The Venting Thread

Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
I think some people live in another world that don't see this stuff. I don't care how much of the "budget" it takes up.
Why do you assume I live in another world or don't see "this stuff"? You should care how much of the budget it takes up because 1. it puts it in perspective and 2. it refutes statements about "all" of someone's tax money going to social programs. Because I think some people live in a world where it's ALL they see and don't see the other side of the coin.

There are also a large amount of people abusing the system.
What are you basing this on?
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
Why do you assume I live in another world or don't see "this stuff"? You should care how much of the budget it takes up because 1. it puts it in perspective and 2. it refutes statements about "all" of someone's tax money going to social programs. Because I think some people live in a world where it's ALL they see and don't see the other side of the coin.



What are you basing this on?
That I see it. Where I work we do drug test on everyone. Is everyone on assistance positive? No. But a vast majority are.

I think the states that do drug testing are a joke. They have screening questions. Not random. Do drug users answer honestly? No. Do they want to keep their assistance? Of course they do!

And it only hurts those who do need it.

And again, not just drugs but the previous things I just posted about. Many many many involved.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
3,199
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
St. Louis, MO
That's a pretty unique situation then. States that adopted an across the board drug test to get welfare found an extremely small percent of people using. It cost way more to test then the amount it would "save" kicking those people off.

On a separate note, I personally don't view addicts as "abusing the system" as the vast majority are GOOD people who made bad choices, got addicted etc. I don't see what taking them off assistance is going to do.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
2,434
Likes
1
Points
0
Location
Oregon
That I see it. Where I work we do drug test on everyone. Is everyone on assistance positive? No. But a vast majority are.

I think the states that do drug testing are a joke. They have screening questions. Not random. Do drug users answer honestly? No. Do they want to keep their assistance? Of course they do!

And it only hurts those who do need it.

And again, not just drugs but the previous things I just posted about. Many many many involved.
Did you see what happened to Florida?

Their drug addled welfare rolls turned up a handful of positives. It cost them more money to run the program than they saved by kicking people off.

http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/ said:
In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
Did you see what happened to Florida?

Their drug addled welfare rolls turned up a handful of positives. It cost them more money to run the program than they saved by kicking people off.
And did you hear how they tested? It was not everyone. It was not random. They asked people if they had a drug hx. If they answered yes they asked further if they were using currently. If they answered yes they were tested. That's why there were such low numbers.

Seriously not the brightest way to do it.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
That's a pretty unique situation then. States that adopted an across the board drug test to get welfare found an extremely small percent of people using. It cost way more to test then the amount it would "save" kicking those people off.

On a separate note, I personally don't view addicts as "abusing the system" as the vast majority are GOOD people who made bad choices, got addicted etc. I don't see what taking them off assistance is going to do.
And I agree with you, they need help and kicking them into the street and throwing their kids in the system doesn't help. But it drives me nuts to hear people say this less than one percent thing blah blah blah. Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to. I am not a conspiracy theorist in any way but seriously I can tell you they are waaay higher.

And it is a way if life for some families. It's not just inner cities. My grandma told me that her sisters granddaughter had a baby same time I did and was selling her formula and feeding the baby solids by the time it was two months old. I guess they also get assistance down that way(Appalachia area) for ADD, not being able to read, low IQ. She said they try to keep the children slow so they get the disability. I just can't even imagine. Your supposed to want the next generation to do better than you.


I still get mad thinking of the lady who told my husband if he would just hurry and have several kids and make the same amount if money he would get a great tax return. When he said he didn't want to live poor the rest if the year she just looked at him stupid.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
3,199
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
St. Louis, MO
And did you hear how they tested? It was not everyone. It was not random. They asked people if they had a drug hx. If they answered yes they asked further if they were using currently. If they answered yes they were tested. That's why there were such low numbers.

Seriously not the brightest way to do it.
? From everything I read, Florida at least, it was a MANDATORY drug test to get benefits.....not just asking?? Where did you get this information?
 

Beanie

Clicker Cult Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
14,012
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
39
Location
Illinois
Tennessee has a three-question form:
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...-screening-law-knocks-benefits-list/13536859/

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/e...welfare-texas-should-heed-floridas-lesson.ece
For a cautionary tale, just look to Florida. In 2011, the state passed a law requiring all welfare recipients to be tested before they received help. Applicants had to come up with the $30 to $35 for the test; only those who passed would be reimbursed.

It turned out that of the 4,086 who took the tests, only 108 — just 2.6 percent — failed, most for marijuana. That’s far below the 6 percent state average of Floridians who use drugs. (An analysis by the state showed that the drug testing requirement didn’t tamp down applications.)

Not only was Florida left with mud on its face; it also had a small hole in its pocket. At about $35 per test, the state had to reimburse $118,140. After deducting the “savings†from the 108 who did not receive benefits, Florida lost $45,780.
If their mandatory testing were in fact a form and, as in Tennessee, the large majority of people answered "no" and don't even get to the actually urine test, where did this massive financial hole come from? That doesn't make sense.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
? From everything I read, Florida at least, it was a MANDATORY drug test to get benefits.....not just asking?? Where did you get this information?
An article from my very liberal cousin talking about the downfalls of drug testing. I tried googling for it and can not find it. And he has since stopped posting it since that was pointed out. It had been posted at the city club to discuss why it doesn't work and not a single person caught onto why that might be a problem?

And again what do you do with the kids of the people who test positive? Because getting those who are to quit here is hard. Resources are limited. Not a single inpt detox in our county. We hand out narcan to family and friends. And they use it and come in for more. Sadly probably use it to use more now.


My guess is the large financial hole is your government at work!! Employing people to bill people and god knows what else. Nurses to take urine and drs to read results and a lab and a government agency to oversee it all.
 

RD

Are you dead yet?
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
15,572
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Ohio
I know you're venting, but my vent is that social programs make up a small amount of the federal budget and this stereotype is actually pretty harmful.
I wasn't venting about the federal budget, nor was I venting that all of my tax money goes towards social programs. I'm glad the programs are there to help those who need it. My vent was more about the unavailability of most social programs to the working poor if they haven't had children.

As an example, my best friend and I worked the same job for the same pay, full time, for the same amount of time, both with one dependant, hers being a kid and mine being an adult. Living expenses (food costs, transportation, rent, etc) were similar, with hers being slightly lower as she and her kid lived with her mother and shared the bills.

One of us was eligible for food stamps, a $6000+ return on taxes (which may not be a lot to some, but for those of us who make under $20k a year, it's pretty huge) cash assistance and medicaid. Social programs took care of her entirely but I qualified for none. The only variable was that she'd had a kid.

When I found out I was pregnant last summer, I contacted the family services office and found out that I'd be eligible for medicaid, WIC, food stamps and that my child, when born, would be covered by medicaid also. The case worker urged me to apply for section 8 housing, which has a very long waiting list, but she mentioned that I'd be more likely to be prioritized because I was single and pregnant. When I lost my pregnancy, the opportunity for any and all assistance was taken away from me.

My whine wasn't about welfare queens popping out tons of kids and living off the system. That's not really my business, but even if it were, I couldn't call it abuse of a system that was put in place FOR THAT PURPOSE. My whine was that I am having trouble living, and I'm entirely unseen by the systems put in place to help poor people. Selfish stuff, really, and I'd apologize but I'm really not too sorry that people want to twist my "woe is me" vent into something harmful and malicious.

You want malicious stereotyping? Sure. I work in retail and I see the stereotypes flock in on the first of the month, raiding the walmart with their sixty billion kids and paying for multiple carts full of junk food with an EBT card, and their video games, movies, cartons of cigarettes and cases of beer with their actual bank card. I don't know every family or every situation, but dude I am in a grocery store five days a week for nine hours a day, and I'm able to notice patterns.

And it makes me kind of bitter. Because you ****ing bet I wish I could work my crappy job with my incomplete education and have my barely livable income heavily supplemented simply because I squirted out a kid I wasn't financially prepared to have. You bet I wish I could write off living expenses like food and rent and instead spend that now free cash on games, toys, fun stuff, booze and smokes... stuff everyone likes, but that poor people are expected to go without to make ends meet.

I didn't mean to end this post on such a negative note. Think maybe I'm too snarky and all-over-the-place for social interaction today, even over the internet.

unrelated vent: bipolar mood swings are not my favorite thing ever.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
I think there should be something given for living within your means. Not having more kids than you can afford or no kids but people would be all over that! We would be taking away rights. Paying people to stay childless.
 

xpaeanx

Active Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
8,387
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Long Island, NY
I wasn't venting about the federal budget, nor was I venting that all of my tax money goes towards social programs. I'm glad the programs are there to help those who need it. My vent was more about the unavailability of most social programs to the working poor if they haven't had children.

As an example, my best friend and I worked the same job for the same pay, full time, for the same amount of time, both with one dependant, hers being a kid and mine being an adult. Living expenses (food costs, transportation, rent, etc) were similar, with hers being slightly lower as she and her kid lived with her mother and shared the bills.

One of us was eligible for food stamps, a $6000+ return on taxes (which may not be a lot to some, but for those of us who make under $20k a year, it's pretty huge) cash assistance and medicaid. Social programs took care of her entirely but I qualified for none. The only variable was that she'd had a kid.

When I found out I was pregnant last summer, I contacted the family services office and found out that I'd be eligible for medicaid, WIC, food stamps and that my child, when born, would be covered by medicaid also. The case worker urged me to apply for section 8 housing, which has a very long waiting list, but she mentioned that I'd be more likely to be prioritized because I was single and pregnant. When I lost my pregnancy, the opportunity for any and all assistance was taken away from me.

My whine wasn't about welfare queens popping out tons of kids and living off the system. That's not really my business, but even if it were, I couldn't call it abuse of a system that was put in place FOR THAT PURPOSE. My whine was that I am having trouble living, and I'm entirely unseen by the systems put in place to help poor people. Selfish stuff, really, and I'd apologize but I'm really not too sorry that people want to twist my "woe is me" vent into something harmful and malicious.

You want malicious stereotyping? Sure. I work in retail and I see the stereotypes flock in on the first of the month, raiding the walmart with their sixty billion kids and paying for multiple carts full of junk food with an EBT card, and their video games, movies, cartons of cigarettes and cases of beer with their actual bank card. I don't know every family or every situation, but dude I am in a grocery store five days a week for nine hours a day, and I'm able to notice patterns.

And it makes me kind of bitter. Because you ****ing bet I wish I could work my crappy job with my incomplete education and have my barely livable income heavily supplemented simply because I squirted out a kid I wasn't financially prepared to have. You bet I wish I could write off living expenses like food and rent and instead spend that now free cash on games, toys, fun stuff, booze and smokes... stuff everyone likes, but that poor people are expected to go without to make ends meet.

I didn't mean to end this post on such a negative note. Think maybe I'm too snarky and all-over-the-place for social interaction today, even over the internet.

unrelated vent: bipolar mood swings are not my favorite thing ever.
This post is my biggest problem with the welfare programs. I feel they should slowly taper off so that people can actually get on their feet. As it stands you pretty much qualify for everything or you don't. And people who are genuinely trying to do the right thing and be responsible aren't getting the help they need. I used to be one of those "if you're failing it's because *you're* not working hard enough." I've come to realize that 98% of the successful people out there had help. The ones that were able to do it entirely on their own are so rare that people repeat their stories over and over and sometimes they even make movies out of them. They are not famous Bc that's how you should be, they are famous because out of the millions of struggling individuals they were able to claw their way out.

I forget the guy's name but I heard a Brit say "the problem with Americans is you have too much hope." And as much as you want to think of that as a good thing, it's actually pretty harmful to use as a population.

I can see how if you tapered the system there would be more potential for abuse of it.... But I think that there would be more potential for helping people achieve a decent lifestyle and wage were they can start to put money back into the system. Politics are hard... LOL.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
I remember a group of rappers showing going down to the welfare office and getting a check and laughing about it in mtv. The one did go to jail eventually and then died I think? Old dirty *******? Does that ring a bell lol?
 

Beanie

Clicker Cult Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
14,012
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
39
Location
Illinois
My guess is the large financial hole is your government at work!! Employing people to bill people and god knows what else. Nurses to take urine and drs to read results and a lab and a government agency to oversee it all.
No, it's very specifically stated that the deficit is from reimbursing the cost of the test. There are multiple sources that cite this just from a very quick Google search.

Since I cannot find anything that states it was a form like Tennessee's program - and I can even find the questions they ask on the Tennessee form - but I can find plenty of statements about mandatory testing and the cost of reimbursing everybody who tested clean on the test, logic says Florida used a mandatory urine test for everybody who applied, not a form.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
This article specifically talked about Florida and a questionare on who to screen. Maybe they did test everyone. I still don't buy those numbers!
 

Beanie

Clicker Cult Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
14,012
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
39
Location
Illinois
I've found a lot of articles about the court rulings that say both Florida and Georgie were the only states to make testing mandatory for everybody, and the other states who have passed laws used screening processes (like a form) or just randomly picked.

I don't really get why it's not okay to drug test for assistance. I mean, in a broad sense I get that it's not cool to target somebody for being poor and needing help. But I've also done drug tests for work before and I don't feel like I'm being targeted for being poor and wanting to get a job... I'm conflicted on this one. But I also don't think it's going to help since a urine test isn't going to show much of anything except pot or somebody who is so severely addicted they can't abstain for a handful of days to get it out of their system enough it won't turn up on a urine test.
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
Believe me people can not stay clean. They will have horrible withdrawal symptoms. Benzodiazepines and opiates are awful. Think of telling people people it's going to kill them and they don't stop. The money stopping won't stop them. The same people will get narcaned three times a day.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
3,199
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
St. Louis, MO
This article specifically talked about Florida and a questionare on who to screen. Maybe they did test everyone. I still don't buy those numbers!
Why? They are the official numbers, they are not made up. They are part of the reason the law has not been pushed again...its not worth it. Especially when you consider the majority of those who tested positive were for marijuana....and yeah, I dont care if people smoke that. MANY people, especially people without insurance, use it to medicate. Not always a healthy way to deal with things, but sometimes it is.

They may be doing a questionnaire now, or before the mandatory drug test period. The law passed and went into effect but only lasted a short time (I believe 2 months) before courts struck it down. But yes, for those two month, everyone applying for welfare was drug tested.....the overwhelming majority passed and were therefore reimbursed which costs the state money for that test.

Maybe you are in a smaller cluster of where it is higher overall.....but you only see a small sector.


ETA: I think you are thinking of Arizona. They only caught 1 person using....but they did have a questionnaire. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...18/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/53620604/1
 

joce

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
Might just be my area but again not working strictly with addicts and seeing so many I just don't buy it.

Here are some numbers for my county with narcan and opiate OD with ambulance response anyway
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/...near-record-levels-2014-across-lorain-county/

I'd be interested to see if you guys could find numbers for your area? If they are vastly different? Crack is terrible here to but kills differently. It's also a drug you see the older people using.

Always vote mental health renewals. Here it covers any dual diagnosis help. It's nearly impissible for he to get people help here! Three months for an intake. Barely any drs. The saboxone program is questionable.
 

Members online

Top