The Drug Free Families Act of 2008

[buckthesystem]

I have mixed feelings.

I do believe that if someone who is on welfare gets convicted of a drug related crime while they are already on it they should have to have regular drug testing.

But...

It is the kids who suffer when those programs are removed. You have an awfully hard time here getting on TANF, you have to have children and be looking for work and ... etc. It might be possible to give the programs in a form which could not be used to purchase drugs, I would rather them do this...direct payments to utilities, rent, store cards, you know, like wic is done and like EBT is done.

It's not necessary to punish the children for their parents problems. Now if they took the kids, then they could take the bennies, no problems.

Yes...it is unfortunate for the kids, but by allowing these people to partake in these social programs we are basically keeping the kids in a negative environment. If someone fails a drug test 3 times they should lose more than the welfare benefits...they should lose parental benefits. We should send the message loud and clear that if you use illegal drugs you are going to lose out BIG TIME!

Here's an idea...if a person does fail the drug test 3 times...take their kids away and put ALL the welfare money the parent would have gotten towards raising the kids.

Axxman I am so horrified by some of the things that you write that I find myself wondering if you really believe them or if you are just trying to "sound tough".

Someone said to me late last week "..... I am suspicious of Christians because most of them sound so sanctimoneous ......". Yeah, I can see why people might think that.

You say "...if a person does fail the drug test 3 times...take their kids away and put ALL the welfare money the parent would have gotten towards raising the kids". Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants.

Also you might want to remember, the next time that you see a drug addict: "there, but for the Grace of God, go I".

And BTW LadyR (although your posts are usually quite good and logical, and I mostly agree with what you say) I have to say whenever I see the word "bennies" I can be absolutely sure that it is a comment from someone "welfare bashing", nobody else refers to "benefits" as "bennies".

[MorningGlory]

Axxman I am so horrified by some of the things that you write that I find myself wondering if you really believe them or if you are just trying to "sound tough".

Someone said to me late last week "..... I am suspicious of Christians because most of them sound so sanctimoneous ......". Yeah, I can see why people might think that.

You say "...if a person does fail the drug test 3 times...take their kids away and put ALL the welfare money the parent would have gotten towards raising the kids". Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants.

Also you might want to remember, the next time that you see a drug addict: "there, but for the Grace of God, go I".

And BTW LadyR (although your posts are usually quite good and logical, and I mostly agree with what you say) I have to say whenever I see the word "bennies" I can be absolutely sure that it is a comment from someone "welfare bashing", nobody else refers to "benefits" as "bennies".

I have to disagree, bts.....my company H.R. department refers to company paid benefits as 'bennies'. Just out of curiosity...do you seriously think that the main drawback of state paid foster care is that "Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants."? Where do you come up with this stuff? I'd think the biggest drawback would be the break up of the family and sending kids to live with total strangers...which might just negatively affect their psyches. Foster care is provided in private homes in the U.S....not the local police department.

[Smalcald]

But the root problem is a nation of addicts, not who is getting welfare or not.

There is not that much money spent on welfare in the US, it would not save that much money to track down the percentage of people who use drugs and are getting welfare. The big myth is that most of our taxes go to "welfare" which is not true at all. The other myth is that people on welfare are somehow raking it in which is not true, the amount given is really very small and we already put them through a bunch of invasive screening to get it.

If we are going to do drug testing which I am not totally against I just think we should target more than just people getting welfare. But then we should address the core problem, what is going on in our country that we use so many drugs as a nation? Why do we have more addicts and drug use than most other industrialized countries? How can we treat these people to help them get better? This is where we come in as Christians as salt, as light among the darkness.

It was kind of ironic the other night when Rick Warren was doing the presidential debate and he mentions his "book" and how he got so much attention after the women read the book to her abductor and he gave himself up, he failed to mention she gave him HER crack. What is going on that all of these people are using meth and crack?

Anyway way off topic, but it needs to be addressed somehow.

[buckthesystem]

Axxman I am so horrified by some of the things that you write that I find myself wondering if you really believe them or if you are just trying to "sound tough".

Someone said to me late last week "..... I am suspicious of Christians because most of them sound so sanctimoneous ......". Yeah, I can see why people might think that.

You say "...if a person does fail the drug test 3 times...take their kids away and put ALL the welfare money the parent would have gotten towards raising the kids". Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants.

Also you might want to remember, the next time that you see a drug addict: "there, but for the Grace of God, go I".

And BTW LadyR (although your posts are usually quite good and logical, and I mostly agree with what you say) I have to say whenever I see the word "bennies" I can be absolutely sure that it is a comment from someone "welfare bashing", nobody else refers to "benefits" as "bennies".

I have to disagree, bts.....my company H.R. department refers to company paid benefits as 'bennies'. Just out of curiosity...do you seriously think that the main drawback of state paid foster care is that "Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants."? Where do you come up with this stuff? I'd think the biggest drawback would be the break up of the family and sending kids to live with total strangers...which might just negatively affect their psyches. Foster care is provided in private homes in the U.S....not the local police department.

Morningglory I was trying to show Axxman how he tends to exaggerate by exaggerating this greatly myself and turning it into a ridiculous senario. Of course I really do realise that most kids taken away from their families - in the USA as they do here as well - go to private foster homes. I was being totally "over the top" by saying the bit about "statists and police informants" - not even I believe that.

Axxman sees me as always picking on police, so I thought I'd better be true to form.

I am concerned, however, for the kids of drug addicts. It would be incredibly traumatic for the whole family to have the kids ripped from the home by the government. It would be destructive, not only for the addict themself (and if the hope is for the addict's recovery, taking his/her kids away is sure not going to help) but destructive also for the kids themselves. Not only would they have to cope with drug addict parents/parents, but they would have to cope with being taken away from their own family and being put in an unknown environment.

[buckthesystem]

But the root problem is a nation of addicts, not who is getting welfare or not.

There is not that much money spent on welfare in the US, it would not save that much money to track down the percentage of people who use drugs and are getting welfare. The big myth is that most of our taxes go to "welfare" which is not true at all. The other myth is that people on welfare are somehow raking it in which is not true, the amount given is really very small and we already put them through a bunch of invasive screening to get it.

If we are going to do drug testing which I am not totally against I just think we should target more than just people getting welfare. But then we should address the core problem, what is going on in our country that we use so many drugs as a nation? Why do we have more addicts and drug use than most other industrialized countries? How can we treat these people to help them get better? This is where we come in as Christians as salt, as light among the darkness.

It was kind of ironic the other night when Rick Warren was doing the presidential debate and he mentions his "book" and how he got so much attention after the women read the book to her abductor and he gave himself up, he failed to mention she gave him HER crack. What is going on that all of these people are using meth and crack?

Anyway way off topic, but it needs to be addressed somehow.

You are absolutely right smallcald, this is not (or should not be) about welfare but about drug addiction and why it seems to be so prevalent. A theory is that there are so many addicts in the US because life is so hard for them that they retreat into fantasies - firstly watching sports or other entertainment, this is not enough so is extended by alcohol and/or drugs. This is probably why there is so much obesity - people try to blot out the harsh reality of everyday life with food, and also the prevalence of eating disorders - they feel a lack of control in their lives so cling onto something that they might be able to control, which is their weight.

I might be totally barking up the wrong tree about this, but what ever is the cause, people that are able need to be helping drug addicts not deriding them and taking their children away from them.

As for welfare, you're right again. The money spent on welfare in the US is pretty small, and "the measure of a society is how it treats its down and out" so we shouldn't quibble about anyone recieving welfare. What people really should be concerned about is the amount of taxpayers' money wasted on massive "salaries" and perks for corrupt and parasitic politicians and civil servants who get paid far too much for what they do and come up with the most pernicious ideas and plans and blame the "man in the street" for all the ills in society.

It really annoys me to hear politicians and bureaucrats on massive "salaries" (people who really are undeserving state beneficiaries) citicising people who have lost their means of livelihood or are physically incapable of working for one reason or another or who just find themselves in need of assistance through no fault of their own. Personally I feel that I should be really grateful to God for the fact that I could find work and God has given me the ability to physically do it, and I should not ever scoff at anyone who is not in that position.

As Christians we should be more compassionate and try to find ways of helping people, not criticising them.

[LadyGunivere]

Well I answered yes....because of a few reasons.....I recently aquired a job and have been working at it for the past 3 weeks. Where where else....The Department of Labor trying to educate the 16-24's of this world in great state of Texas.....You know what I've found....there's a BUNCH of them that have disabilities and can't even wash clothes some of them...Why because of the way the parents treated them...So yes I do agree drug test them. We drug test the kids here if they come up positive once they have 30 days to get clean and to do treatment and GET HELP!!!! I'm sorry but its hard enough to find a job and some of these kids are really good kids. Today I had dorm inspection on the girls and got them all out by 7:15AM. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a teenager out of bed.....Quite hard espeically if they have troubled times in their past and their blaming themselves for it....This is just my 2 cents. But yes I do think they should be drug tested.

[irishcowboy]

what about the person that is drawing disability check, under 50 years old, has his check direct deposit.... gets busted for cooking meth, spends his time in jail, and while in jail continues to draw his disability check to his direct deposit account, cause no one knows that he has it, and it does not get reported to the right authorities......

break the law, and get rewarded..... well, at least on this earth they do.....

mike

[MorningGlory]

Axxman I am so horrified by some of the things that you write that I find myself wondering if you really believe them or if you are just trying to "sound tough".

Someone said to me late last week "..... I am suspicious of Christians because most of them sound so sanctimoneous ......". Yeah, I can see why people might think that.

You say "...if a person does fail the drug test 3 times...take their kids away and put ALL the welfare money the parent would have gotten towards raising the kids". Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants.

Also you might want to remember, the next time that you see a drug addict: "there, but for the Grace of God, go I".

And BTW LadyR (although your posts are usually quite good and logical, and I mostly agree with what you say) I have to say whenever I see the word "bennies" I can be absolutely sure that it is a comment from someone "welfare bashing", nobody else refers to "benefits" as "bennies".

I have to disagree, bts.....my company H.R. department refers to company paid benefits as 'bennies'. Just out of curiosity...do you seriously think that the main drawback of state paid foster care is that "Well sure, don't punish them directly, just drag them away from home, and probably into "state care" where they can be indoctrinated into the ways of a little statist, then maybe they could be sent back to their old neighbourhoods as police informants."? Where do you come up with this stuff? I'd think the biggest drawback would be the break up of the family and sending kids to live with total strangers...which might just negatively affect their psyches. Foster care is provided in private homes in the U.S....not the local police department.

Morningglory I was trying to show Axxman how he tends to exaggerate by exaggerating this greatly myself and turning it into a ridiculous senario. Of course I really do realise that most kids taken away from their families - in the USA as they do here as well - go to private foster homes. I was being totally "over the top" by saying the bit about "statists and police informants" - not even I believe that.

Axxman sees me as always picking on police, so I thought I'd better be true to form.

I am concerned, however, for the kids of drug addicts. It would be incredibly traumatic for the whole family to have the kids ripped from the home by the government. It would be destructive, not only for the addict themself (and if the hope is for the addict's recovery, taking his/her kids away is sure not going to help) but destructive also for the kids themselves. Not only would they have to cope with drug addict parents/parents, but they would have to cope with being taken away from their own family and being put in an unknown environment.

Well, bts, if you're going to write something tongue in cheek make a or or a so people will know you're kidding! I'm glad to hear you don't really believe that stuff. And you actually agreed with about 90% of what I said! All I can say is !

[MorningGlory]

what about the person that is drawing disability check, under 50 years old, has his check direct deposit.... gets busted for cooking meth, spends his time in jail, and while in jail continues to draw his disability check to his direct deposit account, cause no one knows that he has it, and it does not get reported to the right authorities......

break the law, and get rewarded..... well, at least on this earth they do.....

mike

That is awful.....is this an actual occurance or a hypothetical one?

[Axxman]

Morningglory I was trying to show Axxman how he tends to exaggerate by exaggerating this greatly myself and turning it into a ridiculous senario. Of course I really do realise that most kids taken away from their families - in the USA as they do here as well - go to private foster homes. I was being totally "over the top" by saying the bit about "statists and police informants" - not even I believe that.

Axxman sees me as always picking on police, so I thought I'd better be true to form.

I am concerned, however, for the kids of drug addicts. It would be incredibly traumatic for the whole family to have the kids ripped from the home by the government. It would be destructive, not only for the addict themself (and if the hope is for the addict's recovery, taking his/her kids away is sure not going to help) but destructive also for the kids themselves. Not only would they have to cope with drug addict parents/parents, but they would have to cope with being taken away from their own family and being put in an unknown environment.

Nice backbone you're showing there...and you accuse of me of saying things so I "sound tough." LOL You gotta be careful you don't get whiplash when you backtrack that fast.

Once again you are on the wrong side of an issue IMO. Now your standing up for drug addicts and are saying we should leave innocent kids in homes with drug addicted parents, and that we should provide them with welfare.

As far as your advice to say "there, but for the Grace of God, go I" the next time I see a drug addict...what kind of solution is that??? I'm not on drugs because I said NO everytime I had a chance to take them..EVERYTIME! Don't go blaming God because somebody is on drugs. Blame the person who choses to ruin their life.

If people were really concerend about drug addicts then they would commit to winning the war on drugs and stop pandering and being all willy-nilly about how to win it. The war on drugs could be over in no time if there weren't so many liberals in the way. Unfortunately, libs don't have the stomach to do what it takes to win wars.