Welcome to Gaia! ::


Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Something does need to be done about this, but how do you recommend it get regulated?


I'm curious as to why you think this. Are you, like the OP, assuming they're doing it to get money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes?


Not at all. I, myself, have received food stamps in the past, which is why I will never look down my nose and act high and mighty when someone in front of me in line at the grocery store swipes their card. I remember feeling completely ashamed because of what I thought people must have assumed about me when I used it (especially since I'm also a WOC, and you know people just love blaming WOC for their problems because they dared to seek assistance). There are people out there that abuse the services, though, and I'm sure there is a way to make sure this doesn't happen if we could just figure it out. I asked the question, because I wonder how the OP thinks regulations should be carried out since she seems to think everything is black and white.


Thank you for clarifying. I use the example of a person 'selling' their benefit in order to get money to pay a bill. In my example its an electric bill. Are there those who abuse it? I'm sure there are, but I posted some myths and facts about it and its a myth that its such a huge problem.

Oh, I'm sure the number of people who receive assistance and abuse it is small, but I think even small problems need to be fixed before they become bigger problems...but again, it's not black and white. I'm lucky enough to have never had to make the tough decision of choosing whether I want to eat or pay rent...so with that in mind...I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is. sad


I've been lucky as well. I've never been in that position before, but I know those who have. My girl was in that situation before we got together. So I'm able to see it from an angle of 'What would I do in that situation?'


Well, I'm glad I had this discussion with you, because I never considered that kind of situation before. 3nodding
FaceThatMeows
Queen of Mercury
FaceThatMeows
Queen of Mercury
SparkyKid3000

You seem to be assuming everyone that does drugs has a problem. That's a mistake.


She's also assuming food banks have so much food that its over flowing and that shelters also have so much that they can feed millions every day. She is delusional, at best.


Actually, Queen of Mercury, if you paid attention to everything I've said, you'd see that I ended up conceding their points and agreeing with them. I was never out to prove anything.

My part in this discussion was over a while ago.

-waves bye-bye-


Someone clearly doesn't know what a public forum is. If you don't want your posts commented on, here's a novel idea; delete or edit them. Its not that hard. I did it with my first post. originally I agreed with the idea of drug testing, then after a little reflection, I realized its a bad idea and changed what I said.


I can change my mind. I can never change what I said. I can pretend I never said it, but what's the good in that?



Its called an edit button for a reason. As I said, if you do not want people commenting, edit the post. Otherwise, suck it up and deal with it when people comment on it.


FaceThatMeows
nor claimed anything I said to be my actual opinion.


That might fly with someone who has not read every single post in the thread. But it doesn't fly with me. Stating 'I think its a good idea' is giving your actual opinion. Otherwise, you were lying so saying 'Well, I changed my mind and I can't pretend like i didn't say it' is yet another lie.

FaceThatMeows
It seems a lot of people here on Gaia go into a discussion in order to prove everybody they disagree with wrong.


I'll have to take your word for that one since I've yet to see this.


FaceThatMeows
Philosophically that's a horrible attitude to have if you actually want to learn anything or get new ideas. It's kind of closed-minded.

Anyway, peace.


I can agree that doing that is close-minded.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.


It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


I feel I have an answer to your question. You don't have to assure people you are making poor life choices to buy food where as with unions and such you do. You are held to a MUCH higher standard when working in a union than someone else in the same field who isn't.


But unions and those on government benefits AREN'T held to a higher standard, they're held to a lower one by virtue of them being the ones that it's seen as wrong to drug test.


So every person applying for food stamps is allegedly using drugs is what I'm hearing from you.


Stopping you right there to tell you to check your hearing.

Which part of "you need to pass a drug test to flip burgers" do you have a problem understanding?

Why should we hold those on government assistance to a lower standard than we hold those who are earning their living through work?
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono


Not at all. I, myself, have received food stamps in the past, which is why I will never look down my nose and act high and mighty when someone in front of me in line at the grocery store swipes their card. I remember feeling completely ashamed because of what I thought people must have assumed about me when I used it (especially since I'm also a WOC, and you know people just love blaming WOC for their problems because they dared to seek assistance). There are people out there that abuse the services, though, and I'm sure there is a way to make sure this doesn't happen if we could just figure it out. I asked the question, because I wonder how the OP thinks regulations should be carried out since she seems to think everything is black and white.


Thank you for clarifying. I use the example of a person 'selling' their benefit in order to get money to pay a bill. In my example its an electric bill. Are there those who abuse it? I'm sure there are, but I posted some myths and facts about it and its a myth that its such a huge problem.

Oh, I'm sure the number of people who receive assistance and abuse it is small, but I think even small problems need to be fixed before they become bigger problems...but again, it's not black and white. I'm lucky enough to have never had to make the tough decision of choosing whether I want to eat or pay rent...so with that in mind...I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is. sad


I've been lucky as well. I've never been in that position before, but I know those who have. My girl was in that situation before we got together. So I'm able to see it from an angle of 'What would I do in that situation?'


Well, I'm glad I had this discussion with you, because I never considered that kind of situation before. 3nodding


Happy to have helped to give you a new way of looking at it.
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.


It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


I feel I have an answer to your question. You don't have to assure people you are making poor life choices to buy food where as with unions and such you do. You are held to a MUCH higher standard when working in a union than someone else in the same field who isn't.


But unions and those on government benefits AREN'T held to a higher standard, they're held to a lower one by virtue of them being the ones that it's seen as wrong to drug test.


So every person applying for food stamps is allegedly using drugs is what I'm hearing from you.


Stopping you right there to tell you to check your hearing.

Which part of "you need to pass a drug test to flip burgers" do you have a problem understanding?

Why should we hold those on government assistance to a lower standard than we hold those who are earning their living through work?


If people are working and have applied for foodstamps, that means they were drug tested before getting hired on to work in the first place. Are you seriously trying to say people who are so ******** poor that can't afford food should be drug tested twice?

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
God-The-RapistV2.0
Keltoi Samurai
Queen of Mercury
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.


It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


You do realize that the majority of food stamp recipients are employed, right? Unfortunately, working in a minimum wage job does not put you above the poverty level so you need the public assistance to keep your family fed.


Quote:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, the new name for food stamps), is one of the best lines of defense against hunger in the United States. The federally funded program helps working families, seniors and many others in need put food on their tables. But stereotypes about SNAP and who uses it persist.

Myth #1: People who get SNAP don’t work.

FACT: The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children—more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."

Myth #2: SNAP is a drain on taxpayers.

FACT: Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity, according to Moody's economist Mark Zandi. SNAP not only helps low-income people buy groceries, it frees up cash for other expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. That benefits local businesses and their employees, which boosts the economy as a whole.

Myth #3: SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse.

FACT: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers.

Myth #6: SNAP leads to unhealthy eating habits and obesity.

FACT: National studies show no significant link, positive or negative, between food stamps and healthy eating. Nor do they demonstrate a relationship between food stamps and weight gain.
hungercoalition.org


OK, so drug test the ones who are not employed, and have their employers submit the results of their employer-mandated drug screening for the ones who are employed.

Problem solved.


The only problem is that you think people who are too poor for food are spending money on drugs.

That is a ******** laugh.

The vast majority of people who use social programs are clean as was pointed out when Florida did drug testing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0


I think no such thing. What I think is that it's a ******** joke that I have to submit to drug testing to earn minimum wage, but that there is no such requirement for someone who is on public assistance.

Outlaw drug testing for all but the most dangerous/secure professions, and then I'll agree that there's no reason to drug test those on the public teat. But as long as we hold that all employees are subject to random or compulsory drug testing, then we should hold benefit recipients to the same standard.
A better proposition might be to randomly drug test people who are collecting food stamps rather than make it a requirement (upon applying, I mean). Then, if people test positive, there can be some consequence.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Queen of Mercury
Keltoi Samurai
Queen of Mercury
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.


It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


You do realize that the majority of food stamp recipients are employed, right? Unfortunately, working in a minimum wage job does not put you above the poverty level so you need the public assistance to keep your family fed.


Quote:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, the new name for food stamps), is one of the best lines of defense against hunger in the United States. The federally funded program helps working families, seniors and many others in need put food on their tables. But stereotypes about SNAP and who uses it persist.

Myth #1: People who get SNAP don’t work.

FACT: The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children—more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."

Myth #2: SNAP is a drain on taxpayers.

FACT: Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity, according to Moody's economist Mark Zandi. SNAP not only helps low-income people buy groceries, it frees up cash for other expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. That benefits local businesses and their employees, which boosts the economy as a whole.

Myth #3: SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse.

FACT: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers.

Myth #6: SNAP leads to unhealthy eating habits and obesity.

FACT: National studies show no significant link, positive or negative, between food stamps and healthy eating. Nor do they demonstrate a relationship between food stamps and weight gain.
hungercoalition.org


OK, so drug test the ones who are not employed, and have their employers submit the results of their employer-mandated drug screening for the ones who are employed.

Problem solved.


you're assuming that a) just because a person is unemployed they;re a criminal druggie, which stigmatizes the poor and that b) every employer drug tests. Many do not because the cost of the testing does not benefit them. Say a person uses drugs recreationally but they have an interview coming up. What are they going to do? Not use until after they know if they're hired. Pass the drug test and viola, no more worries. Most places that claim to do random testing don't. Prior to joining the Army, I worked at 3 different places that claimed to random test. At two of the places, there were employees who'd been there for 10+ years and had [b[never been randomly tested and didn't know a single person in the company who had been. At the third place, the only time they requested one was if someone was behaving a bit erratic at work and got injured.


Where I live, I have been tested for every job I've held. That does not mean that every employer I've ever had judged me a "criminal druggie," nor am I am assuming anything about the poor or unemployed. My stance is that, if employment = piss-test, then it's unreasonable to declare it unfair to piss-test the unemployed.

In fact, the only way it would be unfair to subject the unemployed to the same conditions we subject the employed to is if you believe that the unemployed cannot pass the same piss-tests that the employed do, so if anyone here is assuming anything about the unemployed, it would be you.

Floppy Member

Here's a novel idea - how about we stop trying to regulate morality altogether? That would save all the money we shell out butting into people's personal choices.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer


I feel I have an answer to your question. You don't have to assure people you are making poor life choices to buy food where as with unions and such you do. You are held to a MUCH higher standard when working in a union than someone else in the same field who isn't.


But unions and those on government benefits AREN'T held to a higher standard, they're held to a lower one by virtue of them being the ones that it's seen as wrong to drug test.


So every person applying for food stamps is allegedly using drugs is what I'm hearing from you.


Stopping you right there to tell you to check your hearing.

Which part of "you need to pass a drug test to flip burgers" do you have a problem understanding?

Why should we hold those on government assistance to a lower standard than we hold those who are earning their living through work?


If people are working and have applied for foodstamps, that means they were drug tested before getting hired on to work in the first place. Are you seriously trying to say people who are so ******** poor that can't afford food should be drug tested twice?


I already said I think it'd be fine to waive the drug test for those applying for benefits who are already employed, under the assumption that they already had to have passed in order to be working for their employer.
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer


I feel I have an answer to your question. You don't have to assure people you are making poor life choices to buy food where as with unions and such you do. You are held to a MUCH higher standard when working in a union than someone else in the same field who isn't.


But unions and those on government benefits AREN'T held to a higher standard, they're held to a lower one by virtue of them being the ones that it's seen as wrong to drug test.


So every person applying for food stamps is allegedly using drugs is what I'm hearing from you.


Stopping you right there to tell you to check your hearing.

Which part of "you need to pass a drug test to flip burgers" do you have a problem understanding?

Why should we hold those on government assistance to a lower standard than we hold those who are earning their living through work?


If people are working and have applied for foodstamps, that means they were drug tested before getting hired on to work in the first place. Are you seriously trying to say people who are so ******** poor that can't afford food should be drug tested twice?


I already said I think it'd be fine to waive the drug test for those applying for benefits who are already employed, under the assumption that they already had to have passed in order to be working for their employer.


Apologies then. Unless you said it in a much earlier page (I've not followed this thread from the beginning), I didn't see it.

Dapper Reveler

Queen of Mercury
Except that the claim that they're 'taking stuff from taxpayers' is a myth that is untrue.
Where does the money come from then?

Queen of Mercury

That people who want to enforce these strictures should have to live by them for 18 months before we take their considerations even remotely seriously.
I suggest that maybe people that don't want to live by these regulations ought to pay for the food with their own money.

Queen of Mercury
...because the US ******** its employees.
Whatever conditions an employee is in is the blame of their employer not their government.

Dapper Reveler

The Legendary Guest
Here's a novel idea - how about we stop trying to regulate morality altogether? That would save all the money we shell out butting into people's personal choices.
So no free food?

Floppy Member

Avgvsto
The Legendary Guest
Here's a novel idea - how about we stop trying to regulate morality altogether? That would save all the money we shell out butting into people's personal choices.
So no free food?


Please demonstrate the connection this has to morality.
Keltoi Samurai
[

I think no such thing. What I think is that it's a ******** joke that I have to submit to drug testing to earn minimum wage, but that there is no such requirement for someone who is on public assistance.

Outlaw drug testing for all but the most dangerous/secure professions, and then I'll agree that there's no reason to drug test those on the public teat. But as long as we hold that all employees are subject to random or compulsory drug testing, then we should hold benefit recipients to the same standard.


Yeah and while you are doing that you are causing the problem of costing MORE money than you save. How do you justify such an expenditure other than petty revenge?

Also, as I have already pointed out, where I live random drug testing is illegal. Maybe just move here if you don't like it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum