Hey Sup Forums why does the government not administer drug tests for welfare recipients?

Hey Sup Forums why does the government not administer drug tests for welfare recipients?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/michigan-welfare-drug-testing-program
forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#1fc7ffc47cd8
mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/court-strikes-down-drug-tests-for-florida-welfare-applicants.html
usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/18/justice-end-use-private-prisons/88948176/
thinkprogress.org/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-is-a-popular-new-policy-that-cost-states-millions-here-are-the-cf829257ade0#.yaacnnrxz
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because the drug tests cost more than the welfare provided to actual drug users.

A better question to ask is why the government provides welfare at all.

The cost of doing so would likely far outweigh any benefits. Welfare in Canada is dog shit, I don't really care if those people spend their bux on drink and drugs

>Welfare in Canada is dog shit
what did he mean by this

>A better question to ask is why the government provides welfare at all.

we need to get rid of the earned income tax credit

>something, something, DAS RAYSISSS

You know this to be true

>we need to get rid of the income tax

You had a few extra words in there, I fixed it for you.

Why doesn't the government institute a work-for-welfare program where welfare recipients must work 20 hours a week for a unit of government or nonprofit in order to receive their benefits?

Because it doesn't work, it stigmatizes poverty, and pushes this believe that all poor people must be addicted to drugs.

Plus it's fucking expensive. Just a dumb right-wing idea all around.

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/michigan-welfare-drug-testing-program

Because they are all mostly white trash to begin with

Well, because then they'd have to pay minimum wage, which is more than welfare gives you probably, and you'd be giving work to people that may not even be qualified to do it, depending on what job you give them. Some people on welfare are mentally ill and literally cannot be trusted with work, but you have to look after them anyways, because that's what a good society does.

What jobs were you thinking of anyways?

But if stopping "free" money to those who are addicts, would this not promote either getting clean or finding a job that will pay you (even if you are using). Also if it's not just the loss welfare but also government housing, food stamps and any government handout surely that outweighs it.

You wouldn't pay them anything. They would work 20 hours a week in order to receive whatever benefits they were getting. There wouldn't be an extra paycheck on top of it.

Any city, county, or state unit of government would have endless menial tasks to perform.

Because God forbid the left consider the poor capable of basic thought, let alone personal responsibility.
They assume the absolute worst out of their demographics, and their methods ensure that the absolute worst is all that ever comes out of them

>Also if it's not just the loss welfare but also government housing, food stamps and any government handout surely that outweighs it.

It doesn't. You're both overestimating the average amount of benefits given to a single person and the proportion of direct welfare recipients that are actual drug users.

As an example, Tennessee passed a law like this and found 65 drug users in its first test.

I'm suspecting that you're not a psychiatrist, doctor or social worker, so just believe me when I say that getting people on their feet if they're sick, mentally ill, abused, etc. isn't as easy as saying 'No more money until you get a job, mister!'. It's a very naive opinion.

Also, welfare doesn't really cost that much, and people generally don't actually survive on it. A lot of welfare goes to people with large families and poor paying jobs. For example, Walmart's poor employment practices actually cost you, the taxpayer: forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#1fc7ffc47cd8

If you need to lay the blame at someone's feet, blame the governments of the world for letting corporate jerks strip people of a decent wage.

That sounds pretty fucking racist OP

Welfare is about 300$ a month. The idea is to provide enough for food and nothing else. If they want housing or transportation they have to get a job.

because it's a waste of time and money

what I'm saying is that those 20 hours of work would actually outweigh the welfare check they get. You'd have to actually increase their welfare, otherwise you'd be breaking your own law, because you'd be benefiting from unpaid labour.

Plus, since it's the government paying them, the wage would be higher, because city governments do not pay minimum wage, as a matter of policy. At least in my neck of the woods.

because that would be racist

>For example, Walmart's poor employment practices actually cost you, the taxpayer:

Why do you assume that corporations are obligated to look after the needs of employees simply by virtue of purchasing a certain quantity of labor from them per week? Do you also extend the same logic to food producers and demand they set maximum prices lest they "cost you, the taxpayer" by forcing buyers onto welfare?

It's a good thing, until you realise...

Somebody has to do it
And that somebody is paid shitty government salary to do shitty work in the midst of a thousand dindus
It's near impossible that there won't be corruption

he means that wefare in canada is dog shit

Why not drug tests for politicians and wall street first?

Also, 7 states have tried it and wasted millions of dollars after discovering the vast majority of recipients were drug free.

Because the government has a vested interest in the lower class being addicted to drugs.

This is canadian welfare. Maybe worth 8 hours a week of minmum wage, presuming 4 weeks.

Minimum wage is what, 8$ right now? 300$ a month, that's 37.5 hours a month, or 9.375 hours a week.

Now you're also going to add costs of managing this program and policing the companies they work for.

Yes. I understood you the first time. It has nothing to do with a benefit-to-work conversion. Minimum wage law does not apply. If you wish to receive welfare benefits you will donate your time in return. If you choose not to you will no longer receive benefits. Welfare isn't a right.

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/court-strikes-down-drug-tests-for-florida-welfare-applicants.html

>I want you to give more money to rich jews for retarded reasons.
Look, you're welcome to throw money at the government and corporations all you want but don't try touching my wallet, ok? The american private prison industrial complex is a monstrously stupid idea and I'd rather not have it blubbering in my direction.

The corporations are given the right to operate within a country by the government. It is the governments job to look after it's populace. A good government makes those corporations work within guidelines that benefit the people of the country. The company does so because it wants to make money.

Hence why we have a minimum wage. The government needs us content so we can continue to give them power. If there's no standard of employment, people are not content, and suddenly you have a revolution.

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/18/justice-end-use-private-prisons/88948176/

Someone who works in the medical field would be all for this. Give every single last one of those degenerates the all clear in exchange for cash. They will naturally cough up the money and keep their mouths shut or else lose their benefits. As for "surprise inspetions/undercovers", if you can't tell the difference between an actual addict and some low level government agent trying to see if you are cheating the system you shouldn't be in the medical field. It isn't like you are being a drugskingpin anyway, they aren't going to send a deep undercover narc to undo you (although never say never in stasiland).

See, the government will pay me shit to this sort of "extracurricular" activity, which will most likely be tagged on to your shift as overhours, however these people I am testing will likely pay me 100+ per visit to make sure I keep them clean.

You're right about it being the government's fault. But it's the minimum wage laws and social programs like welfare and food stamps that create the dependency in the first place. Shit wouldn't cost as much if it wasn't for all the business regulations and taxes. You and I pay for all that shit, not the business owner. Either that or his employees pay for it with shit wage. Or both. Shit.

Are you mentally ill on social security disability? They already receive benefits for doing nothing. They would work to receive same said benefits.

Why should they?

because dey DINDU NUFFIN!

Then welfare wouldn't exist, as it would be more beneficial for recipients to get an actual job, and no one would take welfare. You're arguing about something, by definition, could not exist.

Welcome to the fucking point of a work-for-welfare system. Jesus Christ you leafs are dense.

>It is the governments job to look after it's populace. A good government makes those corporations work within guidelines that benefit the people of the country.

Violating basic laws of supply and demand does not "benefit the people of the country". The only true minimum wage is zero and regardless of what the government wants or what its "job" is, a person's labor isn't magically worth some amount equal to or greater than whatever the government decides is enough for that person to live on.

That's class-warfare.

Deug test everyone, or you can suck my poor cock.

you motherfucker own my people for 900 trillion days of slavery...PAY THE FUCK UP AND SHUT UP ABOUT DRUG TESTING

business regulations are necessary to maintain quality of product and safety and to avoid scams and shit like price fixing. Trust me, they maintain your quality of life more than you think.

This works splendidly in China.

when i was in highschool, niggers would often talk about how they would spend welfare money on weed and expensive shoes.

So why the "give your money to jews" angle? Why not just say that anyone who wants to claim welfare gets shot. Would be much cheaper and less jewish.

>niggers would often talk about how they would spend welfare money on weed and expensive shoes.
>niggers
Wellfare isn't the problem here.

one state did (forget which). tldr, the vast majority were clean, and the tests ended up costing the state more than what the few they ended up catching saved them.

I don't think your reading comprehension is above a 2nd grade level...

You're fucking dense dude. You're little 'work-for-welfare' shit is just a roundabout way or cancelling welfare. If you have the political power to get unpaid labour, then just get rid of welfare. It's essentially the same end product without the need for a fucking system.

Do you see what I'm saying dumbshit? You're more likely to get the public on board with ending welfare than getting slave labour.

You've never thought at any level.

Awww... I'm sorry you little welfare babies will actually have to contribute to society a bit instead of open up your welfare check mailing each month for doing nothing. You parasitic shit stain.

They tried it in FL. It's a waste of money. Realpolitik, nigga. It's not practical.

I highly doubt they did dude, unless Amerifats give welfare cheques directly to teenagers and not their guardians. Probably they were just having a laugh.

Also, you're not gonna get ANY kind of shoes with the money you get from welfare.

No, they'd just start stealing it instead.

Why do you think the Phlips kill them?

That's not an argument bruv.

It was found to be massively inefficient. Basically they knew when the tests were coming and stopped doing drugs. Additionally drugs like crack and heroin are in and out of your body very fast.

I guess I'll have to spell it out for you. What's the incentive to work if you can simply not and live off welfare? Why should someone go to a job and work full time (or more) when they can just claim a check from the government?

I earn my money. I expect those who receive benefits from my tax dollars to do the same.

A few states have pioneered this policy of drug testing for individuals receiving public assistance. Unfortunately, drug testing is relatively expensive and it ended up costing more than it saved.

Maybe he thinks niggers open up bank accounts and invest their welfare money into short turn investment portfolios so that they can build up enough capital to do big purchases years into the future once they regain enough liquidity.

That's something niggers do right? I don't know since I'm no nigologist.

So why don't you? Why don't you quit your job and earn the big welfare bucks?

Even the most minimal workhour minimum wage job pays well over double what welfare shells out a month.

Ok, and I'll spell it out for you.

What your proposing is slave labour. Slave labour would mean an end to welfare, because no one would do slave labour when they could get paid labour. Rather than go through the difficulty of legalizing slave labour to end welfare, why not just cancel welfare?

Please tell me you understand this question, I laid it out as simply as I could.

Because it is classified as an illegal search. SCOTUS would smack it down.

at least in America, you aren't allowed to invest your welfare money. You aren't even allowed to have more than X amount in your checking account at any given time.

Because it's a collosal waste of money and doesn't even help curtail those that take advantage of the system.

We Americans point fingers at Sweden, Germany,and France. We make " Appeasement " payments to Spic, coons, and now a Theocracy that openly call for striking down our laws with brutal Sharia law. These Islamic pigs are Slave holders! I bet if our pokices' hands were not tied we would find Americans in slavery in Dearborn, MI or Patterson NJ.. The real American Islamic horror is Duluth MN. I bet a proper investigation would find slaves tonight!

Lets help our President get to the core problem of Islam then teach what we did to our ally, France..
France has the 3rd,or 4th sized nuclear stock pile. We cannot let Islam have one code. France if you cannot get a backbone soon yous will be in danger of a nuclear Exchange with not just USA but a flank shot from Our new ally, Russia.

Piglam rapes your wife daughter and possibly your son in front of you or You get hit with a nuclear strike from two fronts.

Take your choice. My family explored here from. POITIER. THAT'S where we stopped Piglam before
.
Would a Frenchman man that line with me?

From Tours to Poitier?

Hey bud, like I know you did fantastically on your first Econ 101 exam, but that's not how reality functions my friend. The idea of economic equillibrium in which the market is 'cleared' without a floor minimum wage implies that there are relatively similar positions of power for both negotiating parties. I.E that it is as important to the employer that the vacancy is filled as the employee that they have their job.

When there are many towns in which the vast majority of positions left are those which are low skill and at risk of replacement with automated systems, there is a serious advantage given to those who are employing vs those who are seeking employment in those situations.

Understandably, that model could work well in the case of a mom and pop shop, for large corporate giants who sometimes make up 30-40% of a local economy it's a bit less even handed.

It also gets significantly more complicated when you add more aims than just making the market clear into the equation, like not needing to have suicide nets outside of most places of employment because it's bad for the community, and not having people starving to death while you live your fantasy ancap life.

tl;dr the government can't change fundamental laws of economics, but they aren't supposed to you dolt. They are supposed to keep the community from dying in the streets and feeling the need to rob eachother of life resources to survive.

Because I choose to earn and contribute to society rather than leech off of it. Why do so many on welfare choose not to get a job that would so clearly make them more money than welfare?

They are free to choose not to work for their welfare and go out and get a real job where they would clearly make more money.

See, there's lots of legislation on welfare.

Rather than demonizing poor people, maybe focus on what programs might be helpful at training them and giving them better jobs.

I'm not convinced that blacks who brag about having /bought/ a "new" cellphone or shoes didn't shoplifted it. Especially considering how the electronics store near where I live now puts every cellphone box inside an alarmed case.

I don't know, but I sure wish they did.

Along with mandatory drug testing, the government needs to also:

1. Put a cap of no children born by any woman on public assistance until she is able to get back to supporting herself.

2. No allowing dole suckers to pick their own foods out - get a box of healthy shit with NO junk food delivered every few days, eat it, and be done with it. I watched some fat fuck at the convenience store buy $40 worth of chips and Slim Jims yesterday on her EBT, she needs to be either cut off or harpooned.

3. No choosing where you live if you take housing assistance. Create colonies for dole suckers that are fenced in like prisons on the outskirts of town, that's where you live, case closed.

>Hey bud, we have to protect low-skill workers from automation and from corporations with more leverage in wage negotiations!
>Oh, you mean we're going to let them organize and determine for themselves what's in their best interests?
>Naw, bud! We're going to get bureaucrats three thousand miles away to raise the price of their labor by fiat!

so you think it's worthing having a dumbass law, with people regulating it, that would be extremely hard to get by congress, let alone the people, just so people can CHOOSE to not use the walfare system? You would prefer this to just eliminating welfare from the getgo?

because that would cost more money

the solution is to eliminate welfare altogether.

welfare made blacks poor. they were getting themselves out of poverty before the effects of welfare kicked in in the 1970s.

1940s: 68% of blacks impoverished

1960s: 28% of blacks impoverished

1970's 18% of blacks impoverished

1980's 60% of blacks impoverished

they were doing just fine before welfare kicked in and undid all the progress they made for themselves

Bruh, you're a real dumb cunt I tell you what.

I agree there are going to be plenty of stupid niggers that will abuse the privelege of getting to live in a dangerous crack den with other stupid niggers in the middle of an economically blighted former industrial area, but the government exists to keep people who actively contribute to society happy and the community well functioning.

Would you rather forcibly pay a little more from the relatively kind government and have those stupid niggers living on wellfare and maybe buying some frivolous stuff with it or have them rampaging about your high trust well earned neighborhood looking to take your shit forcibly that way?

thinkprogress.org/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-is-a-popular-new-policy-that-cost-states-millions-here-are-the-cf829257ade0#.yaacnnrxz

They already did, republitards. Criminalizing the poor is as anti-american as it gets.

>Welfare
Let's just forget entirely about the distribution of crack cocaine into black communities by the CIA during the 80s.

spoken like someone who didn't live in the golden age of union busting.

The dudes right about the power balance. The Beaurocrats need the people's confidence more than the corporations need your labour. So it's in the beaucrats favor to make sure the corporations have a minimum wage. And the corporations abide because they need to be able to operate in the country.

Do you get this?

While I can understand your ideas 1 and 2 as well as drug testing I disagree with all of them because they would be an insane cost on the taxpayer. Drug testing welfare recipients would almost double the welfare bill and probably only stop 10% of bludgers failing.
It's not worth it

correlation is not causation you stupid fuck.

Ah shit m8 you think unions are a better answer than having a standard of minimum wage which is still significantly lower than the poverty rate in most metro areas?

You're joking right? Unions are how you end up with unfireable teachers who teach this cultural marxist nonsense which has been poisoning the western world since pre-ww2.

You really think a federal minimum wage is more dangerous than having organizations of completely unaccountable thugs running labor? Come on bud, do better than that.

>a 3 dollar drug test costs more than the welfare they're giving them

that's a fucking retarded lie and you have to know it.

welfare should have term limits like unemployment

>spoken like someone who didn't live in the golden age of union busting.

I think it's hilarious how you go from: a) stating that the government has to act in the people's interest because of the threat of uprising; to b) stating that the people are powerless to act in the face of the powerful corporations and their union-busting; to c) stating that the government has the power to make corporations do whatever they want. I feel like I'm choosing a starting Pokemon or something.

>The dudes right about the power balance. The Beaurocrats need the people's confidence more than the corporations need your labour. So it's in the beaucrats favor to make sure the corporations have a minimum wage.

Right, and if there's one thing Washington is known for, it's telling multinational corporations to pound sand.

>Unions are how you end up with unfireable teachers who teach this cultural marxist nonsense which has been poisoning the western world since pre-ww2.

No, allowing public-sector employees in "essential" positions within bloated bureaucracies to organize is how you end up with etc., etc.

>You really think a federal minimum wage is more dangerous than having organizations of completely unaccountable thugs running labor?

I'm confused. Aren't the people who set federal minimum wages "completely unaccountable thugs running labor"? At least the union thugs are managing their own product, not someone else's.

A three-dollar drug test multiplied by the total number of people on welfare costs more than the welfare given to the small percentage of direct welfare recipients who are actually drug users.

If you know exactly who to spend the three dollars on then you don't need the test.

So the people who conduct the tests, and transport the tests, and the facilities which process the tests, and the server team which upkeeps the information stored about the tests are all doing it for free eh?

The case workers who are appointed to appeal those who were 'wrongfully' removed from government benefits are also doing it for free as well as the judges who will have to edjudicate that inane nonsense.

Come on man, use your noodle.

>Because it is classified as an illegal search. SCOTUS would smack it down.
filing for welfare is not mandatory.

And/Or it should be tied to socially responsible behavior. So no low credit, no kids missing school or vaccines, no criminal activity (misdemeanors discounted unless repeated, and tickets don't count unless they accrue and go unpaid), and your financial records will be demanded (in order to adjust for cost-of-living that come out of necessities). Should you gain a regular income while in welfare, welfare will only continue for a limited amount time then end, so save up.

considering the direction of western governments
why aren't we drug testing and using IQ tests for politicians?

we drug test athletes

Because, Politicians and Generals, CEO's that receive bailouts, Heads of Government Departments, will have to be drug tested too.

Testing for drugs might do something radical like actually start tackling the problem and lose the Left valuable voters.

>implying a monthly test would catch anything but pot heads and heroin addicts

wont catch coke heads, wont catch alcoholics or any other drug. im wondering how long opiates stay in the blood stream.

liberals always freak out because they all do drugs, and they want welfare to be a safety net for themselves and they have no intentions of letting their drug habits go even if they run out of money

>Generals are drug tested
>CEOs were given bailouts by companies that got their bailouts from the nigger you worship
>All of these people work for their money

nice try tranny weirdo, you just want public assistance to support your habit

>go out and get a real job where they would clearly make more money.

more than 50% of the people on welfare do work but are not paid enough to support themselves.

section 8 housing has to be approved by the state, with yearly inspections, and cant cost more than a certain amount based on rent rates in the area.

getting cash benefits is limited, food stamps last longer and if you get caught buying other people food and they give you cash you can go to jail. im not sure about housing though.

1)
I'm not an "Obama Worshiper", and thought that electing him because he was black was utter nonsense and terrible reasoning.

2)
>CEOs were given bailouts by companies that got their bailouts from the nigger you worship

Cause you totally destroyed me there. Like, that toooootally wasn't my point at all.

3) >All of these people work for their money.
So do a lot of other people. That aside, these people are still accountable to the government for their pay and continued survival. In the case of the CEO, where would those guys be had it not been for those wall street lobbyists influencing government to keep them afloat? and their business decisions actually have an effect on the entire society they inhabit and the markets they sell to. So, they get drug tested too.

>buying some frivolous stuff with it or have them rampaging about your high trust well earned neighborhood looking to take your shit forcibly that way?


Taxes are theft, but i can't fight the gubment, so i did rather have the niggers and my guns

That already exists user. They only work 8hrs a week though.