Having had first hand experience with an addict for nearly 15 years, I can say with confidence, I have no idea what the solution is.
Some people need to hit rock bottom to change, others deeply benefit from a helping hand.

But, in all fairness, I don't think the government should sanction any taxpayers money towards addicts, even indirectly,- it should be a personal choice to help them through support of churches and local programs.
But I also recognize this a Pollyanna approach and agree with Natal.

I was required as a civilian employee of a law enforcement agency, to submit to a random drug or alcohol test once a year. The type of test (either drug or alcohol) varied person to person.

The sworn members, with the sole exception of the police chief, were also subject to the same test.

It wasn't something anyone in my life other than DH knew about (who talks in social circles about urine testing??), so it may be more common among civil servants than you realize.

I was also required to submit to a drug test when interning during my social work masters program to intern with the court.

Dee, I had to take a drug test to get hired at my job. I have no doubt that there are employers that require annual testing. But we are talking here about not getting your paycheck until you have passed the test. Different animal.

Sciencechick also makes a good point about cost-benefit ratio. Years ago in Illinois, when AIDS was first becoming a major issue, the state of IL required couples to have HIV tests before obtaining a marriage license. It didn't take long for them to realize that the requirement wasn't yielding the benefit they had hoped - it was a reactionary law, and that kind of legislation is never good.

I can see both sides of this situation and honestly wouldn't want to openly support financially addicts but if they don't have basic needs fulfilled they may turn to crime to eat etc. so what is worse - increased crime or some public assistance? I would think if they fail a drug test they should have to enroll in some type of program to remain on the public assistance, but then that's opening another can of worms.

On the other hand, I've always felt that if you're on welfare then you shouldn't have any more children. I'm sure thought will strike a nerve with some the wrong way, but I have no issue with helping people who have found themselves in a bad spot or for whatever reason are not able to feed or pay their rent or clothe their families. I just don't feel they should expand their given family situation any further until they get on their feet. It annoys me to see people with 4-5 kids under the age of 7 on public assistance. If you're collecting a welfare check you should be drug free and on some sort of birth control.

Just my thoughts....

caroleoh, you read my mind. Now I don't need to repeat it.

les, I'm not arguing for or against - just stating my personal experience as a public employee.

I am opposed because the laws are too vague, and there are too many fiscal unknowns. It is irresponsible lawmaking and it's aimed at placating a small, vocal minority at the cost of other programs.

What level of sanctions are we talking here? A first dirty UA, does that mean a 6 month suspension in benefits? or permanently kicked off? Is it a complete cut off, or a percentage if it's the HoH? Will they require the testing for the HoH or all family members receiving the benefits? What is the appeals process? Who administers the testing and how is it done? Is the plan to test a random number of recipients each month or is it to test ALL recipients EACH month? Is the testing done at random times of the month?

Then there is the cost/benefit comparison. If the test costs $25 per person to administer (a VERY low figure) and then the administrative costs to enforce it, and they get say a 3% (a high number) of positives, is there an overall cost savings for the remaining 97% of clean recipients? And since it's government we're talking about, unless the tax payers vote to fund the program, the money is taken from an existing program and that leads to cuts further down the line. I'd bet if the numbers were run, the public would find that this is NOT saving tax dollars, but in turn is costing the program.

Instead, there should be limits on who can receive benefits and for how long. Childless adults should not receive cash benefits. Women with children should be able to receive a cash benefit for a limited amount of time, and no increase for additional children born while on the dole. Instead, use those dollars for parenting classes and basic life skill classes.

And if the drug using mother does not get a check, what do her innocent kids eat, and where do her innocent kids kids live when the rent cannot be paid?

I think it is a very bad idea, with unthought of ramifications.

Wow, I didn't expect to get so many replies where I agree with each and every one of them!

Another factor is who pays for the drug testing? We do.

I'm glad I did this topic because several of my Facebook friends have posted a link to the drug testing applauding it, and of course I keep mum, but it bothers me to see some of my friends with tunnel vision.

As was said above, if someone does test positive, then the State should get them help. PERIOD!! I guess those people who pass the law have no problem adding to our homeless problems.

I wish I were President. :)

It's a bad idea, and this testing of this or that group can be a very slippery slope. Who ultimately decides?

Natal - Great point, and I totally agree.

This is a new one for me. I haven't heard of the testing but on one level I'm in favor of it - providing some help is also offered.

However if I mentioned this to my DH his first reply would be that it's just another instance of the government adding more policies and regulations and in the long run spending way more money in another bloated attempt to micromanage.

Why wouldn't the program test applicants at the start and rehab at the beginning? I am guessing one of the major factors for needing extended welfare is drug use. I agree about the points of having children while on welfare too. Both for men and women.

I am curious about the stats of who is on welfare. Is it mostly drug abusers, women, caucasians, the young or old?

This is new to me as well and I also have a mix of emotions about it.

I read in our state of Michigan that the Governor is initiating a lifetime limit of four years for someone to receive Welfare benefits. I don't know the particulars or what stage the initiative is at even but the idea of a LIFE TIME limit of only 4 years is scary when you see how long this recession has lasted and how a large number of the people who are now needing benefits have been productive citizens and tax payers for their entire adult lives.

I always think the main reason for providing welfare should be for the care of children. I just read a nice little book, An Invisible Thread. It is a true story, written by a woman who befriended an eleven-year-old panhandler. This child had precious little food at home, didn't have a bed, didn't have a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g truly, and all because his mother and the other adults in the home were drug addicts. It was the only thing physiologically that mattered to the adults. Their goal, their every thought every day was to feed the drug addiction. All the welfare money and food stamps were used to procure drugs. There was no food kept in the house. The young boy had a loving teacher who explained the importance of getting to school on time. But as he tearfully explained to the author, there was no clock in the house... Caring for the children in the home just didn't show up on the radar. Many years later, when his mother had finally kicked the habit (he was an adult with children of his own), she was a sweet, doting grandmother, which shows you what he might have had. While he rose above his start, every single one of his relatives was in jail or on welfare. Most of the children he knew from the projects that he grew up in also ended up there or in jail. How do we break this cycle?

But what to do about it.... I generally believe the carrot approach works so much better than the stick. I wonder what would the experts say, the men and women who work in breaking addiction every day?

I support testing and it's not testing to get a pay check. It's testing for NOT working,and trying to ensure, or at least measure, ability to live within boundaries.

These people are getting help due to unfortunate circumstances. Some do abuse and hopefully this will help weed out those not willing to help themselves... as for the honest people on wlefare less fortunate than others, they should have nothing to fear taking the test. I can be asked at any time to take a random drug test at my work. I have nothing to hide.

Oakley, thanks for opening this discussion.

I suspect the number of abusers this program uncovers will be very small and therefore not cost effective. I absolutely believe that I am my brother's keeper and I would rather have someone who may not be completely deserving receive help than have someone truly in need be denied whether because of a positive test or because they miss an appointment for said test. It is difficult for most of us to understand what the lives of these people are like. Survival is not just day-to-day or paycheck-to-paycheck. It can be hour-to-hour. Addiction, whether to alcohol or drugs, is an illness. Brain function is changed and requires about one month of recovery for every year of addiction to get back to normal. This has been proven scientifically through tests available these days. If the drug tests will be used to identify people who need treatment (and then that treatment will be provided), I have no problem with the program. If it is designed to punish people and dump them off the welfare rolls, that is totally unacceptable to me.

I wonder which three states are doing this.

"Yes, there are many people out there who have it bad, but there are as many or more that abuse welfare. "

This seems to be a very widely held misconception --

Not to minimize the despicable nature of welfare abuse, but according to the best information available, it's much, much less prevalent, and in most cases, also much, much less egregious than commonly believed. We've all read about the horrific cases, but they truly are few and far between.

The most reliable information I could find suggests that as many as 24% of welfare applications contained some erroneous information (both deliberate and unintended, applicant-generated and system-generated), with the most common types of deliberate falsifications being under-reporting outside income from things like child-care or house-cleaning, or listing semi-absent fathers as totally absent or unknown.

However, in terms of fiscal impact, government estimates place welfare fraud at only 1% to 2% of the total welfare disbursements -- so not the hugely expen$ive problem we hear it is.

Just to set the record straight.

"If you're collecting a welfare check you should be drug free and on some sort of birth control."

Who could disagree with that? (And in fact, I don't.)
But the way this country's politicians are defunding Planned Parenthood clinics right and left, how in the world is that supposed to happen?

Who could even seriously argue against the idea that providing free birth control to impoverished women would be financially advantageous within a year? But do you hear ANYONE in Washington advocating that? Any political leader anywhere openly advocating that?

Of course, I find it hard to understand why private health insurance companies rarely pay for birth control, but do pay for pregnancy and childbirth and for terminating unwanted pregnancies. (Isn't it cheaper to pay for a few years of birth control rather than an unwanted pregnancy?)

sweeby, I get what you are saying, but, how are they estimating the welfare fraud? There is not the money to even investigate it fully. And, what are they calling fraud, apparently not drug use, because I believe it is rampant.

I have 2 aunts and ALL their kids, and all THEIR KIDS, on welfare, and most of them do drugs. There are 5 drug babies from these kids, and now these kids are on welfare. (don't know about the drugs on this last generation, because we don't ever see them anymore) but, I can almost guarantee this last generation will be on welfare too. And, it is because it is a cycle and they aren't forced to see how the rest of the world lives.

I definately support drug testing for jobs, etc. and especially for those getting welfare. I have nothing against someone getting welfare who needs it! AT ALL!

Yes, drug addiction is an illness, but, that person needs to pay for his/her drugs-not me! Who pays for my illnesses? ME! Just paid out a $3000.00 deductible for my surgery.

I do not want to give my tax dollars to drug abusers. If they didn't buy drugs maybe they could afford to take care of themselves. I do not have tunnel vision. Just tired of handouts. I know I will be blasted for this post but I am just stating my true feelings and not sugarcoating anything.

I think if offered with rehab options it could be a wonderful idea. But it will not improve our nation's deficit only our nation's overall wellbeing so I doubt it will be done that way.

If I test positive on a random drug test I do lose my paycheck...so should a person on welfare and if they do have children they should lose them also until they are clean.

There probally is no right answer for it is a very complicated problem.

I live in Florida, one of the states that is trying to drug test welfare applicants. Between the start of testing in July and the middle of October 7000 applicants were tested and passed. 32 tested positive (mostly marijuana). 1600 refused to be tested.

from PoltiFacts

"After the Florida Legislature approved a bill to drug-test welfare recipients, PolitiFact Florida gave Gov. Rick Scott a�Promise Kept�on the�Scott-O-Meter�on May 6, 2011. But on Oct. 24, 2011, a�federal judge issued a temporary injunction to block the law.

We wrote in May that the final bill,�HB 353, forced all people who receive welfare cash, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, to pass a test in order to be eligible for the funds. If prospective recipients fail a first test, they lose benefits for one year. A second positive drug test makes them ineligible for three years.�

The�American Civil Liberties Union of Florida�sued the state in September on behalf of of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran, college student and single father from Orlando. Lebron refused to submit to a drug test arguing that requiring him to pay for and submit to one is unreasonable when there is no reason to believe he uses drugs.

U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven wrote in her order that the law could violate the Constitution"s Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.�

"The constitutional rights of a class of citizen are at stake," Scriven wrote.�

The�St. Petersburg Times�wrote in an article about Scriven's order that nearly 1,600 welfare applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid July. Thirty-two applicants failed the test -- mostly testing positive for marijuana -- and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families.�

"In this litigation, the State provides scant evidence that rampant drug abuse exists among this class of individuals," Scriven wrote.

Jackie Schutz, deputy press secretary for Gov. Scott, told PolitiFact Florida in an e-mail:

"The Governor believes drug testing welfare recipients is the right thing to do. It is a policy that is supported by many Floridians because it is a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work, just as they were intended to do.� The Governor respectfully disagrees with yesterday's decision and he does intend to continue to litigate the case in both the district courts and higher courts if necessary."

The Florida Department of Children and Families ceased drug screening on Oct. 24 after the judge issued her order.

ACLU spokesman Derek Newton said Scott can now decide whether to seek a hearing before Scriven -- which could take months to occur -- or file an appeal in about 30 days. Since the legal case remains open, Scott's promise isn't broken yet but the temporary halt causes us to move this promise to In the Works.

Sources:

ACLU of Florida,�U.S. District court complaint seeking to halt welfare drug testing, Sept. 6, 2011. "

If they didn't buy drugs maybe they could afford to take care of themselves.

Vicki, nobody will blast you. But I do think the above statement is tunnel vision and also looking at drug users in black and white.

An addict cannot just stop buying drugs. That's the whole point. And I'd bet my last dollar most addicts do want to help themselves but they are so far gone in the depths of drugs there is no way they can do it by themselves.

Addiction usually doesn't begin just for the fun of it.
Did you know that a large portion of addicts are mentally ill, bipolar, schizophrenia, etc., and they don't know it, so they self-medicate because it makes them feel normal?

Then they fall into the abyss of drug use. My deepest wish before I die is to see our government stop giving billions to other countries and start taking care of this country first. Which also includes letting our elderly live free in NICE nursing homes. But that's a different topic.

I want to see free rehab facilities because as it stands right now, you have to be wealthy or have insurance to go to one. Very few rehabs are free anymore.

As I said, everybody has a story and their stories are pretty sad. Everybody deserves help, IMO, no matter who they are or what they've done.

As Hilary said (whom I did not like at the time, but do now), "It takes a village."

oakley- lots of good stuff in your post. Something I think bears mentioning: how many of us are "addicts" in more socially acceptable ways? Overeating, overspending, etc. etc.....

Ah but Bestyears, being over weight is not socially acceptable. Insurance companies and the general population have made it clear it's not acceptable and over weight people are often treated with contempt and discrimination.

I also feel that with the current economical climate over spenders are also experiencing their own types of backlash.

The bottom line is at some point we all need to be responsible for our choices and problems.

When I was 18, I was a single mother and I had an entry level job working at Merrill Lynch. My earnings were not enough to support my daughter and as a result, I needed a subsidy from the state to make ends meet.

One day I received a call from my social worker and she offered me an opportunity to quit my job and go to a state funded school full time. The goal was to learn better business skills so I could become fully self sufficient. During the six months of training, I would receive full welfare benefits and earn 6.00/day plus child care. Of course I accepted the opportunity but I was surprised and disappointed to discover that out of the 500 students in this program only a very few took the opportunity serious. The largest majority of people there were in it for that extra 6.00/day and could care less about the education being offered.

After six months of classes, I could type 80 wpm, do ten key and had certificates in accounting and general business. I immediately started working as a temp for a large Cryogenics company and three months later they hired me as a permanent employee earning 70% more than what I was earning at Merrill Lynch. It was enough for me to support my daughter without any aid and I never needed help from the state again.

The reason I'm even disclosing this is because that experience taught me first hand, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. I think we were mistaken to cancel the programs like the one that helped me and we need to have something in place that allows those who really want it an opportunity to grow and become self sufficient, but I don't believe in endless chances. I don't want to help the addicts or poor who really just want that free ride and believe me, I saw first hand that's what a large majority of them want.

I just happen to talk to a friend of a friend last night, who works in this area of welfare. She said the most stressful part of the job was because you KNOW the parents are on drugs and are going to spend most of it on the drugs, but you see the kids and know they have to eat. She said she has even seen a "crackpipe" on the coffee table and still had to give them approval. She also said in most cases the people do drugs. But, it is fighting a losing battle until someone at the "top" makes some changes.

Luk, I am SO glad you took advantage of that program, GOOD FOR YOU!!! I would actually love to help people who had the incintive you had. You are exactly correct in that most people on welfare are in it for the money.

Yep, olliesmom, poor people are always in it for the money, unlike all the rest of us who don't care a whit for money.

I would take issue with your friend. Statistics and my experience with needy families do not bear out that observation. It is my belief that the "all/most welfare recipients are on drugs" argument is a red herring meant to distract from the political agenda of some who want to do away with welfare, unemployment, and other social supports. Not saying they don't have a right to think that or work toward that, but it would be nice to have an honest national debate. I am not hopeful, though.

Cyn,

I know you addressed your comment to Ollie but I happen to believe what she's saying is true, especially in the more urban areas.

I saw this first hand with my experience. I'm not saying its always the case, of course there are exceptions to the rules but I also think it's largely dependent on the state and even the demographic you're in. Maybe where you are the circumstances are different and therefore the people you're dealing with are not in the same situation but I can guarantee you, take a drive to some of the blighted cities in our area (Detroit is 40 miles south of us) and the experience will be completely different from what you seem to believe.

I have no faith in the bean counters, the large majority of them are clueless and statistics can easily be twisted to work any way you want them to (talk about a political agenda); I think facts based on personal experience should not be ignored and have much more validity than some statistic.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I was a welfare recipient when I was a young single mother. Not only did I receive welfare but I also received food stamps, WIC, my son was enrolled in Head Start, I went to college with a great deal of grant money and I lived in subsidized housing. I'm so grateful for what I received and more than happy that I now get to "pay it forward" with my (significant self-employed) tax money.

How many of you that oppose social programs have actually truly lived amongst welfare recipients? I'm going to guess not many. Do you know who the majority of my neighbors were? They were single moms and their children and the elderly. Our entertainment was getting together in the evening on our front porches and laughing together. Sure, some had problems with the law and drugs but the vast majority were just trying to get by and loved their children dearly. Very few men lived in my subsidized housing community - at least not full time.

There has to be a better way, I don't have the answer but penalizing the poor isn't they way.

Good for you Lukki! And I wish there were more programs like the one that helped you, and that more people would take sincere advantage of them to better their lives.

I'm curious -- If the program *didn't* pay an extra $6.00/day, but rather just the same as you had before -- you'd have still done it, right? Because you knew it was the path to bettering your future prospects. Guess what I'm trying to say was that the extra money may have inflated the class with unmotivated people...

I think *hopelessness* is also an issue. You seemed to know that your life would improve if you were able to improve your job skills. No serious doubt in your mind but that your future would be better after the class ended. I suspect that most of the people in your class, specifically, the ones who didn't put forth much effort, did not share that belief. This doesn't excuse their behavior, of course, but perhaps it might explain it...

Lukki, I am in the Washington DC area, so I would guess most people would figure that is a demographic where welfare abuse is rampant.

Kelly, I agree.

Sweeby, I only received benefits for a short time and the help I got was only enough to supplement what I couldn't earn on my own.

I was in California and only 17 when I had my daughter so obviously my earning capacity was limited and the cost of living was more than I could earn. (I had no help from my family) The 6 p/day incentive offered by the State was a supplement they knew students needed in order to survive while in school and living full time on State benefits. Without it, there was no way I could quit my job to attend school full time and still have managed financially.

I just don't think it is penalizing the poor by having them do a drug test. Maybe it would be a good start to just inform the public of just how people who do drugs that get our hard earned money, so a program could be implemented (somehow) to help them. Or, maybe, it would offer them some motivation to not use drugs if they knew there was a "date" they were to be tested, and knew they had to be clean and KEEP clean.

Heck, I don't know the answer! I just know it can't be right to keep giving someone doing drugs money to buy more drugs, and to have drug babies, etc. Does that sound ok to you Cyn? Surely, you being a teacher, in the DC area, where welfare is rampant, you have seen a few of these kids that suffer because we have given money to their parents to buy drugs. Because technically, that is what we are doing.

As far as my friend of a friend goes... I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but, I don't think she is lying. She said there ARE some that really need it, so she wasn't being biased in any way.

She also stated the disabled, is where it is really underfunded, and a lot of the money that goes to welfare recipients, should go for them.

From what I have been reading, it's single mothers who have the lowest incomes:

While only a minority of children in single-mother households officially live below the poverty level, the income picture still isn't rosy.

All told, 43 percent of such children are officially in households below the poverty level, and an additional 28 percent are in households that earn less than twice the poverty level. Less than a third -- 30 percent -- live in households that earn more than that.

and....

More than half -- 51 percent -- of never-married single moms are officially at the poverty line, and an additional 26 percent are between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level.

Sounds to me like we need DNA testing rather than drug testing. Use funds to find dead-beat fathers and make them pay for the support of their children.

Here is a link that might be useful: Politifact, my favorite news source

Part of my problem with this is that the number of people on welfare who do drugs is no greater than in the general population (according to an NIH longitudinal study), but the proponents of this make it seem otherwise. If I remember correctly, the study found that marijuana users were the largest group, but I could be wrong on that. Also, in Florida at least, the state requires the welfare recipients to pay for their own test. These are people who have no disposable income to speak of and now they have to pay for a drug test that the state is forcing them to take? It may be that they are reimbursed by the state if they pass. I am not sure of that. The money they are spending if they do reimburse would be better spent, IMHO, to place addicts in rehab programs. I am not saying that no one on welfare abuses drugs, but the percentage is around 5-7% from what I have read.

It isn't that the truth hurts. I did not say your friend is lying. It is that without a large test group, one can not generalize a personal experience of seeing abusers to a national level.

The funding for welfare and the disabled do not come out of the same departments. I do work with many very poor families. I have not known one who receives funds and uses them for drugs. As a special education teacher, I also see that side of the equation. Unfortunately, I have no answers either, but I do think many people make up their own facts or use innuendo with no basis in fact to support their opinions.

I've read a lot of the replies but have not refreshed the post

If they fail; someone else can get the benefits for the kids or one will be appointed. The kids will not miss out. Most that I've read it is new applicants & most people at parent board on FB will do the test if they have to in order to get benefits; they don't care because they don't use illegal drugs.

You would not believe the amount of young people that do have more kids that are getting assistance. Their attitude is that- I worked at one time (they can't be more then early 20's if that) & I deserve help. The government can't deny me having the family I want

When I was that age & needing help I could not get it because I some how didn't qualify.. yet I had a minimum wage job & a 2 year old.

I'll post more tomorrow; have to pick up my teen.

Lets see if I can get a few thoughts out before I have to sit & watch TV with my daughter... Anyone on regular narcotic medications has to do random pee tests anyway. In NJ; we are policed pretty bad because of the drug use. I know of a lot of people faking pain & some how getting medications who then sell to everyone. The problem is pretty big; they will trade anything they can buy with WIC/Welfare to get drugs; even the milk.

A FB board called Mama Drama posts about this a lot & you have people that say go ahead & test me; then you have others who feel entitled; do not want to work if they could because they'd only be making a little more & for that; the government should pay them to stay home since there is money "set aside" for this.. you have as i said before the really young ones who maybe worked a few years & say they paid into it & they want their money back.. There are multiple posts from single moms who can't make ends meet but refuse to get child support because the "baby is all mine & I'm not sharing".. they don't believe in birth control; they won't breast feed to save money; they don't believe in adoption or abortion & if they get pregnant; that's what God intended. If they were diagnosed with something & could die if they didn't terminate; they would rather die then terminate their child even if it meant their other children didn't have any parent.

Go read some of the FB parent boards. It's a huge eye opener on this generation of single parents or even 2 parent homes. A lot are able to work but don't want to because they want to be stay at home moms.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm for testing- most people do get random these says. My son's job is the pits if he gets in an accident in the work van even if its not his fault until that pee test comes back. If the kids will get benefits & testing parents will help; test away.

cyn, yes, I do know that disabled is a different area, that is why she said that area was underfunded. I agree with you in that marijuana is probably the most-used, and is probably the worst thing for unmotivated people to be on in the first place! Doesn't necessarily make you want to get out and find a job.

From Shaw's Pygmailion:

Higgins:You mean to say you'd sell your daughter for fifty pounds?

Pickering:Have you no morals man?

Alfred P. Doolittle:No, no, I can't afford 'em, gov'ner. Neither could you if you was as poor as me. Not that I mean any 'arm, mind you, but if Eliza's getting a bit out of this, why not me too? Eh? Why not? Well, look at it my way - what am I? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor, that's what I am. Now think what that means to a man. It means that he's up against middle-class morality for all of time. If there's anything going, and I puts in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: "you're undeserving, so you can't have it." But my needs is as great as the most deserving widows that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same 'usband. I don't need less than a deserving man, I need more! I don't eat less 'earty than 'e does, and I drink, oh, a lot more. I'm playin' straight with you. I ain't pretendin' to be deserving. No, I'm undeserving. And I mean to go on being undeserving. I like it and that's the truth. But, will you take advantage of a man's nature to do 'im out of the price of 'is own daughter what he's brought up, fed and clothed by the sweat of 'is brow till she's growed big enough to be interesting to you two gentlemen? Well, is five pounds unreasonable? I'll put it to you, and I'll leave it to you.

And another ...

Republican Sponsor Of Bill To Require Drug Testing For Georgia Welfare Recipients Arrested For DUI

Ha, ha ha, natal! You just can't make this stuff up!

I've seen what giving welfare to mothers can do to them and that is ruin their lives. They are not disabled, but grow lazy and lose any self esteem they had after being handed what they need and never having to work for it. Lifelong welfare is disabling to people, it does not help them. I'm not speaking about the disabled or the elderly, I'm talking about young women who think having baby after baby is the way of life because that's all they know.

Forty years ago welfare was awarded to a mother up until the youngest child became school age. Also, there was a limit on how many kids the state would support.

I have a niece who is a single mother. She took advantage of the education they offered then was told you have to go find a job, which she did.

Today too many welfare recipients are playing the "disabled" card. I know a girl who was on welfare because she had a low IQ yet she was smart enough to do drugs around the clock with the money she received. She eventually took too many, then became truly disabled with brain and eye damage. So now the government has to support her the rest of her life.

I know quite a few people on welfare or disabiilty and have many stories I could tell. The system is abused by at least 50% of the people on the system. The government is not helping the majority of these people, only making them more and more dependent.

Can you imgine how great life could be for the truly needy if we would get the cheats off the system?

I've always wondered why the State's don't have healthy welfare moms cleaning state office buildings at night and offering free child care for them.

When I go to my local grocery and see adults with Down Syndrome or some other type of muscular/physical limitation loading up my groceries it makes me wonder, why are we supporting able bodied adults because they will not practice birth control while these people, who are clearly struggling to do their job, do it with not one complaint.

Amen HIWTHI!

I don't understand what changed with qualifications that so many able bodied gals are able to get it. I love the idea of cleaning state buildings; and to add to it; they can watch each others kids. The ones that can't clean can do child care or they can switch! Makes perfect sense.

It just ticks me off because I see these gals typing it out on facebook pages/groups that they can work but don't want to because the government should support them because being a mom is work that they should be paid for plus they're sure the government has all this cash laying around to support them.

Next time I see a post like that; I'm going to grab the link or print screen it so everyone can see for themselves

I want to add that I'm not saying all of them do this but a good majority of them. Maybe we should send their names to the government?

Post at the link below that should get good-

FQ: So my insurance got cut off a month after my son was born, everyone else i know gets to keep theirs till their babies are 6 months. I went to my case worker and she said if i wanted to get a medical card i would have to file for child support from his father. Im not ok with that. We are together so why should he have to pay child support? Is there any way around it to get a medical card so i can get merania so i dont have to pay 700 dollars for it? I live in kentucky if it helps

Here is a link that might be useful: FB board

This does not apply to the original post, but is it fact or fiction that disability will be ending Dec. 2012? A woman I know has no other source of income and i've told her it will be ending, but she doesn't seem to care. Am I wrong? TIA ;o)

Oh everybody has a welfare story, don't they? "I see these people and blah, blah, blah . . ."

Well I promise I can match everyone of your anecdotal stories with one of my own. Of people struggling to care for their children and just trying to eek out the smallest amount of joy from their lives.

You see people posting stuff on facebook, you see them at the grocery store, they are your cousins . . . whatever.

Have you ever been one of those people and lived with them in their community? I have. I was on my own at 17, had a baby at 18, was a single mom living on my own with no family support at 19. I used every source of government support I could find: welfare, food stamps, WIC, head start, college grants & work study. It took every one of those sources to pull me out and turn me into the tax paying citizen I am today.

Luckily, I grew up middle class and could see the possibilities for me, I could see my pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow. For people who grow up in poverty, they can't see the rainbow much less the pot of gold. They have no concept of what it means to achieve something greater than whatever is happening in the moment. Everything is about instant gratification because happiness is fleeting. No one taught them work ethics, or how to manage money or how to live healthfully. The families that do have some inkling of these notions have hope to better themselves, but they are the minority.

So let's stop blaming them for taking all our tax dollars and spending it on drugs. Lets show them what they are capable of. They need to be educated, they need counseling, they need to see that their lives can be different from all the generations of poverty before them.

The link below is an article from a columnists who grew up poor. It's a little salty but gives a great perspective:

Here is a link that might be useful: The 5 Stupidest Habits You Develop Growing Up Poor

patty cakes, to what kind of disability are you referring? The US House passed what is called the Ryan budget named after Paul Ryan (R. Wis.) that makes changes to Medicare: "...turning Medicare into a "defined benefit,�' in which seniors would get vouchers to buy private insurance. Medicaid would shrink as the federal contribution to state programs would be capped."

That budget has not, and most likely will not be passed by the Senate and even Republicans are beginning to walk away from the plan. I am not aware of any law ending Social Security Disability, but that doesn't mean such laws aren't being floated on the Hill. Social Security is a perennial target.

I'm torn on the issue. I do think something should be required though. Maybe a choice of online test/courses would be useful and educational. I can think of a few right off the top of my head.

*Parenting - breaking the cycle (my personal favorite)
*Living healthy inside and out - how drugs and alcohol will affect you and your family.
*Continued or further education - how to

There could be several choices to pick from with requirement of a new pick after a certain amount of time.