Show of HandsShow of Hands

r3VOLution June 30th, 2013 10:22pm

Do you support laws that mandate welfare recipients to pass a drug test before receiving funds, even though we have learned the tests cost tax payers more money than they save?

13 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

r3VOLution not of this world
07/01/13 10:07 am

I'm really surprised by the results. I would think ppl would want to save money.

rebelfury76 F Trump, F his base
07/01/13 12:53 am

I really wish this would die. It doesn't work, it costs more than it saves, it's a horrible idea.

Instead how about revamping welfare and stop letting people turn it into a lifestyle.

Reply
kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/30/13 10:44 pm

I think addiction is a disease that no one chooses or can over come without treatment. Give them help if you test them. Then screen for diabetes, cancer etcetera. Help the people who need it the most not just the ones who will get better.

RyanOH Ohio
06/30/13 8:34 pm

It's the principle of the matter.

dudley northern Virginia woods
06/30/13 5:13 pm

Sign paper to okay random drug tests like bike riders.( ya think Tour de France might be slower this year?). Take $ saved on test fails, use it to finance random tests for others. Might end up saving$$$.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
06/30/13 4:55 pm

The issue is not drugs/no drugs. It is abuse of system, systemic corruption, fraud, etc. Focus on *roots* of problem, not *symptoms* of problem. TRULY needed, should have access. All others: *won't* work, don't eat. They *can* do *something*.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
06/30/13 4:53 pm

No point. It's a social net. It's meant for those types of people. I would support it if a positive result landed someone in subsidized rehab, not losing benefits. If they lost benefits they'll just end up even lower.

tdaddy diversity
06/30/13 3:46 pm

At first glance I was set to answer, yes, make them pass a drug test; however, if the tests cost more than they save, what's the point? I answered, no, no tests -- not until the ROI is proven.

Reply
juiceman1601 Alton Il.
06/30/13 3:35 pm

Even though there may be more costs involved I believe with the rate of fraudulence regarding tax payer funded benefits there needs to be safeguards protecting we the tax payers. Maybe we pull the funding from the programs own funding.

Reply
EarlyBird Portland
06/30/13 3:30 pm

Too expensive

Reply
JollyMan93 Big Sky Guy
06/30/13 3:25 pm

how about no welfare? How about it you are capable of working you can work. If you can't find a job you can work for the gov rebuilding our infrastructure

Reply
veritas1 Panda
06/30/13 4:00 pm

So we should increase government spending to give them jobs?

JollyMan93 Big Sky Guy
06/30/13 4:02 pm

It's better then paying them to sit and do nothing I would think...

veritas1 Panda
06/30/13 4:16 pm

And if they are single parents or incapable of doing that kind of manual labor as many recipients are?

JollyMan93 Big Sky Guy
06/30/13 4:18 pm

You know as well as I do to many are abusing the system.

veritas1 Panda
06/30/13 4:54 pm

I actually don't know that. The ones who are on it that I know are all either working or raising kids and not content with poverty.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/30/13 10:53 pm

I thought the Goverment was going to wait on rebuilding until after the citizens of this country were beaten into submission, unarmed & residing in containment camps forced to give up all of their assets,& bow to the tyrants. Then rebuild .

rebelfury76 F Trump, F his base
07/01/13 12:57 am

Isn't it private contractors who end up "building infrastructure"?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
07/01/13 4:42 am

Who would pay the private contractors? Is this the toll road idea? No one has the right to operate a vehicle any way, so why have paved roads? We will be free to walk about.