Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

1) I 'm too lazy for that.
2) I don 't care enuf.

Given that this population had a lower proven drug use rate then the general public other then aiding the drug testing companies what the point?

But I would go along with it if all those lawmakers who are cashing in state checks would also needed to be tested.

This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.

might also add comparing a lawmaker to a welfare recipient is comparing apples to oranges. In the case of welfare recipients they are essentially receiving, practically for free, money from the government at or near the beginning of each month. This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.

Quote:

might also add comparing a lawmaker to a welfare recipient is comparing apples to oranges. In the case of welfare recipients they are essentially receiving, practically for free, money from the government at or near the beginning of each month. This is different from a lawmaker laboring for and in exchange of a paycheck.

Right and the billionaire sport team owner being handed 5oo millions dollars?

Beside that the Florida governor also wished to had lower level state employees tested.

1) I 'm too lazy for that.
2) I don 't care enuf.

Then why did you ask?

Maybe thay r concerned that the recipients
will apply the taxpayer's funds to recreational drugs, instead of necessities.


David

Maybe thay r concerned that the recipients
will apply the taxpayer's funds to recreational drugs, instead of necessities.


David

I'm pretty certain no one (sizable and noticeable amount of persons) could really expect
the recipients could get illicit drugs with the social services funds (tax payers money).

Did you read the thread before posting?

The money was not lock down to any large degree and other sport teams owners in the area had promised to provide other benefits if given the funding and had a history of not carrying out those promises.

He surely could had used millions for drugs if he had wish to do so.

This is only being anti-poor as there is no indication including past large scale samplings that the poor are any more likely to be drug users then anyone else in society.

From the reports I have read, the money was to be used exclusively for the construction of the stadium, so they had no discretion. However, this is irrelevant because I do not think the owners personally saw a nickel.

Rather, it seems to me, at least ostensibly, the impetus of the program was not "anti-poor" sentiment but a desire to ensure taxpayers' dollars do not subsidize illegal drug use.

It was a gift to the owner of the team and we would not wish to give a 500 millions dollar gift to a drug user now would we?

Quote:

From the reports I have read, the money was to be used exclusively for the construction of the stadium, so they had no discretion. However, this is irrelevant because I do not think the owners personally saw a nickel.

Don't be ridiculous. Money is fungible, it matters not that the funds were spent directly on the stadium; it's the exact same as putting that money in the owner's pockets. If the state didn't raise and spend that money, the owners would have had to do so themselves. Who do you think is going to make all the profits off of the events held at the new stadium? Those profits are directly subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Therefore, under your argument, these executives should be all taking drug tests.

Quote:

Rather, it seems to me, at least ostensibly, the impetus of the program was not "anti-poor" sentiment but a desire to ensure taxpayers' dollars do not subsidize illegal drug use.

Do you qualify for ANY deductions or rebates on your taxes? Home mortgage interest deduction, student loan interest deduction? Have any dependents? If so, I'm sure you'd agree with me that you are making a compelling case that you personally should be drug tested before we allow you to take those deductions.

Not that any of this matters, other than academically, as the statute is unconstitutional and won't stand a challenge in court.

Cycloptichorn

It was a gift to the owner of the team and we would not wish to give a 500 millions dollar gift to a drug user now would we? If those funds was not given for his sport team benefit directly or indirectly he would either needed to move or pay for his own damn stadium.

Oh there is no problem with that as long as the drug user is someone like Rush Limbaugh or a sport team owner instead of a poor mother or father with a family to feed.

We all know this is far more costly to filter out the very small percent of drug users then any tax funds save, however it is a many millions taxpayers funded windfall to the drug testing firms.

A windfall that in fact benefit the Governor as a shareholder in those testing labs at least until he was force to sell his shares and his wife shares.

I might also add deductions in my taxes is different from welfare. All deductions do is permit me to keep more of the money I earned, i.e. permits me to keep more of my income by shrinking the amount of my income which may be taxed, which is vastly different than taxpayers' money going directly to a welfare recipient, i.e. free money.