Deal OKs bill requiring drug testing for welfare recipients

FreedomFromAll said:

We do not have laws that permanently take away children for possession of an controlled substance. The laws that you are referring to are in your head. Then you take the kids away and at least they're not raised to repeat the mom's mistakes. Works for me. Such laws would destroy any semblance of liberty in this country. It would be yet another law that would undoubtedly be taken advantage of by the religious right.

Click to expand...

If the person using the illegal drugs is a repeat offender (as is often the case) then the kids might as well be considered as having been taken away from their parents on a permanent basis. Not saying it is..but it might as well be.

FreedomFromAll said:

I can see it now the state taking away kids because the parents were Atheists and could end up being criminals, because you know how those Atheists have no morals and do drugs (for those that missed it, that was sarcasm). And if you add the two together you end up with North Korea. So no I do not agree with fantasizing about killing all drug dealers or taking away children from their parents. Children should always stay with their parents unless it is a danger to their well being. And there is no evidence that every parent that does drugs is a danger to their children. WHen we start using such standards it would be easy to apply that rational to all things that corrupt the minds of children. Its a door that should not be further opened.

Click to expand...

Since when did atheism and religion come into this discussion? And who in the hell said that religious folks don't do/deal drugs or are not on welfare? Sarcastic or not it was an idiotic thing to say.

And yes, any parent that does drugs is a danger to their kids for the simple fact that 9 times outta 10 the kid will end up doing the same, or worse drugs as they grow up and quite possibly end up in jail due to their parents irresponsible influence.

As for killing drug dealers...why not? How many thousands of people are dead because of drug dealers? Yet the only time they are ever charged with murder is if they can be tied directly to someone that died....which is rarely. We put serial killers to death because they killed so many people...why not drug dealers?

Kal'Stang said:

If the person using the illegal drugs is a repeat offender (as is often the case) then the kids might as well be considered as having been taken away from their parents on a permanent basis. Not saying it is..but it might as well be.

Click to expand...

Yes in extreme cases but that is not what Cephus was asserting. Cephus said that he is in favor of putting all drug dealers to death. That is context of why I said what i said it has nothing to do with your point.

Since when did atheism and religion come into this discussion?

Click to expand...

I was talking to Cephus not you.

And who in the hell said that religious folks don't do/deal drugs or are not on welfare?

Click to expand...

Not me or anyone in this conversation but thanx for sharing some strawman BS.

Sarcastic or not it was an idiotic thing to say.

Click to expand...

Are you Cephus's mom or something? If so then I understand where you are coming from if not than that was pathetic.

And yes, any parent that does drugs is a danger to their kids for the simple fact that 9 times outta 10 the kid will end up doing the same, or worse drugs as they grow up and quite possibly end up in jail due to their parents irresponsible influence.

Click to expand...

Did you make that up yourself? I simply do not agree that drugs are evil so shoot me.

As for killing drug dealers...why not? How many thousands of people are dead because of drug dealers? Yet the only time they are ever charged with murder is if they can be tied directly to someone that died....which is rarely. We put serial killers to death because they killed so many people...why not drug dealers?

Click to expand...

Now you are being ridiculous. I guess is we use your logic we should kill everyone involved in the tobacco industry and alcohol and firearms/bows and motor vehicles..... Why not just put everyone in a padded room so they wont possibly get hurt? I know lets outlaw corners, they could injure someone.

It is not the governments place to tell an adult that they cannot do something that may be harmful to themselves. ANd outlawing something because it might cause harm to someone else would create a disaster of policies.

FreedomFromAll said:

I was talking to Cephus not you.

Click to expand...

Last I knew this was a debate forum. Which means that anyone can reply to your posts regardless if who you were talking to.

FreedomFromAll said:

Did you make that up yourself? I simply do not agree that drugs are evil so shoot me.

Click to expand...

Nope. Its based on personal experiances.

FreedomFromAll said:

Now you are being ridiculous. I guess is we use your logic we should kill everyone involved in the tobacco industry and alcohol and firearms/bows and motor vehicles..... Why not just put everyone in a padded room so they wont possibly get hurt? I know lets outlaw corners, they could injure someone.

Click to expand...

Both tobacco, alcohol, guns/bows are legal as such the responsibility does not lie with the companies that sell them. Illegal drugs are just that...illegal. As such the person that makes it and sells it is totally responsible for the death that it caused.

FreedomFromAll said:

It is not the governments place to tell an adult that they cannot do something that may be harmful to themselves. ANd outlawing something because it might cause harm to someone else would create a disaster of policies.

Click to expand...

Bold: Wow...in that case then wth are we doing with laws against murder? Theft? Rape? Seriously...did you even read that before you posted it?

Kal'Stang said:

Bold: Wow...in that case then wth are we doing with laws against...

Click to expand...

Except we know that murder, theft, etc HARMS - hence why they're illegal - IMO, terrible analogy.

Kal'Stang said:

Last I knew this was a debate forum. Which means that anyone can reply to your posts regardless if who you were talking to.

Click to expand...

Of course you can say whatever you please, but at least realize that when someone says something specifically to someone it was not a general statement. Plus you seemed to have ignored the context in its entirety adnd added an strawman argument in its place. In short you are in left field and ball was not.

Nope. Its based on personal experiances.

Click to expand...

Personal experiences while important to your decision making turns out to be just your opinion to the rest of us.

Both tobacco, alcohol, guns/bows are legal as such the responsibility does not lie with the companies that sell them. Illegal drugs are just that...illegal. As such the person that makes it and sells it is totally responsible for the death that it caused.

Click to expand...

True illegal drugs are illegal, cant deny that at all. But so was alcohol at one point and now alcohol is not illegal. And since the effects of alcohol (ie on society) is much the same as todays illegal drugs it means that your argument is one of convinence not factual.

Bold: Wow...in that case then wth are we doing with laws against murder? Theft? Rape? Seriously...did you even read that before you posted it?

Click to expand...

Yes I see that when you take an sentence out of the paragraph that it lacks context. If this is something that you commonly do my guess is that you have trouble understanding written words. What you did by taking the sentence out of context, is create a strawman finger pointing irrelevant childish assertion.


Ten Most dangerous drugs

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street Methadone
5. Ketamine
6. Alcohol
7. Amphetamines
8. Benzodiazepines
9. Buprenorphine
10. Tobacco

Wouldnt it be wise then to test TANF recipients for alcohol and tobacco as well? Alcohol is number 5 on a list of most dangerous drugs and Meth/amphetamines is number 6. And missing from the list is marijuana, yet that is what will be the primary drug being tested for.

I agree that there are many people taking advantage of welfare. But as Florida has shown drug testing will not reduce the number of welfare recipients in any meaningful way. Personally IMO welfare should be like the CCC, meaning that you do not receive anything without working for it. There are plenty of things that society needs workers for. Instead of having permanent public workers (not in all cases but for the most part) put the truly needy to work. ANd since it has been proven in court that you can test workers for drugs when safety is an issue, then do the testing when the person seeks employment with the government. Welfare would really then only be for the disabled since all able bodies would be put to work. Those who did not want to work would not get anything.

And since the majority would learn work ethics there would not be massive amounts of government employees. Of course there would be at first but the key would to keep everyones pay the same and do not give raises and require these people to obtain work in the private sector in a certain amount of time. Emphasize that the government job is a stepping stone not a goal.

If you want to test for alcohol.... Well I could go along with that too.

Welfare is a privilege not a right. If you can afford drugs and alcohol then maybe your getting more assistance than you need or your priorities are jacked up.

Paratrooper said:

If you want to test for alcohol.... Well I could go along with that too.

Welfare is a privilege not a right. If you can afford drugs and alcohol then maybe your getting more assistance than you need or your priorities are jacked up.

Click to expand...

Thats great if the recipient has a criminal drug/alcohol record. Everyone else that does not have a criminal record should not be tested. Look at the numbers in Florida had the test been chosen for people with a record of drug use the cost of testing would have been much lower. Many people that apply for welfare are not drug users and it is ridiculous to test them all hoping that the tests will weed out drug users. As those Liberals keep pointing out perhaps the same standard should be applied to everyone that receives public monies.

When we pay taxes our money becomes not our own money but money that belongs to the public at large. And it is literally impossible to be an American citizen and not pay taxes in some shape or form. Of course some pay more and some pay less. When people receive social security benefits or we get our tax returns that money did not magically go from our pockets and return to our pockets it left our possession. Not everyone needs social security when they get old enough to claim it. Why should the rest of us give our money to those people? And tax returns come from the government as well as any other monies including welfare. Tax returns are our money just as well as anything that taxes paid for. No taxes no tax returns. Why not test all social security recipients and people receiving tax returns? Why should any of our money go to people breaking the law? Wouldnt tax returns and social security be privileges not, rights as well?

ANd how else would this new standard be used? Perhaps we should test everyone that uses public roads or anything to do with the public. Where exactly is the line drawn?

Paschendale said:

I have no problem with people whose lives suck taking drugs to make those lives more bearable. Sometimes you need a pick me up. I do not get this hang up some people have against certain kinds of highs. We spend our lives in search of highs. Love and sex are two of the most prominent. Power and excitement work, too. We ban weed because people get high from it, should be ban roller coasters, too? They both produce a rush using brain chemicals. What's the difference? Life is too short not to enjoy every moment of it that you can.

Click to expand...

Drugs are still illegal....drugs kill people...taking drugs feed cartels and make for mass murders like in mexico....I could go on for a half an hour.
I find your post just plain silly to be honest....next time you need to get high to make your lousy life more bearable...take a rollercoaster ride and/or have sex...they are both legal

nathanj63 said:

I can understand the sentiment behind wanting welfare recipients to pass a drug test (though I disagree with it). However, the fact of the matter is that it is a MYTH that many of the people who receive welfare use it on drugs. This was clearly shown by the results of the Florida state law that required drug testing for welfare recipients. Only 2.6 percent of those tested failed the test (an additional 1% failed to take the test for whatever reason). Because Florida reimbursed the $30 fee to take the test to those that passed, the law ended up costing an extra $45K. In the end, it really is a law that might make the Republican base happy, but in the end is fairly useless.

And me personally, I think it is pretty dumb for a positive drug test for marijuana to prohibit anyone from doing anything. It's no big deal.

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests - New York Times

Click to expand...

Does the law require all adult members of the household to be tested?
Did this study find out how many potential applicants, decided not to apply because of the new law?
These studies don't take into account fraudulent applications, were an adult member of the household is not listed in the application.

These studies lack comprehensive coverage.
I'd be wary of their accuracy.

Paratrooper said:

If you want to test for alcohol.... Well I could go along with that too.

Welfare is a privilege not a right. If you can afford drugs and alcohol then maybe your getting more assistance than you need or your priorities are jacked up.

Click to expand...

All I can really related to these discussions is my personal experience with individuals using state benefits to subsidize their life.

I've known many people on state food stamp programs, whose family members list false household statuses.
I've known many people who use state medicaid (for their kids) and SCHIP programs, when they have access to very affordable insurance.

Most of these people have been my coworkers, they make no bones about abusing the system.
Abusing these things, is the status quo, from what I've seen, to the point where people who are earning $50k (or more) a year are drawing all kinds of state benefits and burning their excess cash on superficial things.

Edit:
To summarize, not only do I favor drug and alcohol testing, but also surprise in home visits and mandatory financial literacy classes.

Instead of all the drug testing and whatnot (why is alcohol exempt, and for that matter other non-essential expenditures?), I do not understand why they do not go with a simpler solution. A "welfare card" similar to an atm card, it gets recharged every month, and can only be used for necessities. I do not think it would be that hard to implement.. here instead of typing it all out again, I posted this a while back on another thread on the same topic:

marduc said:

Would it be that hard to issue a plastic card or set up a welfare account that could only be used for food, housing expenses, transportation costs, and medical treatment?

Is there a potential for abuse[?] always and in all things, but not compared to just sending a check in the mail which can then be converted to cash with ease. This way welfare money can be used strictly to insure an individuals or a family's welfare.

If they have other money that they earn, there is no way to really control how that gets spent, other than enforcing income reporting measures and insuring that the amount of assistance available is tied to that (ideally on a month by month basis). This leaves money under the table, side jobs, illegal income ect. this we cannot control all that much, but controlling where the welfare money goes, and the limit of money according to legitimate reported income would account for the majority of recipients, and take care of a lions share of waste and inappropriate allocation of funds.

Click to expand...

and a follow up response to a question of how you insure it is not spent on a flatscreen tv or whatnot at walmart:

marduc said:

That part is easy, it is just a matter of having entries in the store product database, similar to how taxed goods and non-taxed goods are accounted for. You go through checkout all your items get scanned, you have an amount of your purchase eligible to be charged to your welfare account based upon what goods were flagged as welfare eligible and which are not. You scan your card, those get paid for, then you have to come up with hundreds of dollars out of pocket to pay for that TV.

Click to expand...

marduc said:

Instead of all the drug testing and whatnot (why is alcohol exempt, and for that matter other non-essential expenditures?), I do not understand why they do not go with a simpler solution. A "welfare card" similar to an atm card, it gets recharged every month, and can only be used for necessities. I do not think it would be that hard to implement.. here instead of typing it all out again, I posted this a while back on another thread on the same topic:



and a follow up response to a question of how you insure it is not spent on a flatscreen tv or whatnot at walmart:

Click to expand...

The EBT cards for food stamps are like this.
No more actual stamps, the problem is, that you can still trade these things for cash or find an unethical business owner who will allow you to purchase non approved items with it.

It's becoming more rampant.

Harry Guerrilla said:

The EBT cards for food stamps are like this.
No more actual stamps, the problem is, that you can still trade these things for cash or find an unethical business owner who will allow you to purchase non approved items with it.

It's becoming more rampant.

Click to expand...

Which is why the card needs to be issued in a persons name so that it cannot be transferred. As far as the unethical business owners - I do not know how the system currently works, but it seems if you had to scan the items and the card left the premises with the shopper it would be difficult to rectify this after the fact (yeah the corner grocer does not typically have a scanner - how much do they cost? just tangentially thinking aloud, it could be required that they do scan all food card purchases). It seems that if a scanner were required, they would have to ring up "dummy" items to make up for say a cigarette purchase, and then put them back on the shelves to make up the cost.. as I said, there is still potential for abuse, but it would be nigh impossible to eliminate abuse, but any steps towards mitigating abuse should be pursued.

Are these cards rechargeable, or do they use them and dispose them when the amount is used up?

marduc said:

Which is why the card needs to be issued in a persons name so that it cannot be transferred. As far as the unethical business owners - I do not know how the system currently works, but it seems if you had to scan the items and the card left the premises with the shopper it would be difficult to rectify this after the fact (yeah the corner grocer does not typically have a scanner - how much do they cost? just tangentially thinking aloud, it could be required that they do scan all food card purchases). It seems that if a scanner were required, they would have to ring up "dummy" items to make up for say a cigarette purchase, and then put them back on the shelves to make up the cost.. as I said, there is still potential for abuse, but it would be nigh impossible to eliminate abuse, but any steps towards mitigating abuse should be pursued.

Are these cards rechargeable, or do they use them and dispose them when the amount is used up?

Click to expand...

They're currently issued to the primary applicant, in their name and are reloaded until the benefits expire.

Some business owners use manual registers or just swipe the card and return cash to the recipient.
Other people will take another person to the grocery store, swipe their card, for their friend, who returns the favor with cash.

Harry Guerrilla said:

They're currently issued to the primary applicant, in their name and are reloaded until the benefits expire.

Some business owners use manual registers or just swipe the card and return cash to the recipient.
Other people will take another person to the grocery store, swipe their card, for their friend, who returns the favor with cash.

Click to expand...

And what kind of proof do you have that this type of fraud is done by the majority of the recipients? BTW the penalty for the fraud that you are talking about is being banned from ever receiving any benefits ever again. Its not like its ok to defraud the government. That being said I do not support people who are not actually in need getting welfare. I think that if welfare was truly for emergency situations and not just because you are under a certain amount of income in a given time, that there would be more support for it. But the scope of welfare has gotten out of hand especially since the economy has been down.

FreedomFromAll said:

And what kind of proof do you have that this type of fraud is done by the majority of the recipients? BTW the penalty for the fraud that you are talking about is being banned from ever receiving any benefits ever again. Its not like its ok to defraud the government. That being said I do not support people who are not actually in need getting welfare. I think that if welfare was truly for emergency situations and not just because you are under a certain amount of income in a given time, that there would be more support for it. But the scope of welfare has gotten out of hand especially since the economy has been down.

Click to expand...

Personal experience is all I have and I never said it was done by the majority of recipients.
I'm just injecting that the "studies" done, were not comprehensive in detailing problems associated with abuse and fraud, within government social need programs.

Sure this is illegal, but the overwhelming vast majority of people who defraud these social programs are hardly discovered.
The enforcement mechanisms to catch them just really don't exist.

FreedomFromAll said:

And what kind of proof do you have that this type of fraud is done by the majority of the recipients? BTW the penalty for the fraud that you are talking about is being banned from ever receiving any benefits ever again. Its not like its ok to defraud the government. That being said I do not support people who are not actually in need getting welfare. I think that if welfare was truly for emergency situations and not just because you are under a certain amount of income in a given time, that there would be more support for it. But the scope of welfare has gotten out of hand especially since the economy has been down.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's the majority of recipients or just a few. Wrong is wrong and the system needs to respond to stop *ANYONE* who does it from doing so. There are stores out there who will give EBT customers the entire balance on their card in cash without giving them a single product from the store, then charge the government that money against the net value of the products in the store. They make out like bandits.

Cephus said:

It doesn't matter if it's the majority of recipients or just a few. Wrong is wrong and the system needs to respond to stop *ANYONE* who does it from doing so. There are stores out there who will give EBT customers the entire balance on their card in cash without giving them a single product from the store, then charge the government that money against the net value of the products in the store. They make out like bandits.

Click to expand...

Well of course bad people should be stopped from being bad. And it does make a difference how many people are being bad. If the amount is high it has an entirely different effect than if the amount is low.

FreedomFromAll said:

Well of course bad people should be stopped from being bad. And it does make a difference how many people are being bad. If the amount is high it has an entirely different effect than if the amount is low.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. That's like saying that because relatively few people are murderers, we shouldn't pursue murderers like we would if a relatively high number were doing it. Violating the law is violating the law. The effect is irrelevant. The fact that the law was broken is.

Travelsonic said:

Except we know that murder, theft, etc HARMS - hence why they're illegal - IMO, terrible analogy.

Click to expand...

And MJ, cocaine, heroin, extacy, are not harmful?

FreedomFromAll said:

Of course you can say whatever you please, but at least realize that when someone says something specifically to someone it was not a general statement. Plus you seemed to have ignored the context in its entirety adnd added an strawman argument in its place. In short you are in left field and ball was not.

Click to expand...

In case you didn't notice I've been replying in this thread quite often so its not like I haven't been paying attention to what everyone else has been saying or just jumped in the middle.

FreedomFromAll said:

Personal experiences while important to your decision making turns out to be just your opinion to the rest of us.

Click to expand...

We all base our opinions on personal experiances...be they from studies written by "experts" or by observations or something else. So if you wanted to get real technical everything we argue about here at DP is nothing more than one huge opinion fest.

FreedomFromAll said:

True illegal drugs are illegal, cant deny that at all. But so was alcohol at one point and now alcohol is not illegal. And since the effects of alcohol (ie on society) is much the same as todays illegal drugs it means that your argument is one of convinence not factual.

Click to expand...

And if people died while alcohol was illegal I would still agree that the dealers should be put to death. Hell, my personal opinion is that anyone that DUI and kills someone should be charged with murder one since they purposely got drunk. So no, it has nothing to do with convinence.

FreedomFromAll said:

Yes I see that when you take an sentence out of the paragraph that it lacks context. If this is something that you commonly do my guess is that you have trouble understanding written words. What you did by taking the sentence out of context, is create a strawman finger pointing irrelevant childish assertion.

Click to expand...

You are the one that put "and" in that sentence which means that it should be able to stand on its own. But regardless even with the previous sentence the one that I did respond to makes me still go "wow".

FreedomFromAll said:

Wouldnt it be wise then to test TANF recipients for alcohol and tobacco as well? Alcohol is number 5 on a list of most dangerous drugs and Meth/amphetamines is number 6. And missing from the list is marijuana, yet that is what will be the primary drug being tested for.

Click to expand...

Again, alcohol and tobacco is legal. If getting TANF benefits meant that you could not do any of those things or if those things were illegal then I would agree. But it doesn't and its not, so I don't.

FreedomFromAll said:

I agree that there are many people taking advantage of welfare. But as Florida has shown drug testing will not reduce the number of welfare recipients in any meaningful way. Personally IMO welfare should be like the CCC, meaning that you do not receive anything without working for it. There are plenty of things that society needs workers for. Instead of having permanent public workers (not in all cases but for the most part) put the truly needy to work. ANd since it has been proven in court that you can test workers for drugs when safety is an issue, then do the testing when the person seeks employment with the government. Welfare would really then only be for the disabled since all able bodies would be put to work. Those who did not want to work would not get anything.

Click to expand...

I would have absolutely no problem with putting people that apply and get TANF to work. Even a parapalygic(sp?) is capable of doing some things with the technology that we have today. Look at Steven Hawkings.

Cephus said:

Irrelevant. That's like saying that because relatively few people are murderers, we shouldn't pursue murderers like we would if a relatively high number were doing it. Violating the law is violating the law. The effect is irrelevant. The fact that the law was broken is.

Click to expand...

I am not sure how you think that you misrepresent what I said to come to the opposite conclusion. FFS I said that the people committing fraud should be busted. Then I added that it does matter how many people are defrauding welfare programs. I know that it didnt fit your argument since I was agreeing but damn man to read something and try a strawman argument when it was obvious that I did not say anything like that is just too much.

I agree that welfare programs are being exploited and that the law allows people who do not need aid to get benefits. I just do not agree that drug testing will fix those problems in any shape or form. In other words drug testing is irrelevant since it does nothing to fix the problem it only scores political points among the Republican party. That way Republicans can pat themselves on the back thinking that they stuck it to those lazy stoner Liberals that they obsess about. Meanwhile nothing was fixed or even attempted to be fixed. People will continue to defraud welfare the only difference will be that stoners wont be able too. And stoners are probably too lazy to do it in the first place. They are too busy playing WoW in their bedroom while their mom brings them munches.

FreedomFromAll said:

I agree that welfare programs are being exploited and that the law allows people who do not need aid to get benefits. I just do not agree that drug testing will fix those problems in any shape or form. In other words drug testing is irrelevant since it does nothing to fix the problem it only scores political points among the Republican party. That way Republicans can pat themselves on the back thinking that they stuck it to those lazy stoner Liberals that they obsess about. Meanwhile nothing was fixed or even attempted to be fixed. People will continue to defraud welfare the only difference will be that stoners wont be able too. And stoners are probably too lazy to do it in the first place. They are too busy playing WoW in their bedroom while their mom brings them munches.

Click to expand...

But nobody is arguing that drug testing, in and of itself, will solve all the problems. It is a part of a multi-pronged approach to comprehensive welfare reform. It includes going after fraud. It includes requiring welfare recipients to receive an education and job-training. It includes stopping welfare recipients from breaking the law. It forces these people off their fat asses and into the work force, not because they want to, but because they absolutely have no choice in the matter.

Cephus said:

But nobody is arguing that drug testing, in and of itself, will solve all the problems. It is a part of a multi-pronged approach to comprehensive welfare reform. It includes going after fraud. It includes requiring welfare recipients to receive an education and job-training. It includes stopping welfare recipients from breaking the law. It forces these people off their fat asses and into the work force, not because they want to, but because they absolutely have no choice in the matter.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is just one small step. We need to do lots more.

Kal'Stang said:

In case you didn't notice I've been replying in this thread quite often so its not like I haven't been paying attention to what everyone else has been saying or just jumped in the middle.

Click to expand...

Congratulations?

We all base our opinions on personal experiances...be they from studies written by "experts" or by observations or something else. So if you wanted to get real technical everything we argue about here at DP is nothing more than one huge opinion fest.

Click to expand...

And links are meaningless to you?

And if people died while alcohol was illegal I would still agree that the dealers should be put to death. Hell, my personal opinion is that anyone that DUI and kills someone should be charged with murder one since they purposely got drunk. So no, it has nothing to do with convinence.

Click to expand...

ok

You are the one that put "and" in that sentence which means that it should be able to stand on its own. But regardless even with the previous sentence the one that I did respond to makes me still go "wow".

Click to expand...

Again you are still taking it out of context. But Ill agree that obviously I should have said it better.

Again, alcohol and tobacco is legal. If getting TANF benefits meant that you could not do any of those things or if those things were illegal then I would agree. But it doesn't and its not, so I don't.

Click to expand...

Gambling is legal in many places in the States. You can also purchase dvd's, porn anything with money. And that's what TANF recipients get is real money. There are plenty of things that would be considered frivolous that are quit legal to buy.

I would have absolutely no problem with putting people that apply and get TANF to work. Even a parapalygic(sp?) is capable of doing some things with the technology that we have today. Look at Steven Hawkings.

Click to expand...

Well it really does depend on the disability.