• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test

I lived in the "hood". I don't remember it. It was somewhere around 79th and Euclid avenue in Cleveland Ohio. This was well before the Cleveland Clinic built in that area. My dad worked on Hough Avenue. They had squat but they knew that they wanted something better than 79th and Euclid. We moved to a dinky trailer in the suburbs. My dad constantly looked for a better job and was able to get on with Cleveland Crane. Luckily he continued to try and better his situation as they went under in the early 80's but he had already been gone from there.

People can find rare circumstances where things absolutely out of your control happen but your life is what you make it.

So am I to understand your father did this without the state or federal government coming in to assist?
 
98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test



So much for that myth. Thanks for wasting money on hysteria over something that is barely a problem.

Many of the alleged "leeches" on welfare now are the people who, until 2 years ago, were part of a functional work force and were productive contributors to economy. Now their lives are in chaos, their investments for the future are disintegrating before their eyes, and they are reduced to lesser prosperity. So... let's kick them while they're down and imply that they're drug abusers as well!

I'd like to see the results of random/surprise drug testing of the same group, over a period of a few years. Somehow I believe it will be a bit higher.
 
So am I to understand your father did this without the state or federal government coming in to assist?

No food stamps, no welfare. He had a few lucky breaks but I believe you create these breaks for yourself sometimes. He was laid off at Cleveland Crane and rather than collect unemployment he got a job driving a school bus. He didn't much care for this job and continued looking. He got hired on with the phone company. Just afterwards Cleveland Crane called him back and even though it was more money than he was making at the phone company he decided to not go back. Luck or wise choice, I dunno.

He worked as a night trouble shooter at first (he went to night school for electronics while at Cleveland Crane). Back then the phone company office was actually very close to where we had lived on Euclid. I remember when he had to go to court because one night he was looking outside when he saw someone get shot. I'm sure he said to himself, "I'm glad we moved from here".

As an aside, the idea of going to a trade school like my dad did seems to get dismissed quite a bit now also. I'm sure it helped him get hired at the phone company. In High School my dad was a screw off. My moms folks didn't much care for him. For some reason, he realized that he now had a wife and kid and had responsibilities. (He would have been about 21 when he moved (without my mom) to Cleveland to get a job as there was nothing much available where he was at.

50 plus years later they are retired in a home they own and are doing well so nobody will ever convince me that others can't do the same.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see the results of random/surprise drug testing of the same group, over a period of a few years. Somehow I believe it will be a bit higher.

Luckily letting right wingers violate poor people's privacy on some suspicion cooked up listening to hate radio and watching Fox News isn't a mistake people are likely to make twice after it turned out you were so embarrassingly wrong on exactly that issue so very recently...
 
No food stamps, no welfare. He had a few lucky breaks but I believe you create these breaks for yourself sometimes. He was laid off at Cleveland Crane and rather than collect unemployment he got a job driving a school bus. He didn't much care for this job and continued looking. He got hired on with the phone company. Just afterwards Cleveland Crane called him back and even though it was more money than he was making at the phone company he decided to not go back. Luck or wise choice, I dunno.

He worked as a night trouble shooter at first (he went to night school for electronics while at Cleveland Crane). Back then the phone company office was actually very close to where we had lived on Euclid. I remember when he had to go to court because one night he was looking outside when he saw someone get shot. I'm sure he said to himself, "I'm glad we moved from here".

As an aside, the idea of going to a trade school like my dad did seems to get dismissed quite a bit now also. I'm sure it helped him get hired at the phone company. In High School my dad was a screw off. My moms folks didn't much care for him. For some reason, he realized that he now had a wife and kid and had responsibilities. (He would have been about 21 when he moved (without my mom) to Cleveland to get a job as there was nothing much available where he was at.

50 plus years later they are retired in a home they own and are doing well.

The phone company back in the day was a good deal and as sure as a retirement pension one could get. Your father is a rarity these days - someone who takes it upon himself to pick himself up, take some initiative and improve themselves and get a better job. To me, I'd have to be in very dire straits indeed to take government assistance but I would as a last resort. To me it's, unseemly to have to depend on the government. I agree with you about trade schools. My uncle and cousins were all sheet metal workers (union) and learned silversmithing and metal work through trade schools. We don't have enough of that today and it's a gap in my opinion. Trying to shove kids into college when they either don't have the want or drive to go is a mistake. Were I to do it over again, I'd probably have gone into electric or plumbing and hung out my shingle. My plumber does so very well for himself and he's never got a problem with a lack of work and after 12 years doing the work himself he now gets to hire plumbers who work for him and he supervises for the most part - except for a few customers he still does himself or where a large job requires him to be out on site.
 
The phone company back in the day was a good deal and as sure as a retirement pension one could get. Your father is a rarity these days - someone who takes it upon himself to pick himself up, take some initiative and improve themselves and get a better job. To me, I'd have to be in very dire straits indeed to take government assistance but I would as a last resort. To me it's, unseemly to have to depend on the government. I agree with you about trade schools. My uncle and cousins were all sheet metal workers (union) and learned silversmithing and metal work through trade schools. We don't have enough of that today and it's a gap in my opinion. Trying to shove kids into college when they either don't have the want or drive to go is a mistake. Were I to do it over again, I'd probably have gone into electric or plumbing and hung out my shingle. My plumber does so very well for himself and he's never got a problem with a lack of work and after 12 years doing the work himself he now gets to hire plumbers who work for him and he supervises for the most part - except for a few customers he still does himself or where a large job requires him to be out on site.

Don't get me wrong. I really do not have a problem with helping people out. Just don't be bitchen when you refuse to better yourself.
 
Luckily letting right wingers violate poor people's privacy on some suspicion cooked up listening to hate radio and watching Fox News isn't a mistake people are likely to make twice after it turned out you were so embarrassingly wrong on exactly that issue so very recently...

So no random drug testing then? Color me surprised...

And aren't I wrong most of the time according to you? :lamo
 
So no random drug testing then? Color me surprised...

I get that conservatives don't tend to acknowledge when they make mistakes, so I can see why you guys' pride is preventing you from giving the profuse apologies that you owe poor Floridians... But to double down when the objective evidence clearly shows that you were totally wrong? To fail to re-evaluate the sick assumptions you made that led you to much such a gross miscalculation on this? That just is not acceptable. You insulted many thousands of people based on vile and cruel stereotypes you worked up and it turned out that your stereotypes were completely wrong. In fact, I would guess that if you drug tested the general population you'd find a lot more than 2% on drugs, so you were not just wrong, you had it completely backwards. That doesn't give you pause? You aren't rethinking anything? You don't see that maybe it is possible that you got things wrong?

And aren't I wrong most of the time according to you? :lamo

Yes. :)
 
I get that conservatives don't tend to acknowledge when they make mistakes, so I can see why you guys' pride is preventing you from giving the profuse apologies that you owe poor Floridians... But to double down when the objective evidence clearly shows that you were totally wrong? To fail to re-evaluate the sick assumptions you made that led you to much such a gross miscalculation on this? That just is not acceptable. You insulted many thousands of people based on vile and cruel stereotypes you worked up and it turned out that your stereotypes were completely wrong. In fact, I would guess that if you drug tested the general population you'd find a lot more than 2% on drugs, so you were not just wrong, you had it completely backwards. That doesn't give you pause? You aren't rethinking anything? You don't see that maybe it is possible that you got things wrong?
It's not pride, it's a lack of facts. I'm sure the numbers are very accurate given the tests were advertised and scheduled. A 2% - 4% who don't care seems reasonable. My point... well you know my point but you're not going to address my point. C'est la vie.
 
It's not pride, it's a lack of facts. I'm sure the numbers are very accurate given the tests were advertised and scheduled. A 2% - 4% who don't care seems reasonable. My point... well you know my point but you're not going to address my point. C'est la vie.

So, you admit that the tests you guys asked for were pointless, you just think they were pointless for a different reason than I do. Regardless, you admit you made a mistake and insulted a ton of people for no reason, right?
 
So, you admit that the tests you guys asked for were pointless, you just think they were pointless for a different reason than I do. Regardless, you admit you made a mistake and insulted a ton of people for no reason, right?

The story itself notes that there is not enough data yet to make any conclusions. I hope it's right but there are no facts as of yet.
 
So, you admit that the tests you guys asked for were pointless, you just think they were pointless for a different reason than I do. Regardless, you admit you made a mistake and insulted a ton of people for no reason, right?
I asked for nothing - what is pointless is advertising when drug tests will be administered. The mistake is interpreting these tests as valid, but as long as it is aligned with your belief, no matter the data is worthless, you will hold it up as a shining beacon of truth and vindication. Yes yes... been to this movie a thousand times.
 
I asked for nothing - what is pointless is advertising when drug tests will be administered. The mistake is interpreting these tests as valid, but as long as it is aligned with your belief, no matter the data is worthless, you will hold it up as a shining beacon of truth and vindication. Yes yes... been to this movie a thousand times.

Ok, if you didn't personally ask for these tests, the right did. And it insulted a lot of people and produced nothing of value. If you didn't ask for it, would you agree that it was a mistake on their part?
 
98% of all welfare recipients, or 98% of all welfare recipients that were tested?

I'm betting it's the latter, which begs the question: How many welfare recipients were actually tested?
 
I'm not making accusations. I'm just curious what sort of test they are gave? I have twin 20 year old sons. They smoke some pot. eh, anyway they've got a lot of jobs lately through the local jobs agency. They have to take a drug test whenever they get hired. I asked them about being able to pass them. They told me they are gave a swab to put in their mouth. According to them as long as you don't put your tongue on it, you pass.

I know of pot smokers that have taken niacin to get rid of any evidence of it in their systems. Apparently it cleanses the system flushing out all the impurities in it. And it must work as those people have gotten jobs. In todays world, I guess most employers test for pot/drugs. At least those with larger companies.
 
There was a time that I supported drug testing for welfare applicants but then I realize it was just a distraction from the real problem which is the welfare system itself.
 
Cold Highway said:
There was a time that I supported drug testing for welfare applicants but then I realize it was just a distraction from the real problem which is the welfare system itself.

Well yeah, in an ideal world the whole welfare system would be overhauled. However, I think we both know this will never be the case. Welfare reform begins with more than just drug tests. This is just an aspect of it.

I'd love to see it brought to a minimal, with recipients passing very arduous and stringent measures to qualify. People these days just see it as a paid vacation. That has to end.
 
Well yeah, in an ideal world the whole welfare system would be overhauled. However, I think we both know this will never be the case. Welfare reform begins with more than just drug tests. This is just an aspect of it.

Getting the federal government out of the welfare business would be a important first steps. Let the states decide.
 
Dare to dream, sir...

It sure would affect property values, that's for sure. A state with a militant view against welfare? I know I'd be packing my bags.
 
98% of all welfare recipients, or 98% of all welfare recipients that were tested?

I'm betting it's the latter, which begs the question: How many welfare recipients were actually tested?

If you had read the article, you would have read that 98% who were tested passed. I am willing to bet that this is a better record of staying off drugs than the banksters would have if they were subjected to the same scrutiny. Are you for drug testing for the corporate elite before they get any more welfare payments. Yea, I know, I know, you will call it something else, but it is still on MY damn dime, and that makes it welfare. So how about drug testing corporate officers of Goldman-Sachs, GE, Citigroup, etc. You certainly can't be against that, if you truly believe that welfare applicants should be drug tested.
 
danarhea said:
If you had read the article, you would have read that 98% who were tested passed. I am willing to bet that this is a better record of staying off drugs than the banksters would have if they were subjected to the same scrutiny. Are you for drug testing for the corporate elite before they get any more welfare payments. Yea, I know, I know, you will call it something else, but it is still on MY damn dime, and that makes it welfare. So how about drug testing corporate officers of Goldman-Sachs, GE, Citigroup, etc. You certainly can't be against that, if you truly believe that welfare applicants should be drug tested.

That's a non sequitur, unless it's a covert slam on corporate welfare, in which I lol'd.

And last I checked, most private sector employment places are also subject to drug tests. Somewhat planned initially (employment), but in most places if you injure yourself on premises you are required to take an immediate drug test, thereby quantitating the "random" part discussed in the thread.
 
That's a non sequitur, unless it's a covert slam on corporate welfare, in which I lol'd.

And last I checked, most private sector employment places are also subject to drug tests. Somewhat planned initially (employment), but in most places if you injure yourself on premises you are required to take an immediate drug test, thereby quantitating the "random" part discussed in the thread.

The difference being you sign a contract to that affect
 
If you had read the article, you would have read that 98% who were tested passed. I am willing to bet that this is a better record of staying off drugs than the banksters would have if they were subjected to the same scrutiny. Are you for drug testing for the corporate elite before they get any more welfare payments. Yea, I know, I know, you will call it something else, but it is still on MY damn dime, and that makes it welfare. So how about drug testing corporate officers of Goldman-Sachs, GE, Citigroup, etc. You certainly can't be against that, if you truly believe that welfare applicants should be drug tested.

Nope not against it at all, same applies to them ... .they are told when they will be tested, and only when they are applying for said welfare. I'll make you a bet .. that they pass 100%
 
The difference being you sign a contract to that affect

??? confused here, so what you are saying, is it's perfectly reasonable to work for a living, and expect to be drug tested, but if you are going to live free off the government, it's a gross miscarriage of justice ?? Sorry I fail to find any logic in that.
 
??? confused here, so what you are saying, is it's perfectly reasonable to work for a living, and expect to be drug tested, but if you are going to live free off the government, it's a gross miscarriage of justice ?? Sorry I fail to find any logic in that.

You have rights the government isn't suppose to infringe on. Its falls under "unreasonable search and seizure". Everyone currently getting government aid should have to sign a contract waving the right to it when it comes to drug testing.
 
Back
Top Bottom