately. each took dollar for dollar after half so he lost 1 and a half times the half he made. working put him in a hole. On top of that as soon as his hours hit a certain amount er week I think it was 36 his medicaid would stop. So why would he go to work if it actually cost him to do so?
This is a problem with execution and decentralization of welfare services. Underfunded welfare ends up creating gaps in coverage.
I have never been on welfare, though I have been on unemployment. I have had friends who were and are on welfare. My information comes mostly from newspapers, magazines, and radio: the NY Times, the SF Chronicle, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, NPR, etc.
All kinds of government assistance require that the recipient have a low income. If the recipient's income increases, the benefit is reduced; this reduction acts like a tax, and is much larger than the progressive income tax that conservatives condemn as discouraging prosperous people from working. If a progressive income tax makes the rich less likely to work, those rich whose "pay" is largely in power and prestige think how much much more this "tax" on benefits must discourage ordinary people and the poor, who work mostly for money.
Yes, we will only accept impartial facts from the Onion or Mother Jones.
Yeah, this. Cutting off all payment the instant someone gets a job is dumb, because it creates an incentive not to work.
holy shit win. Thank you.
Bush had work for welfare programs that Obama shut down. What kind of sense does that make???
That's simply not true. Show us where you got THAT from. I bet you can't. At least not from any credible source. That's just another one of the many rightwing lies told about Obama. The truth? Several governors, mostly Republican governors, wanted more flexibility in administering welfare. The Obama Administration decided to give these states the jurisdiction over a few aspects of the federal welfare laws. It's something that conservatives would usually applaud, but because it's Obama, you lie about it and make it into something bad. Stop allowing yourself to be so easily manipulated. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Obama is not a socialist. Obama never went on a trip to India costing tax payers $200 million a day. And Obama is not the anti-Christ. http://www.politifact.com/t...
why do U( and I) throw facts at regressive white trash conservatives??? they do not WANT tolearn
Bush did not start the work for welfare programs that was started by welfare reform act of 1994 when Bill Clinton was President and no changes have been made in the act by the federal government . Any changes made to the act have been at the state level not by the federal government.
Individual states hard hit by the recession requested relief from the work rule as there weren't jobs to be worked. It was not some ploy by Obama to give out more money.
Not true. Conservative lie.
does the QQ stand for Dipshit?
It means 'cry more' retard.
Isn't that the point though? Government has a hidden agenda to destroy the minds of its citizens, to derail all choice and purpose. Obviously it's much much easier to control broken people than empowered people.
I object to giving money to people that WON'T work. I object to paying for their health care and their groceries. I object to politicians who buy votes by providing welfare for scumbag loafers.
Here's an idea: when we wrote the constitution we screwed up. We give the vote to people that have no stake in making the system work. We should thus limit the vote to tax payers and veterans. Let the scumbag loafers starve.
OK, Mr Savik, I'm one of those loafers that you want to starve and allow to die in the street. When you get a chance, can you refund the taxes and social security I've paid over the years? Before you give the obvious, pre-programmed response, I did save and plan all those years, and saw the whole thing wiped out in a year of cancer and other treatments. Please, I truly await your response, living the life of leisure I currently enjoy, planning meals to feed two people on five dollars a day. For the record, the only thing I get for free is medical coverage.
please include the FREE abuse you get from white trash regressive tea party trash who solely watch FOX "news"